[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64498-64512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-26309]
[[Page 64497]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2002 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 64498]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-7385-9]
RIN 2060-AG87
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates 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.
Today's final rule will 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 today's final rule will reduce HAP emissions
by approximately 290 tons per year (tpy).
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 18, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-97-57 contains supporting information used in
developing the final rule. The docket is located at the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/
DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC,
and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning
applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate State or
local agency representative. If no State or local representative is
available, contact the EPA Regional Office staff listed in Sec. 63.13.
For information concerning the analyses performed in developing this
rule, contact Kevin Cavender, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards
Division, Metals Group, (Mail Code 439-02), Research Triangle Park, NC
27711, telephone number (919) 541-2364, electronic mail address
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities
potentially regulated by this action include those listed in the
following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category NAICS code 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 potentially 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
today's final 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.
Judicial Review. The NESHAP for friction materials manufacturing
was proposed on October 4, 2001 (66 FR 50768). Today's action announces
EPA's final decisions on the rule. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
judicial review of today's final rule is available by filing a petition
for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by December 17, 2002. Only those objections to this rule which
were raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public
comment may be raised during judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2)
of the CAA, the requirements that are the subject of today's final rule
may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by
EPA to enforce these requirements.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's final rule will also be available on the
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the
Administrator's signature, a copy of the final 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.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background and Public Participation
A. What is the statutory authority for NESHAP?
B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
C. How was the rule developed?
D. How can I get copies of this document and other related
information?
II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. Who must comply with this rule?
B. What sources are affected?
C. What are the compliance dates?
D. What are the emission limitations?
E. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements?
F. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A. De Minimis Use Exemption
B. MACT Standard
C. Compliance Deadline
V. Summary of Impacts
A. What are the health impacts?
B. What are the air emission reduction impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the non-air quality environmental and energy
impacts?
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. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Background and Public Participation
A. What Is the Statutory Authority for NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list all categories and
subcategories of major sources of HAP emissions and to establish NESHAP
for their control. Major sources are those that emit or have the
potential to emit at least 10 tpy
[[Page 64499]]
of any single HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. 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
information obtained during the development of this final rule, we have
determined that only facilities that manufacture friction materials
have the potential to emit HAP at major source levels. As such, this
final rule will affect only friction materials manufacturers and will
not affect facilities that only assemble or rebuild friction products.
Friction materials manufacturing was added to the source category list
on February 12, 2002 (67 FR 6521), replacing friction products
manufacturing.
B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction of HAP
emissions that is achievable. This level of control is commonly
referred to as MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT
floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all
major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as
that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT
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 or subcategories with 30 or more
sources (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources) (CAA section 112(d)(3)).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor taking into consideration the cost of achieving the
emission reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements (CAA section 112(d)(2).
C. How Was the Rule Developed?
We proposed the NESHAP for friction materials manufacturing on
October 4, 2001 (66 FR 50768). The preamble for the proposed standards
described the rationale for the proposed standards. Public comments
were solicited at the time of proposal. The public comment period
lasted from October 4, 2001 to December 3, 2001. Industry
representatives, regulatory agencies, environmental groups, and the
general public were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed
rule and to provide additional information during the public comment
period. Although we offered at proposal the opportunity for oral
presentation of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed rule,
no one requested a hearing, and a hearing was not held.
We received a total of four letters containing comments on the
proposed rule during and after the public comment period. Commenters
included a Federal government agency, a law firm representing a
friction materials manufacturing company, and an industry trade
association. Today's final rule reflects our full consideration of all
of the comments received. Major public comments on the proposed rule,
along with our responses to those comments, are summarized in this
preamble.
D. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?
EPA has established an official public docket for this action under
Docket ID No. A-97-57. The official public docket is the collection of
materials that is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1742, and the telephone number for
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742).
You may access this Federal Register document electronically
through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments,
access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the
appropriate docket identification number.
II. Summary of the Final Rule
This section presents a summary of the requirements of today's
final rule.
A. Who Must Comply With This Rule?
The final rule applies to any owner or operator of a friction
materials manufacturing facility that is, or is part of, a major source
of HAP emissions. Friction materials manufacturing includes any
facility engaged in the manufacture of friction materials such as brake
and clutch linings.
B. What Sources Are Affected?
The final rule affects each existing or new solvent mixer at a
friction materials manufacturing facility which uses a solvent in their
mixer that contains one or more HAP as an ingredient to the friction
material composition.
C. What Are the Compliance Dates?
All existing affected sources must be in compliance no later than
October 18, 2005. An affected source is an existing source if its
construction began before October 4, 2001. A new or reconstructed
affected source with an initial start up date on or after October 4,
2001, but before October 18, 2002 must be in compliance by October 18,
2002. A new or reconstructed source with an initial start up date after
October 18, 2002 must be in compliance upon initial start up. An
affected source is considered reconstructed if it meets definition of
``reconstruction'' in 40 CFR 63.2.
D. What Are the Emission Limitations?
Today's final rule will require owners or operators of new and
existing large solvent mixers to limit emissions of total organic HAP
discharged to the atmosphere to 30 percent or less of that
[[Page 64500]]
which would otherwise be emitted in the absence of solvent recovery
and/or solvent substitution, based on a 7-day block average. Owners or
operators of new and existing small solvent mixers will be required to
limit emissions of total organic HAP discharged to the atmosphere to 15
percent or less of that which would otherwise be emitted in the absence
of solvent recovery and/or solvent substitution, based on a 7-day block
average.
E. What Are the Initial and Continuous Compliance Requirements?
For owners or operators of solvent mixers using a solvent recovery
system, initial compliance will 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. For owners or operators of
solvent mixers using solvent substitution, initial compliance will be
determined by recording the use of a non-HAP material as a substitute
for a HAP solvent for each mix batch. For owners or operators of new
and existing large solvent mixers, 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 30 percent of
that which would otherwise be emitted in the absence of solvent
recovery and/or solvent substitution. For owners or operators of new
and existing small solvent mixers, 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 of
that which would otherwise be emitted in the absence of solvent
recovery and/or solvent substitution. Today's final rule also includes
performance specifications for the weight measurement device as well as
procedures for conducting the measurements and computing the results.
For owners or operators of solvent mixers using a solvent recovery
system, continuous compliance will be determined by continuing to
measure and record the weight of solvent added to each affected mixer
and the weight of solvent recovered for each mix batch. For owners or
operators of solvent mixers using solvent substitution, continuous
compliance will be determined by continuing to record the use of a non-
HAP material as a substitute for HAP solvent for each mix batch. For
owners or operators of new and existing large solvent mixers,
continuous compliance is demonstrated by maintaining each 7-day block
average at or below 30 percent of that which would otherwise be emitted
in the absence of solvent recovery and/or solvent substitution. For
owners or operators of new and existing small solvent mixers,
continuous compliance is demonstrated by maintaining each 7-day block
average at or below 15 percent of that which would otherwise be emitted
in the absence of solvent recovery and/or solvent substitution.
F. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
The notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in
today's final rule rely on the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR part
63, subpart A. Table 1 in the final rule shows each of the requirements
in the General Provisions (Sec. Sec. 63.2 through 63.15) and whether
they apply.
Under the final 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 will
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 final rule are to be kept for 5 years.
We are also requiring owners or operators of all affected sources
to submit semiannual compliance reports which highlight any deviations
from the emission limitation and other provisions of the final rule.
Each report will be due no later than 30 days after the end of the
reporting period. If no deviations occurred, owners or operators are
only required to submit a statement that there were no deviations from
the emission limitation during the reporting period. More detailed
information will be required, as specified in the final rule, if a
deviation occurred or there was a startup, shutdown, or malfunction
event. Owners or 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.
III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
This section describes the major changes made to the proposed rule
based on public comments. We extended the compliance period for
existing sources from 2 years to 3 years. We subcategorized the
friction materials manufacturing source category into small and large
solvent mixer subcategories and established new MACT floor and beyond-
the-floor control options for those subcategories. We chose the MACT
floor option of 70 percent emission reduction as the standard for new
and existing large solvent mixers and the beyond-the-floor option of 85
percent emission reduction as the standard for new and existing small
solvent mixers. We now allow owners and operators the option of
complying with the standards by using solvent recovery, as proposed, or
substitution to a non-HAP containing solvent. We revised the initial
and continuous compliance requirements to reflect the change in
standards. We also added definitions for small solvent mixer, large
solvent mixer, and solvent substitution.
IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
This section summarizes the major comments we received on the
proposed rule and our responses to those comments. A more comprehensive
summary of comments and responses can be found in Docket No. A-97-57.
A. De Minimis Use Exemption
Comment: One commenter recommended that the final rule clarify the
intended applicability of the rule by including a de minimis use
(production) exemption that would exempt from the standard facilities
that produce very small amounts of friction material.
Response: A follow-up contact with the commenter revealed that the
commenter's concerns are based on research and development (R&D)
activities. Because Sec. 63.9485(b) of the rule includes an exemption
for R&D facilities, as they are defined in section 112(c)(7) of the
CAA, any R&D activities related to friction materials would not be
covered under the friction materials
[[Page 64501]]
manufacturing NESHAP. As such, no change has been made in the final
rule to address this comment.
B. MACT Standard
1. Additional Emission Reductions
Comment: One commenter noted that the proposed rule affects only a
few sources and will reduce baseline HAP emissions from the industry by
only 50 percent, allowing 330 tpy of emissions to not be recovered
through implementation of the proposed rule. The commenter stated that
it was troubling that the proposal did not include a mechanism for
addressing these remaining emissions.
Response: Emissions due to the use of HAP solvents in solvent
mixing operations account for 99 percent of the baseline HAP emissions.
The emission standards contained in both the proposed rule and the
final rule are based on what we believe to be the maximum technically
and economically feasible level of emissions control achievable for
solvent mixers. As such, the rule effectively addresses the solvent
mixing component of HAP emissions from friction materials
manufacturing. However, fugitive emissions resulting from the residual
solvent in the mixed material, which accounts for approximately 70
percent of the estimated HAP emissions that will remain once the final
rule is implemented, are not addressed. These emissions occur in later
process equipment (extruders, granulators, dryers, hot presses, and
curing ovens.) None of these pieces of equipment are currently equipped
with HAP emission controls. Therefore, the MACT floor is no additional
emission reduction for these sources. The commenter did not provide any
data that would indicate that control of these fugitive sources would
be economically feasible, and we do not believe that it would be cost-
effective to capture and control the fugitive emissions from these
sources. For these reasons, we have decided, as proposed, not to
regulate these sources. No change has been made in the final rule to
address this comment.
2. Consideration of Mixer Type/Configuration and Cost of Compliance
Comment: According to one commenter, the proposed rule is factually
flawed because it fails to account for the type and configuration of
three of the mixers currently operated by the commenter's facility,
which constitute 50 percent of the facility's operations. The commenter
noted that these three small solvent mixers do not perform the mixing
and drying in an enclosed space amenable to complete capture of VOC
emissions, in contrast to the Plant A mixer used by EPA to establish
MACT. The commenter stated that the proposed rule incorrectly assumes
that all mixers in the industry can be retrofitted relatively easily
with VOC capture and recovery systems.
The commenter stated that it would be impossible, due to design and
process parameters, to control the emissions from these three small
uncontrolled mixers to achieve the proposed 85 percent overall
standard. According to the commenter, the two major components of the
three small uncontrolled mixers (mixing bowl and mixing assembly) are
separate from each other, unlike the fourth mixer at the facility (and
more typical of the industry) in which the mixing assembly is integral
to the mixing bowl. In the case of the three small uncontrolled mixers,
materials are dumped into the mixing bowl, the bowl is rolled under the
mixing assembly, and the assembly is lowered and raised pneumatically
in and out of the mixing bowl as needed. According to the commenter,
the presence of the mixing assembly makes it impossible to get an
acceptable vacuum seal to extract solvent vapors during the mixing
process. The commenter stated that it would be very difficult if not
impossible to install capture devices on the mixer, extrusion, and
conveying processes to achieve the required minimum 90 percent capture
efficiency. The commenter argued that the engineering obstacles to
retrofitting the three small uncontrolled mixers with emission controls
are so severe that the three mixers would need to be replaced under any
scenario, at very substantial cost.
Response: We agree with the commenter that the proposed rule did
not account for the cost to replace the existing small solvent mixers
in order for the facility to meet the required 85 percent standard for
small solvent mixers. In addition, we agree that because of their
configuration, the small solvent mixers cannot be retrofitted with a
system to capture and recover the hexane solvent, and, therefore, must
be replaced. Based on information we have received from the commenter,
we have revised our cost estimates for the final rule to include the
cost for a new large solvent mixer to replace the existing small
solvent mixers, as well as a solvent recovery system. We now estimate a
capital cost of approximately $900,000, an annual cost of approximately
$115,000 (without recovery credits, i.e., the value of the recovered
solvent), and an annual cost credit of approximately $15,600 (with
recovery credits) for the commenter's facility to achieve the required
70 percent emission reduction for the new large solvent mixer. For
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, we estimate a capital cost of
approximately $2,300 and an annual cost of approximately $12,000.
Overall, we estimate a total annual cost of approximately $126,000
(without recovery credits) and an annual cost credit of approximately
$3,600 (with recovery credits).
Based on 70 percent reduction of uncontrolled emissions for the new
large solvent mixer, we estimate an emission reduction of approximately
250 tpy. Using these cost and emission reduction values, we estimate a
cost per ton of approximately $500/ton (without recovery credits) and a
cost per ton credit of approximately $14/ton (with recovery credits).
Based on these low cost per ton values, we conclude that replacing the
existing small solvent mixers and with a large solvent mixer and
installing a solvent recovery system (condenser) capable of meeting the
required 70 percent standard for large mixers is cost-effective. The
associated secondary air impacts and energy impacts are also estimated
to be low; secondary emissions are less than 3 tpy, and energy impacts
are only approximately 1,100 million Btu/yr. No change has been made in
the final rule to address this comment.
3. Assumed Mixer Size
Comment: One commenter disagreed with EPA's premise (described
below) for using Plant A's vacuum system efficiency in determining MACT
for the proposed rule. As noted by the commenter, the proposed rule
states that vacuum systems remove solvents from the mixed material by
evaporation at low pressure, so the higher the volatility of the
solvent, the more easily it can be removed by a vacuum system. The
proposal preamble states that, of the solvents used, hexane is the most
volatile, while toluene is the least volatile. The preamble also
indicates that, based on the available data, Plant A's vacuum system
efficiency of 95 percent is the best of the existing systems. Because
Plant A also uses the least volatile solvent, the proposed rule assumes
that a vacuum system efficiency of 95 percent can be achieved for all
three of the solvents used at the existing facilities. The commenter
argued that this premise neglects other parameters, such as mixer size,
mixer cycle, mixer type, or differences in product chemistry.
The commenter stated that EPA incorrectly assumed that typical
mixer
[[Page 64502]]
batch sizes range from 300 to 1,000 pounds of material. Based on
information the commenter obtained from the docket, the commenter
estimated that the weight of a typical batch at Plant A is 331 pounds
(including solvent). The commenter contrasted this amount with the
3,300 pounds (not including solvent) commonly mixed in one of the
mixers at the commenter's facility, concluding that the subject mixer
at the commenter's facility is about 10 times larger than the mixer at
Plant A.
The commenter argued that, when large batches are mixed, less
solvent is volatilized in the mixer, and VOC capture is reduced.
According to the commenter, operational experience at the commenter's
facility indicates that larger batches generate more internal heat than
smaller batches. The commenter pointed out that excess heat, if not
properly controlled, would begin to cure the mix and make it unusable.
As a result, the potential for heat generation limits the ability to
remove solvent in the facility's large mixer.
In addition, the commenter noted that it is significantly harder to
remove VOC solvent in a larger solvent mixer than a smaller solvent
mixer per unit time. The commenter pointed out that drying rates
decrease linearly with time, and a larger volume of identical materials
would take a longer period of time to achieve the same level of
dryness. According to the commenter, drying theories suggest that
internal diffusion and/or internal capillary effects limit the drying
process. The commenter pointed out that in drying, it is necessary to
remove free moisture from both the surface and the interior of the
material. As free moisture is removed from the surface of the material,
the rate of drying is constant, but when the surface can no longer
supply sufficient free moisture, the rate of drying falls. The drying
rate is then limited by the time it takes for the moisture to migrate
from the interior of the material to the surface. The commenter
believes that the further the solvent has to travel to the surface, the
longer it will take or the harder it will be to remove. The commenter
argued that the larger the mixer, the larger the mass of material, and
the larger the mass of material, the farther the interior solvent
content will have to travel, and the harder it will be to remove that
solvent.
The commenter argued that the distinction in mixer size is
fundamental and that finalizing this MACT standard for existing sources
without considering the differences in mixer size may effectively make
it impossible for the commenter's facility to perform solvent mixing
operations using any of its current mixers or other mixers of similar
size.
Response: We agree with the commenter's argument regarding the
impact of mixer size on solvent recovery. Accordingly, we have decided
to subcategorize the friction materials manufacturing source category
into small and large solvent mixer subcategories and have established
new control options for these subcategories. For the final rule, we
have chosen the beyond-the-floor option (85 percent emission reduction)
as the standard for new and existing small solvent mixers and the MACT
floor option (70 percent emission reduction) as the standard for new
and existing large solvent mixers. For large solvent mixers, beyond-
the-floor control similar to that achieved by small solvent mixers was
determined to be technically infeasible. As noted in our response in
section IV.C, we also have extended the compliance date for existing
sources from 2 years to 3 years after the effective date.
4. Assumed Solvent Recovery Efficiency
Comment: One commenter disagreed with EPA's conclusion that the
same level of solvent recovery can be achieved at the same cost for
different solvent mixers using different solvents at different
facilities. More specifically, the commenter expressed concern
regarding the statement in the preamble to the proposed rule that the
hexane removal efficiency at the commenter's facility would increase
from 80 percent to 90 percent if the outlet gas temperature from the
condenser was reduced from 60[deg]F to 32[deg]F. The commenter contends
that it is impractical and erroneous to predict a condenser efficiency
of 90 percent for hexane at the facility solely by lowering the outlet
temperature from 60[deg]F to 32[deg]F. The commenter acknowledged that
reducing the temperature would improve efficiency, but the commenter
believes the following variables must also be taken into account: (1)
Volumetric flow rate of the gas stream; (2) inlet temperature of the
gas stream; (3) concentration and composition of the VOC in the gas
stream; (4) moisture content of the gas stream; (5) properties of the
VOC, such as heat of condensation, heat capacity, and vapor pressure;
and (6) degree of subcooling (difference between the condensing
temperature and the outlet temperature of the condenser exhaust).
The commenter explained that many of the materials used in brake
mixes at the commenter's facility are hygroscopic or contain moisture
as delivered. Because of the potential that this moisture could cause
icing problems in the condenser, the facility maintains the coolant
temperature at or slightly above 35[deg]F. The commenter believes that
it would be impractical or impossible to operate the existing condenser
with an outlet gas temperature of 32[deg]F because the coolant
temperature would have to be below the freezing point of water.
In addition, the commenter disagrees with our position stated in
the preamble to the proposed rule that establishing separate standards
for individual solvents would be unwise. The commenter noted that the
efficiency of a comparable condenser would be better for toluene than
for hexane for the following reasons. First, a lower temperature would
be needed to condense hexane than to condense toluene because hexane
has a much higher vapor pressure. Second, at the facility's operating
vacuum level, the boiling point of hexane is much lower than the
boiling point of toluene, which means a condenser for hexane would have
to operate at about -43[deg]F to match the same amount of subcooling as
a condenser for toluene operating at 32[deg]F.
Response: We disagree with the commenter's position regarding the
need for separate standards for each type of solvent. We understand
that the HAP vapor pressures and specific control conditions differ for
different solvents, and that, for a given condenser design and set of
operating conditions, the removal efficiency would be better for
toluene than for hexane. However, a properly designed and operated
condenser can achieve a 90 percent removal efficiency on mixer exhausts
at a reasonable cost for any of the three solvents currently being used
at friction materials manufacturing facilities. Refrigerated condensers
are commercially available which can reduce the exhaust temperature to
well below -50[deg]F. In addition, multi-stage condensers are available
and can be used when water vapor poses a problem with water freezing on
the cold condenser surfaces. No change has been made in the final rule
to address this comment.
C. Compliance Deadline
Comment: One commenter noted that EPA has proposed a compliance
deadline for existing sources of 2 years from the publication date of
the final rule. The commenter pointed out that EPA is authorized by the
CAA to set a 3-year compliance deadline (42 U.S.C. 7412(i)(3)(A)). The
commenter argued that EPA's proposed 2-year compliance deadline is not
based on any finding supported by the administrative record that mixers
of the type and size used by
[[Page 64503]]
the commenter's facility can achieve MACT compliance within this time
frame. The commenter's facility is in the process of developing
alternative manufacturing techniques which, when fully developed and
implemented, would eliminate VOC emissions from the mixing operations
at the facility. The commenter stated that, upon achieving this goal,
the rule should no longer apply to the facility's operations.
While some of the facility's mixing operations will be converted to
non-VOC emitting techniques, the commenter could not ensure that all of
the unique formulations can be converted, tested, and approved for
implementation by the various transportation agencies and/or boards
within 2 years after publication of the final rule. According to the
commenter, the proposed rule would force the facility to spend several
million dollars unnecessarily if it is compelled to meet the 2-year
compliance deadline and would delay the implementation of the long-term
program. Based on these arguments, the commenter recommended that EPA
specify a 3-year compliance deadline in the final rule.
Response: Based on information from the commenter, the uncontrolled
small solvent mixers at the commenter's facility are not amenable to
control and will need to be replaced. (See section IV.B.3.) The
facility will need time to replace the mixers, install the necessary
control equipment, and bring the system into compliance. Therefore, to
provide the commenter with sufficient time to achieve compliance, we
have decided to extend the compliance deadline for existing sources to
3 years, which is consistent with section 112(i)(3)(A) of the CAA. If
the commenter's facility wanted to comply by using non-VOC techniques
with the new solvent mixer, the 3-year compliance time should also
provide the facility with sufficient time to conduct the tests and
obtain the approvals necessary to implement the techniques. The
existing large mixer at the commenter's facility is already in
compliance with the 70 percent standard for large solvent mixers.
V. Summary of Impacts
A. What Are the Health Impacts?
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.
B. What Are the Air Emission Reduction 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 promulgated solvent emission limitations of
30 percent emissions (or 70 percent emission reduction) for new and
existing large solvent mixers and 15 percent emissions (or 85 percent
emission reduction) for new and existing small solvent mixers. We
assumed that one currently uncontrolled small mixer will be fitted with
a solvent recovery system, and three currently uncontrolled small
mixers (which are not amenable to control) will be replaced with a new
mixer, and the new mixer will be equipped with a solvent recovery
system. The remaining three existing mixers (one large, two small)
currently meet the promulgated standards and as such should require no
additional upgrades. We estimate that today's final rule will reduce
organic HAP emissions by approximately 290 tpy from a baseline level of
approximately 660 tpy. Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
will also be reduced by approximately 290 tpy because these HAP are
also VOC.
C. 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. We also obtained cost data from one facility to replace
existing solvent mixers not amenable to control. We then applied these
costs to those facilities that we project will be impacted by today's
final rule.
As stated above, we project that four mixers located at two
facilities will be impacted by the final rule. To meet the promulgated
standard, we assumed that one existing small mixer will be equipped
with a solvent recovery system, and three existing small mixers (which
are not amenable to control) will be replaced with a new mixer, and the
new mixer will be equipped with a solvent recovery system. One impacted
facility is assumed to incur capital costs to install one or more new
mixers to meet the promulgated standard, as well as annual costs to
operate and maintain the new equipment. Both impacted facilities are
assumed to incur capital costs to install condensers to meet the
promulgated standard, 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 the final rule
will incur some additional annual costs due
[[Page 64504]]
to the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the
final rule.
Implementation of the final rule is expected to result in a
nationwide capital cost of approximately $947,000, with total
annualized costs of approximately $213,000 per year (without recovery
credits) and $60,000 per year (with recovery credits).
D. What Are the Economic Impacts?
Based on the cost estimates provided above, we believe the economic
impacts associated with today's final rule will be negligible. In 1992,
there were 53 facilities manufacturing friction materials. Of these 53
facilities, four are affected by the final rule and will incur control
and monitoring costs. When we consider the solvent recovery credits
along with control technology costs, the total economic impact of this
final rule is a cost to the industry of $60,000 per year, which is less
than 1 percent of industry revenues. We consider impacts of less than 1
percent of industry revenues to be minor. In addition, we do not
believe these impacts to be significant enough to alter the market
price for friction materials.
E. What Are the Non-air Environmental and Energy Impacts?
Indirect air impacts of today's final rule will result from
increased electricity usage associated with operation of control
devices (i.e., condensers) installed to meet the promulgated standard.
Assuming that facilities will purchase electricity from a power plant,
we estimate that the final rule will increase secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants by less than 3.0 tpy. These
criteria pollutants include particulate matter, sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide. The overall energy demand is
expected to increase by approximately 40 kilowatts nationwide under the
final rule. This energy demand is based on the electricity required to
operate the vacuum and condenser systems needed to comply with the
promulgated standard. Both the indirect air impact and energy impact
are considered minor.
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 the final
rule.
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.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State law unless EPA consults with State
and local officials early in the process of developing the regulation.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble
to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS
must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation
with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their
concerns and EPA's position supporting the need to issue the
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, it must include a certification from
EPA's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the requirements of
Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.
Today's final 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, the
requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply to this final rule.
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'' are 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.''
Today's final 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
[[Page 64505]]
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No
tribal governments own or operate friction materials manufacturing
facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final
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. Today's final 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 final rule
has been determined not to be ``economically significant'' as defined
under Executive Order 12866.
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
Today's final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
F. 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 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 today's final 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 approximately
$213,000 without solvent recovery credits and $60,000 with solvent
recovery credits. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has
determined that this final 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 final rule is not subject to
the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis 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 final 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 NAICS 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 final 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 this final rule. The mixer at this facility is equipped with a
solvent recovery system capable of meeting the requirements of this
final rule. As such, the additional burden to this facility as a result
of this final rule will only be approximately $16,400 per year for
recordkeeping and reporting costs associated with demonstrating
continued compliance with the final rule. There are several firms
subject to this final rule whose costs will be a greater percentage of
sales than this small business.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in today's final rule will
be 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. 2025.02), and you may obtain a copy
from Sandy Farmer by mail at the Office of Environmental Information,
Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; by
electronic mail 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
[[Page 64506]]
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 final rule will require maintenance inspections of the control
devices but will 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 approximately
1,390 labor hours per year, at a total annual cost of approximately
$65,300. 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
recordkeeping requirements over the 3-year period of the ICR are
estimated at approximately $940, with operation and maintenance costs
of approximately $250/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: (1) Review instructions; (2) 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; (3) adjust the
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
requirements; (4) train personnel to be able to respond to a collection
of information; (5) search existing data sources; (6) complete and
review the collection of information; and (7) 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.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs all
Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards instead of
government-unique standards in their regulatory and procurement
activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law
or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more
voluntary consensus bodies. Examples of organizations generally
regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME), National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA), and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires
Federal agencies 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
promulgating test methods based on the weighing portion of EPA Method
28 (section 10.1) 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 final rule. However, after
reviewing the available standards, EPA determined that these two
standards, identified for measuring recovered solvent on a scale, were
impractical alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purposes of
today's final 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
because 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 subpart QQQQQ lists the testing procedures
included in today's final rule. Under Sec. 63.8 of the NESHAP General
Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use an
alternative method in place of any of the EPA testing methods.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until December 17, 2002. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 9, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart QQQQQ to read as follows:
[[Page 64507]]
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?
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 Limitations
63.9500 What emission limitations 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 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, as
specified in Sec. 63.9495. 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
October 18, 2002. An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the
definition of ``reconstruction'' in Sec. 63.2, and reconstruction is
commenced after October 18, 2002.
(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 October 18,
2005.
(b) If you have a new or reconstructed solvent mixer and its
initial startup date is after October 18, 2002, you must comply with
the requirements for new and reconstructed sources upon initial
startup.
(c) 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 (c)(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 sources upon startup or no later than October
18, 2002, 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 no later than October 18, 2005, whichever is later.
(d) 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 Limitations
Sec. 63.9500 What emission limitations must I meet?
(a) For each new, reconstructed, or existing large solvent mixer at
your friction materials manufacturing facility, you must limit HAP
solvent emissions to the atmosphere to no more than 30 percent of that
which would otherwise be emitted in the absence of solvent recovery
and/or solvent substitution, based on a 7-day block average.
(b) For each new, reconstructed, or existing small 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
which would otherwise be emitted in the absence of solvent recovery
and/or solvent substitution, 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 and/or solvent
substitution, you
[[Page 64508]]
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 technique other than a solvent recovery
system and/or solvent substitution, 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 new,
reconstructed, or existing large solvent mixer subject to the emission
limitation in Sec. 63.9500(a) 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 30 percent of that which would
otherwise be emitted in the absence of solvent recovery and/or solvent
substitution.
(b) You have demonstrated initial compliance for each new,
reconstructed, or existing small solvent mixer subject to the emission
limitation in Sec. 63.9500(b) 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 of that which would
otherwise be emitted in the absence of solvent recovery and/or solvent
substitution.
(c) You must submit a notification of compliance status containing
the results of the initial compliance demonstration according to Sec.
63.9535(e).
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 (8) of this section to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations in Sec.
63.9500(a) and (b).
(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) If you use a solvent recovery system, you must determine the
percent of HAP solvent discharged to the atmosphere for each mix batch
according to Equation 1 of this section as follows: (Eq. 1)
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR18OC02.002
Where:
Pb = 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) If you use solvent substitution for a mix batch, you must
record the use of a non-HAP material as a substitute for a HAP solvent
for that mix batch and assign a value of 0 percent to the percent of
HAP solvent discharged to the atmosphere for that mix batch (Pb).
(7) Determine the 7-day block average percent of HAP solvent
discharged to the atmosphere according to Equation 2 of this section as
follows:
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR18OC02.003
Where:
%P7 = 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.
(8) Have valid data for at least 90 percent of the mix batches over
the 7-day averaging period.
(b) If you use a control technique other than a solvent recovery
system and/or solvent substitution, you may apply to EPA for approval
to use an alternative method of demonstrating compliance with the
emission limitations for solvent mixers in Sec. 63.9500(a) and (b), 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) Procedures for installing 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, an accuracy 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 being used
again. The recalibration must be performed 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 and/or solvent
substitution, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations for solvent mixers in Sec. 63.9500(a) and (b)
according to the
[[Page 64509]]
provisions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Except for during malfunctions of your weight measurement
device and associated repairs, you must collect and record the
information required in Sec. 63.9520(a)(1) through (8) at all times
that the affected source is operating and record all information needed
to document conformance with these requirements.
(2) For new, reconstructed, or existing large solvent mixers,
maintain the 7-day block average percent of HAP solvent discharged to
the atmosphere at or below 30 percent of that which would otherwise be
emitted in the absence of solvent recovery and/or solvent substitution.
(3) For new, reconstructed, or existing small solvent mixers,
maintain the 7-day block average percent of HAP solvent discharged to
the atmosphere at or below 15 percent of that which would otherwise be
emitted in the absence of solvent recovery and/or solvent substitution.
(b) If you use a control technique other than a solvent recovery
system and/or solvent substitution, you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emission limitations for solvent mixers in Sec.
63.9500(a) and (b) according to the provisions in Sec. 63.9570.
(c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet the
emission limitations for solvent mixers in Sec. 63.9500(a) and (b).
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 Sec. Sec. 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 Sec. Sec.
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 technique other than a solvent recovery
system and/or solvent substitution, 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 October 18, 2002, you must submit your initial
notification no later than 120 calendar days after October 18, 2002.
(d) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new
affected source on or after October 18, 2002, 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 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 limitations for
solvent mixers in Sec. 63.9500(a) and (b), a statement that there were
no deviations from the emission limitations 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
[[Page 64510]]
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 limitations for solvent mixers
in Sec. 63.9500(a) and (b).
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 Sec. Sec. 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 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)(1) through (4)
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 limitations in Sec.
63.9500(a) and (b) 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.
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 of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
Friction ingredients means any of the components used in the
manufacture of friction materials, 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.
Large solvent mixer means a solvent mixer with a design capacity
greater than or equal to 2,000 pounds, including friction ingredients
and HAP solvent.
Mix batch means each batch of friction materials manufactured 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).
Small solvent mixer means a solvent mixer with a design capacity
less than 2,000 pounds, including friction ingredients and HAP solvent.
Solvent mixer means a mixer used in the friction materials
manufacturing process in which HAP solvent is used as one of the
ingredients in at least one batch during a semiannual reporting period.
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.
[[Page 64511]]
Solvent substitution means substitution of a non-HAP material for a
HAP solvent.
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 technique other than a solvent recovery
system and/or solvent substitution, you may request approval to use an
alternative method of demonstrating compliance with the emission
limitations in Sec. 63.9500(a) and (b) 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 technique, test results verifying the performance of the
control technique, the appropriate operating parameters that will be
monitored, and the frequency of measuring and recording to establish
continuous compliance with the emission limitations in Sec. 63.9500(a)
and (b). 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.
Sec. Sec. 63.9571-63.9579 [Reserved]
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 requirement 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]...............
Sec. 63.6(g).................... Use of an Alternative No...................... Subpart QQQQQ contains
Nonopacity Emission no work practice
Standard. standards.
Sec. 63.6(h).................... Compliance with Opacity No...................... Subpart QQQQQ contains
and Visible Emission no opacity or VE
Standards. limits.
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 Sec. 63.11.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)................. Continuous Monitoring No...................... Subpart QQQQQ does not
System (CMS) require CMS.
Requirements.
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 No...................... Subpart QQQQQ does not
Evaluation. require CMS 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
CMS performance
evaluations.
Sec. 63.9(e).................... Notification of No...................... Subpart QQQQQ does not
Performance Test. require performance
tests.
[[Page 64512]]
Sec. 63.9(f).................... Notification of VE/ No...................... Subpart QQQQQ contains
Opacity Test. no opacity or VE
limits.
Sec. 63.9(g).................... Additional Notifications No...................... Subpart QQQQQ does not
When Using CMS. require CMS performance
evaluations.
Sec. 63.10(a), (b), (d)(1), Recordkeeping and Yes.....................
(d)(4)-(5), (e)(3), (f). Reporting Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-(15).. Additional Records for No...................... Subpart QQQQQ specifies
CMS. record requirements.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)............ Records of Excess No...................... Subpart QQQQQ specifies
Emissions and Parameter 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
Observations. no opacity or VE
limits.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2)............ Additional CMS Reports... No...................... Subpart QQQQQ does not
require CMS.
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. Sec. 63.12-63.15........... Delegation, Addresses, Yes.....................
Incorporation by
Reference Availability
of Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 02-26309 Filed 10-17-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P