[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 193 (Thursday, October 4, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50768-50783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-24887]



[[Page 50767]]

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

Part V





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Friction 
Materials Manufacturing Facilities; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 66 , No. 193 / Thursday, October 4, 2001 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 50768]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-7074-5]
RIN 2060-AG87


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing friction materials 
manufacturing facilities. Some of these facilities, specifically those 
that perform solvent mixing, have been identified as major sources of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) including n-hexane, toluene, and 
trichloroethylene. Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated 
to cause adverse health effects such as irritation of the lungs, skin, 
mucous membranes, and effects on the central nervous system, liver, and 
kidney.
    These proposed standards would implement section 112(d) of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission 
standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT). Implementation of these proposed standards will 
reduce HAP emissions by approximately 340 tons per year (tpy).

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before December 3, 2001.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by October 24, 2001, a public hearing will be held on 
November 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in 
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-97-57. U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20460. In person or by courier, 
deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-97-57, 
U.S. EPA, Room Number M1500, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. 
The EPA requests that a separate copy of each public comment be sent to 
the contact person listed below.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the 
EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC 
beginning at 10 a.m., or at an alternate site nearby.
    Docket. Docket No. A-97-57 contains supporting information used in 
developing the standards. The docket is located at the U.S. EPA, 401 M 
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground 
floor), and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the proposed rule, 
contact Kevin Cavender, Metals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-
13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 
541-2364, electronic mail address: [email protected]. For 
questions about the public hearing, contact Cassie Posey, Metals Group, 
Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 
NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0069, electronic mail address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted 
by electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic 
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special 
characters and encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks 
in WordPerfect'' version 5.1, 6.1, or Corel 8 file format. All comments 
and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket number: A-
97-57. No confidential business information (CBI) should be submitted 
by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many Federal 
Depository Libraries.
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such 
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to 
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not 
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mr. Kevin Cavender, c/o 
OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. EPA, 411 W. Chapel 
Hill Street, Durham, NC 27701. The EPA will disclose information 
identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a 
submission when it is received by EPA, the information may be made 
available to the public without further notice to the commenter.
    Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or 
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. 
Cassie Posey at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons 
interested in attending the public hearing must also contact Ms. Posey 
to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The address, 
telephone number, and e-mail address for Ms. Posey are listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. If a public hearing 
is held, it will provide interested parties the opportunity to present 
data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed emission standards.
    Docket. The docket reflects the full administrative record for this 
action and includes all the information relied upon by EPA in the 
development of this proposed rule. The docket is a dynamic file because 
material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing 
system is intended to allow members of the public and industries 
involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can 
effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the 
proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of 
the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. 
(See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other 
materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in the 
docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air Docket by 
calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying 
docket materials.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's proposed rule will also be available on 
the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the 
Administrator's signature, a copy of the proposed rule will be posted 
on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated 
rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and 
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more 
information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at 
(919) 541-5384.
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action include:

[[Page 50769]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Category                                NAICS                Examples of  regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................................         33634, 327999, 333613  Friction materials manufacturing
                                                                             facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.9485 of the 
proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
    A. What is the source of authority for the development of 
NESHAP?
    B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
    C. What source category is affected by this proposed rule?
    D. What is friction materials manufacturing?
    E. What HAP are emitted from friction materials manufacturing 
facilities?
    F. What are the health effects associated with emissions from 
friction materials manufacturing facilities?
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
    A. What is the affected source?
    B. What is the emission limitation?
    C. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements?
    D. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
    E. What are the compliance deadlines?
    III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
    A. How did we select the source category?
    B. How did we select the affected source?
    C. How did we select the pollutants?
    D. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed 
emission limitation for solvent mixers?
    E. How did we select the initial and continuous compliance 
requirements?
    F. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the air emission impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the non-air quality environmental and energy 
impacts?
V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
VI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
    I. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

I. Background

A. What Is the Source of Authority for the Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish 
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The category 
of major sources covered by today's proposed NESHAP is friction 
materials manufacturing. Major sources are those that emit or have the 
potential to emit at least 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25 tpy of any 
combination of HAP.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

    The NESHAP for new and existing sources developed under section 112 
must reflect the maximum degree of reduction of HAP emissions that is 
achievable taking into consideration the cost of achieving the emission 
reduction, any non-air quality health and environmental benefits, and 
energy requirements. Emission reductions may be accomplished through 
promulgation of emission standards under section 112(d). These may 
include, but are not limited to:
     Reducing the volume of emissions of HAP, or eliminating 
the emissions through process changes, substitution of materials, or 
other modifications;
     Enclosing systems or processes to eliminate emissions;
     Collecting, capturing, or treating such pollutants when 
released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point;
     Design, equipment, work practice, operational standards, 
or any combination thereof, if it is not feasible to prescribe or 
enforce an emission standard (including requirements for operator 
training or certification); or
     A combination of the above.
    Section 112 requires us to establish a minimum baseline or 
``floor'' for standards. For new sources, the standards for a source 
category or subcategory cannot be less stringent than the emission 
control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar 
source. The standards for existing sources can be less stringent than 
the standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than 
the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 
percent of existing sources for categories and subcategories with 30 or 
more sources. For categories and subcategories with fewer than 30 
sources, the standards cannot be less stringent than the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing five sources.
    Section 112(d) allows us to distinguish among classes, types, and 
sizes of sources within a category or subcategory. For example, we can 
establish two classes of sources within a category or subcategory based 
on size and establish a different emission standard for each class.
    For NESHAP developed to date, we have used several different 
approaches to determine the MACT floor for individual source categories 
depending on the type, quality, and applicability of available data. 
These approaches include determining a MACT floor based on: (1) 
emissions test data that characterize actual HAP emissions from 
presently controlled sources included in the source category; (2) 
existing federally-enforceable emission limitations specified in air 
regulations and facility air permits applicable to the individual 
sources comprising the source category; and (3) application of a 
specific type of control technology for air emissions currently being 
used by sources in the source category or by sources with similar 
pollutant stream characteristics.
    To select the MACT standard, we evaluate several alternatives 
(which may be different levels of emission control or different levels 
of applicability or both) to select the one that best reflects the 
appropriate MACT level. The selected alternative may be more stringent 
than the MACT floor, but the control level selected must be technically 
achievable. In selecting an alternative, we consider the achievable HAP 
emission reduction (and possibly other pollutants that are co-
controlled), cost and economic impacts, energy impacts, and other 
environmental impacts. The objective is to achieve the maximum degree 
of emission reduction without

[[Page 50770]]

unreasonable economic or other impacts. The regulatory alternatives 
selected for new and existing sources may be different, and separate 
regulatory decisions may be made for new and existing sources.
    We then translate the selected regulatory alternative into a 
proposed rule. The public is invited to comment on the proposal during 
the public comment period. Based on an evaluation of these comments, we 
reach a final decision and promulgate the standard.

C. What Source Category Is Affected by This Proposed Rule?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list all categories of major 
HAP emitting sources and to promulgate regulations for their control. 
An initial list of source categories and accompanying schedules for 
regulation were published on December 3, 1993 (58 FR 63941). Friction 
materials manufacturing was not among the initially listed source 
categories. A subsequent notice published on June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197) 
added friction products manufacturing to the list of major source 
categories scheduled for regulation by November 15, 2000. The listing 
was based on information obtained in a 1992 survey of the industry from 
which we concluded that some facilities that manufacture friction 
products have the potential to be major sources of HAP emissions. 
Friction products manufacturing includes facilities that manufacture, 
assemble, or rebuild friction products such as brakes or clutches. 
Based on additional information obtained during the development of this 
proposed rule, we have determined that only facilities that manufacture 
friction materials have the potential to emit HAP at major source 
levels. As such, this proposed rule will affect only friction materials 
manufacturers. The next revision to the source category list under 
section 112, which is published in the Federal Register, will remove 
the friction products manufacturing source category and add the 
friction material manufacturing source category.

D. What Is Friction Materials Manufacturing?

    Friction materials manufacturing is a subset of friction products 
manufacturing. Broadly speaking, the friction products manufacturing 
industry includes any facility that manufactures or re-manufactures 
friction products such as brakes and clutches. Friction products are 
used in a number of market segments, including automotive, aerospace, 
railroad, heavy equipment, industrial, appliance, and lawn and garden. 
We know of 147 domestic friction products manufacturing facilities. Of 
these, 16 only assemble new products, 78 rebuild or otherwise 
recondition products, and 53 manufacture friction materials (e.g., 
brake and clutch linings). Assemblers purchase new friction materials 
from other manufacturers and attach it to new backing plates or shoes. 
Rebuilders purchase new friction materials from other manufacturers and 
attach it to reconditioned brake shoes or clutch plates. None of these 
facilities manufacture friction materials and none are major sources of 
HAP. Consequently, none of these facilities would be regulated under 
today's proposed rule.
    Friction materials manufacturers make brake and clutch linings and, 
in most cases, assemble finished products. They can be classified into 
three classes based on the friction materials manufactured: sintered 
material, carbon-based material, and resin-based material.
    Two facilities manufacture sintered friction materials. Both use 
high temperature processes to fuse non-HAP metal and mineral 
ingredients into a consolidated product. Neither facility is believed 
to be a major source of HAP, and, therefore, neither would be regulated 
under today's proposal.
    Four facilities manufacture carbon-based friction products in which 
carbon is impregnated into a synthetic mesh to create a friction 
material. Hydrogen cyanide is the only HAP known to be emitted in the 
process. All four existing facilities have federally enforceable 
control requirements that limit hydrogen cyanide emissions to well 
below the major source threshold of 10 tpy. In addition, we do not 
anticipate that any new carbon-based facilities will be built. As a 
result, manufacturers of carbon-based friction products will not be 
regulated under today's proposed rule.
    Forty-seven facilities manufacture resin-based friction materials. 
At these facilities, friction ingredients are mixed with resins which, 
when cured, bind the friction ingredients together. In most cases, 
mixing can be done without the aid of a solvent. However, for some 
friction materials, solvents are needed to enhance mixing and as a 
process aid in later stages. Of the 47 facilities that manufacture 
resin-based friction materials, only four use solvents to mix friction 
materials. All four are believed to be major sources of HAP due to air 
releases of the solvents used. The HAP-containing solvents used include 
n-hexane, toluene, and trichloroethylene.
    Based on our review, we believe that solvent mixing is the only 
significant HAP emission source associated with friction material 
manufacturing.\1\ As such, today's proposed rule establishes emission 
limitations for HAP emissions only for solvent mixers at new and 
existing sources that manufacture resin-based friction materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Two additional resin-based manufacturers are believed to be 
major sources. However, both are major due primarily to HAP 
emissions from ancillary surface coating and degreasing operations, 
which either are or will be regulated under other NESHAP. These two 
resin-based manufacturers have no solvent mixers, and as such, are 
not included in the MACT floor analysis for solvent mixers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The principal operations used in the manufacture of resin-based 
friction materials can be classified into four general areas: raw 
material preparation, forming, curing, and assembling and finishing.
    In the raw material preparation area, raw materials (reinforcement 
material, property modifiers, resins, solvents, and other additives) 
are blended and made ready for subsequent processing. Process units in 
the raw material preparation area include mixers, granulators, and 
dryers. Mixing is accomplished in discrete batches. Double-arm mixers 
are the most common type of mixer used. A typical batch includes 
between 300 to 1000 pounds of friction ingredients and takes between 20 
minutes and 1 hour to mix. Batches of mixed friction material may then 
be processed further through a granulator which extrudes the material 
through a \1/4\ to \1/2\ inch die, and then cuts the extruded material 
into \1/2\ to 1 inch lengths. Some facilities also dry the friction 
material after mixing, but before the forming step, to remove any 
remaining solvent from the material mix. The dryer is typically an 
indirect type which dries the material mix by contact and heat transfer 
through the dryer wall. Typical drying temperatures are on the order of 
150  deg.F.
    The blended and prepared friction material is then transferred from 
the raw material preparation area to the forming area, where the 
material is formed into shapes. Forming equipment includes extruders, 
roll machines, and hot presses. Extruders are used to form tapes and 
pellets of friction material. Pellets are formed by forcing the moist 
friction material through perforations in a metal die and cutting the 
continuously formed strands to a predetermined length. Tapes are formed 
by forcing the friction material through a metal die with an 
appropriately-shaped slot in a heated extruder head. Roll machines are 
used to form flat, pliable tapes, similar

[[Page 50771]]

to those produced by an extruder, and are also used to produce wider 
sheets of friction material. The moist friction material is metered 
between a series of rollers which form a continuous strip of friction 
material with a preset width and thickness. Hot presses are used to 
form disc brake pucks, integrally-molded disc brake pads, brake 
segments, and brake blocks. Hot presses apply heat and pressure over 
time to consolidate the friction mix into a solid product. Premeasured 
quantities of friction mix are poured into each press cavity. As heat 
and pressure are applied, the material is partially cured.
    After the friction shapes are formed, they are cured in a curing 
oven or post bake oven. Curing times and temperatures vary with product 
size and composition. Curing times range from 1 hour to 2 days, but 
typically run about 12 hours. Oven temperatures ramp up and then down 
over the curing cycle and range from 180 to 500  deg.F. Once the 
friction material is formed and cured, it is finished and subsequently 
assembled with some type of metal backing. Finishing operations bring 
the friction product to final specifications. These operations include 
machining, painting, and edge coding. Assembly operations include steel 
preparation (i.e, degreasing), adhesive application, oven bonding, 
riveting, and attachment of hardware (e.g., mounting brackets, wear 
sensors, and noise suppressors).

E. What HAP Are Emitted From Friction Materials Manufacturing 
Facilities?

    The nature and quantity of HAP emissions from the manufacturing of 
friction materials is driven almost entirely by whether HAP containing 
solvents are used in mixing. The primary HAP emitted from the major 
source friction materials manufacturing facilities are HAP solvents 
from mixing operations. Currently, these include n-hexane, toluene, and 
trichloroethylene. The main sources of these HAP emissions are the 
solvent mixers themselves. Other potential sources of HAP solvent 
emissions include granulators, dryers, extruders, roll machines, hot 
presses, and ovens.
    Emissions from mixers can occur as solvent is added to the mixer, 
during the mixing cycle, and as fugitive emissions when the mixed 
material is transferred from the mixer to the next and subsequent 
process operations. The type and quantity of organic HAP emissions from 
solvent mixers varies depending on the type of solvent used, the amount 
of solvent used per batch, the configuration of the mixer, and the 
presence or absence of a solvent recovery system. Three of the seven 
solvent mixers are equipped with solvent recovery systems designed to 
minimize HAP emissions and to reclaim solvent for reuse. For these 
mixers, the solvent is removed from the mixed material by vacuum 
evaporation and collected in either a condenser or a carbon adsorber. 
The reclaimed solvent is recycled and reused in the process or sold as 
reclaimed solvent.
    Residual solvent that is not recovered or emitted at the solvent 
mixer can be emitted in subsequent processes as the friction material 
is processed through extruders, roll machines, granulators, dryers, hot 
presses, and ovens. The potential for emissions from these downstream 
processes is proportional to the quantity of residual solvent retained 
in the friction material after mixing.
    Small amounts of phenol and formaldehyde (HAP components of 
phenolic resins) are emitted from hot presses and curing ovens or 
otherwise subject to methods of emission reductions. At the four major 
HAP sources, phenol and formaldehyde emissions account for less than 5 
percent of the total HAP emitted. None of the existing hot presses or 
curing ovens at the four major sources are equipped with HAP emission 
controls. Available test data indicate that the phenol and formaldehyde 
emissions are on the order of 5 parts per million (ppm) or less, which 
is well below the level which can effectively be controlled by add on 
controls or any other methods of emissions reductions.

F. What Are the Health Effects Associated With Emissions From Friction 
Materials Manufacturing Facilities?

    The primary HAP that would be addressed by this proposed rule 
include n-hexane, toluene, and trichloroethylene. Each are associated 
with a variety of adverse health effects, including chronic health 
disorders (e.g., reproductive and developmental effects, and effects on 
the central nervous system (CNS)), and acute health disorders (e.g., 
irritation of the lung, skin, and mucus membranes and effects on the 
CNS, liver, and kidneys).
    Acute inhalation exposure of humans to high levels of hexane causes 
mild CNS effects, including dizziness, giddiness, slight nausea, and 
headache. Chronic exposure to hexane in air causes numbness in the 
extremities, muscular weakness, blurred vision, headache, and fatigue. 
One study reported testicular damage in rats exposed to hexane through 
inhalation. No information is available on the carcinogenic effects of 
hexane in humans or animals. We have classified hexane in Group D, not 
classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.
    Acute and chronic inhalation exposure to trichloroethylene can 
affect the human CNS, producing symptoms such as dizziness, headache, 
confusion, euphoria, facial numbness, and weakness. High, short-term 
exposures to humans by inhalation have also been associated with 
effects on the liver, kidneys, gastrointestinal system, and skin. Human 
evidence is not adequate to establish a causal link between 
trichloroethylene exposure and cancer, but animal inhalation studies 
have reported increases in lung, liver, and testicular tumors. We have 
classified trichloroethylene as intermediate between probable and 
possible human carcinogen (Group B/C). We are currently reassessing its 
potential carcinogenicity.
    Acute inhalation of toluene by humans may cause effects to the CNS, 
such as fatigue, sleepiness, headache, and nausea, as well as irregular 
heartbeat. Adverse CNS effects have been reported in chronic abusers 
exposed to high levels of toluene. Symptoms include tremors, decreased 
brain size, involuntary eye movements, and impaired speech, hearing, 
and vision. Chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure of humans to lower 
levels of toluene also causes irritation of the upper respiratory 
tract, eye irritation, sore throat, nausea, dizziness, headaches, and 
difficulty with sleep. Studies of children whose mothers were exposed 
to toluene by inhalation or mixed solvents during pregnancy have 
reported CNS problems, facial and limb abnormalities, and delayed 
development. However, these effects may not be attributable to toluene 
alone. We have classified toluene in Group D, not classifiable as to 
human carcinogenicity.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. What Is the Affected Source?

    The affected source is each existing and new solvent mixer at a 
friction materials manufacturing facility that is, or is part of, a 
major source of HAP emissions. A new affected source is one constructed 
or reconstructed after October 4, 2001. An existing affected source is 
one constructed or reconstructed on or before October 4, 2001.

B. What Is the Emission Limitation?

    The proposed rule would require owners and operators of both new 
and existing affected solvent mixers to limit emissions of total 
organic HAP discharged to the atmosphere to 15

[[Page 50772]]

percent or less of that loaded into an affected solvent mixer, based on 
a 7-day block average.

C. What Are the Initial and Continuous Compliance Requirements?

    Initial compliance would be determined by measuring and recording 
the weight of solvent added to each affected mixer and the weight of 
solvent recovered for each mix batch over the first 7 consecutive days 
after the compliance date. Initial compliance is demonstrated if the 
average amount of solvent discharged to the atmosphere recorded for 
each mix batch over the 7-day period does not exceed 15 percent. The 
proposed rule also includes performance specifications for the weight 
measurement device as well as procedures for conducting the 
measurements and computing the results. To demonstrate continuous 
compliance, owners and operators would be required to continue to weigh 
and record the percent of solvent emitted for each mix batch and to 
maintain each 7-day block average at or below 15 percent.

D. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    The proposed notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements rely on the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A. Table 1 in the proposed rule shows each of the requirements 
in the General Provisions (Secs. 63.2 through 63.15) and whether they 
apply.
    Under today's proposed rule, owners or operators subject to these 
standards must submit each of the notifications contained in the 
General Provisions that applies to them. These include an initial 
notification of applicability, which for existing sources is required 
within 120 days of the promulgation date; and a notification of 
compliance status, which must be submitted before the close of business 
on the 30th calendar day following the completion of the initial 
compliance demonstration.
    In addition, owners or operators subject to these standards would 
need to prepare and maintain all records required by the General 
Provisions to document compliance with each enforceable provision of 
the proposed rule. Records needed to show continuous compliance with 
the emission limitation in the proposed rule are to be kept for 5 
years.
    We are also requiring owners and operators of all affected sources 
to submit semiannual compliance reports which highlight any deviations 
from the emission limitation and other provisions of the proposed rule. 
Each report would be due no later than 30 days after the end of the 
reporting period. If no deviations occurred, owners and operators are 
only required to submit a statement that there were no deviations from 
the emission limitation during the reporting period. More detailed 
information would be required, as specified in the proposed rule, if a 
deviation occurred or there was a startup, shutdown, or malfunction 
event. Owners and operators must submit an immediate report if they 
undertake actions during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction that are 
inconsistent with the procedures in their approved startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction plan, required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of the General 
Provisions. Deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction are not violations if the owner or operator demonstrates 
to our satisfaction that the affected source was operating in 
accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.

E. What Are the Compliance Deadlines?

    Existing sources must comply within 2 years of the date of 
publication of the final rule. New or reconstructed sources must comply 
at startup, or upon the date of publication of the final rule, 
depending on their startup date.

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards

A. How Did We Select the Source Category?

    We added the friction products manufacturing source category to the 
list of major sources to be regulated under Title III on on June 4, 
1996 (61 FR 28197) because we believed that a number of friction 
products manufacturers had the potential to emit HAP at major source 
levels. Friction products manufacturing includes facilities that 
manufacture, assemble, or rebuild friction products such as brakes or 
clutches. Based on additional information obtained during the 
development of this proposed rule, we have determined that only 
facilities that manufacture friction materials have the potential to 
emit HAP at major source levels. As such, we have selected friction 
materials manufacturing as the source category to regulate.

B. How Did We Select the Affected Source?

    Affected source means the collection of equipment and processes in 
the source category or subcategory to which the emission limitation and 
other regulatory requirements apply. The affected source may be the 
same collection of equipment and processes as the source category or it 
may be a subset of the source category. For each rule, we must decide 
which individual pieces of equipment and processes warrant separate 
standards in the context of the CAA section 112 requirements and the 
industry operating practices.
    We considered two approaches for designating the affected source 
for friction materials manufacturing--the entire facility or individual 
emission sources. We concluded that designating individual solvent 
mixers as the affected source is the most appropriate approach. The 
solvent mixer is the only significant source of HAP emissions at the 
four major sources, and controlling individual solvent mixers is 
consistent with the approach to control applied at all four major 
sources. The affected source definition we selected is the same for 
both new and existing sources. We decided not to identify hot presses 
and curing ovens as affected sources because HAP emissions from these 
sources are very low, none of the existing hot presses and curing ovens 
are equipped with HAP controls, and we do not believe that hot presses 
and curing ovens at friction materials manufacturers can effectively be 
controlled by add on controls.

C. How Did We Select the Pollutants?

    The HAP solvents currently used at the friction materials 
manufacturing facilities estimated to be major sources include n-
hexane, toluene, and trichloroethylene. Whether these specific solvents 
will continue to be used or whether they might in the future be 
replaced with other HAP solvents is uncertain. As such, we believe that 
establishing separate standards for individual solvents would be 
unwise. Consequently, we have selected HAP solvent emissions as a 
surrogate for the individual HAP compounds n-hexane, toluene, and 
trichloroethylene.

D. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Emission 
Limitation for Solvent Mixers?

    As reported previously, we surveyed the entire friction materials 
manufacturing industry and determined that four facilities with solvent 
mixers emit HAP in excess of the major source levels. Combined, these 
four facilities (referred to here as Plants A, B, C, and D) operate a 
total of seven solvent mixers, of which three are equipped with air 
pollution controls, and four have no control.
    Plant A operates one solvent mixer and uses toluene as the solvent.

[[Page 50773]]

According to information on air releases reported by the plant to the 
1998 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), air emissions of toluene are on 
the order of 45 tons per year. After mixing, solvent is drawn out of 
the mixer under a strong vacuum. Data collected by plant personnel 
indicate that typically more than 95 percent of the solvent is removed 
from the mixed material, with less than 5 percent remaining in the mix. 
The evacuated solvent vapors are then condensed in a non-contact 
condenser, which cools the vapors to 32  deg.F. Liquid condensate is 
collected and recycled to the process, and uncondensed vapor is 
exhausted to the atmosphere through a stack.
    Plant A has a State operating permit which requires that the 
facility collect at least 85 percent (by weight) of the solvent that is 
added to the mixer, averaged over a calender week. The percent solvent 
recovery is determined for each individual mix batch by weighing the 
amount of solvent loaded into the mixer and weighing the amount of 
solvent recovered by the condenser. Plant A began collecting solvent 
recovery data for each batch in January 1999. We reviewed the solvent 
recovery records from January 1999 through October 1999 and found that 
the 85 percent solvent recovery limit has been consistently achieved on 
a weekly, or 7-day block average, basis.
    Plant B has four solvent mixers that use n-hexane as the solvent. 
Again, based on self-reported emissions data to TRI for 1998, Plant B 
emits approximately 450 tons of hexane annually. Three of the four 
mixers have no air pollution controls. All of the solvent added to 
these mixers is emitted to the atmosphere. The fourth mixer has a 
solvent recovery system similar to the one described for Plant A. 
Solvent is drawn out of the mixed material by vacuum. The solvent 
vapors are then collected by a non-contact condenser, which cools the 
solvent vapor to 60 deg.F. Once a quarter, Plant B performs a solvent 
mass balance for one batch to evaluate the performance of the solvent 
recovery system. The amount of solvent added to the mixer is measured 
using a calibrated flow meter and the amount of solvent recovered by 
the condenser is weighed. The results of these measurements indicate 
that approximately 70 percent of the solvent is recovered by the 
solvent recovery system on average. A moisture analysis is also 
performed on a sample of the mixed material to determine how much 
solvent remains in the mix. Using these data and the overall system 
efficiency, plant personnel have determined that approximately 90 
percent of the solvent is removed from the mix by the solvent recovery 
system, and that the condenser removes approximately 80 percent of the 
solvent vapors.
    Plant C has one solvent mixer that uses trichloroethylene as the 
solvent. Based on the self-reported emissions data to TRI for 1998, 
Plant C emits approximately 30 tons of trichloroethylene per year. As 
with the other two controlled mixers, solvent is removed from the mixer 
under vacuum. No data are available on how much of the solvent is 
removed from the mixed friction material by the vacuum system. The 
solvent vapors are combined with the emissions from a solvent 
degreaser, and the comingled vapors are collected in an activated-
carbon adsorber. The adsorbed solvent is recovered daily by steam 
stripping the adsorber bed, and the recovered solvent is sold. 
Performance data based on a single inlet/outlet emissions test 
conducted in 1996 indicate that the subject adsorber is capable of 
achieving 94 percent control. It should be noted that control 
efficiency does not equate to solvent recovery since it does not 
account for the residual solvent content remaining in the mixed 
material. If one assumes that the residual solvent content is similar 
to that achieved at Plants A and B (i.e., between 5 and 10 percent), 
the corresponding percent of solvent recovered would be on the order of 
85 and 90 percent.
    Plant D operates one solvent mixer that uses toluene as the 
solvent. Based on the self-reported emissions data to TRI for 1998, 
Plant D emits about 40 tons of toluene annually. Plant D has no air 
pollution controls on its mixer, and 100 percent of the solvent used is 
emitted to the atmosphere.
Selection of MACT
    We have determined that the MACT floor for existing mixers is a 
solvent recovery system with a 70 percent solvent recovery efficiency, 
and the MACT floor for new mixers is a solvent recovery system with a 
85 percent solvent recovery efficiency. We have also determined that it 
is both technically and economically feasible for existing mixers to 
achieve better than the floor level of control and are, therefore, 
establishing MACT for both new and existing solvent mixers at 85 
percent solvent recovery efficiency. The following paragraphs describe 
how we determined the MACT floors, and our rationale for going beyond 
the floor for existing mixers.
    Because there are only seven solvent mixers (fewer than 30 
sources), the MACT floor for existing solvent mixers is based on the 
best performing five sources. The available information does not allow 
for a floor calculation based on actual emissions data or State limits. 
However, ranking the sources by the estimated performance of the 
control technology applied allows for a floor determination based on 
the median of the best performing five sources, i.e., the third best 
performing source.
    Each of the three mixers with control is equipped with a solvent 
recovery system comprised of two components: a vacuum system to remove 
the solvent from the mixed material, and a control device that recovers 
the solvent from the exhaust. The overall performance of these systems 
is determined by the performances of the individual components, i.e., 
the efficiency of the vacuum system at removing solvent from the mixed 
material, and the efficiency of the control device in removing the 
solvent vapors from the vacuum exhaust.
    Plants A and B both use a condenser to recover the solvent vapors. 
Based on the available data, Plant A's recovery system performs better 
than the recovery system used at Plant B. Plant A's vacuum system 
removes 95 percent of the toluene from the mixer, and the condenser 
removes 90 percent of the solvent vapor, resulting in an overall 
solvent recovery efficiency of 85 percent. Plant B's vacuum system is 
estimated to remove 90 percent of the hexane from the mixer, and the 
condenser removes 80 percent of the hexane vapors from the vacuum 
exhaust, resulting in an overall solvent recovery efficiency of 70 
percent.
    Plant C uses a carbon adsorber to recover the trichloroethylene 
solvent vapors contained in the vacuum exhaust coming from the mixer. 
The 94 percent control efficiency estimated for the carbon adsorber is 
the highest of the three control devices applied. However, as stated 
previously, we have no information from which to assess the 
effectiveness of the vacuum system at removing the solvent from the 
mixed material. Without this information, we cannot determine the 
overall solvent recovery efficiency achieved by the vacuum system and 
carbon adsorber at Plant C. However, we believe that it is reasonable 
to assume that the vacuum system at Plant C is comparable to the 
systems at Plants A and B. Therefore, for the purpose of determining 
the MACT floor, we have assumed that the vacuum system at Plant C is 90 
percent efficient at removing the solvent from the mixed material (the 
lesser of the two known efficiencies), and have assigned an 85 percent 
solvent recovery efficiency for the overall system (vacuum system and 
carbon adsorber). Our assumption

[[Page 50774]]

regarding Plant C's vacuum system efficiency does not impact the MACT 
determination for existing sources since the floor, as selected below, 
is ultimately based on Plant B, and since we have decided to establish 
MACT at a level beyond the floor.
    The ranking of the five best sources for purposes of the floor 
determination is as follows: 85 percent for Plants A and C, 70 percent 
for Plant B, and zero percent recovery for any two of the remaining 
mixers. The third best performing source and, thus, the MACT floor for 
existing solvent mixers is the mixer at Plant B with 70 percent solvent 
recovery. The MACT floor for new mixers is based on the best performing 
solvent recovery system. We have determined that Plant A has the best 
performing solvent recovery system and have set the MACT floor for new 
mixers at an 85 percent solvent recovery efficiency.
    Next we evaluated options that would be more stringent than the 
floor. Clearly requiring existing mixers to meet an 85 percent solvent 
recovery efficiency is an option for existing mixers. We looked at the 
volatility of the three different solvents used at the existing solvent 
mixers to determine if the volatility of the solvents could limit the 
vacuum system efficiency such that for certain solvents an 85 percent 
solvent recovery efficiency could not be achieved. Vacuum systems 
remove solvent from the mixed material by evaporation at low pressure. 
Consequently, the higher the volatility of the solvent, the more easily 
it can be removed by a vacuum system. Of the three solvents used, 
hexane is the most volatile, while toluene is the least volatile. Based 
on the available data, Plant A's vacuum system efficiency of 95 percent 
is the best of the existing systems. Since Plant A also uses the least 
volatile solvent (i.e., toluene) it is clear that a vacuum system 
efficiency of 95 percent can be achieved for all three of the solvents 
used at the existing plants.
    We then evaluated the condenser used at Plant B, the poorer 
performer of the sources with condensers, to determine if improvements 
to condenser efficiency are possible. The key parameter that determines 
condenser performance for a given solvent is the outlet temperature of 
the condenser. The lower the outlet temperature of the condenser, the 
more solvent will be condensed, and the higher the condenser efficiency 
will be. For Plant B, the condenser outlet temperature is 60 deg.F. 
This compares to an outlet temperature of 32 deg.F at Plant A. 
Condenser outlet temperatures of 32 deg.F can be obtained with either a 
glycol-cooled condenser, or a Freon-cooled condenser. The vapor 
pressure of hexane, the solvent used at Plant B, is estimated to be 
approximately 100 millimeters of mercury (mm of Hg) at 60 deg.F. At 
32 deg.F, the vapor pressure of hexane is estimated to be approximately 
50 mm of Hg. This indicates that the penetration (the amount of solvent 
that is not condensed) would be halved by lowering the condenser outlet 
temperature at Plant B from 60 deg.F degrees to 32 deg.F. Since the 
current condenser is estimated to be 80 percent efficient, we would 
predict that a condenser with a 32 deg.F outlet temperature would 
achieve 90 percent efficiency for this gas stream. If Plant B were to 
install both an improved vacuum system and an improved condenser, we 
predict the overall solvent recovery would be 85 percent (0.95  x  0.90 
 x  100 percent = 85 percent). Based on the above analysis, we believe 
that it is technically feasible to achieve 85 percent solvent recovery 
on each existing solvent mixer used at friction materials manufacturing 
facilities.
    We also believe it is economically feasible to achieve 85 percent 
solvent recovery on each existing solvent mixer. The incremental costs 
to install and operate a solvent recovery system that achieves 85 
percent over that of a system that would achieve 70 percent are 
minimal. Nationwide capital for the above-the-floor alternative 
increases by $92,000 over the floor level. However, because more 
solvent is recovered under the above-the-floor alternative, the annual 
costs decrease by $29,000 per year.
    We also evaluated and rejected an option that would prohibit the 
use of HAP solvents altogether. The HAP solvent usage has declined 
significantly as friction materials manufacturers develop formulations 
and processes that either use non-HAP solvents or need no solvents in 
the mixing process (i.e., dry mixing). Personnel at Plants B and C are 
actively working to identify alternatives to the HAP solvent they 
currently use. Plant B uses a dry mixer to mix many of the formulations 
it currently makes, but must use hexane to mix those formulations where 
the dry mixing process cannot meet the performance characteristics 
needed. They have also investigated several non-HAP solvents, but have 
not yet identified an acceptable alternative to hexane. Plant C uses 
non-HAP solvents to mix many of the friction materials they 
manufacture, but still have a number of formulations that require the 
use of trichloroethylene to achieve the necessary characteristics. 
While it may be possible in the future to eliminate the use of HAP 
solvents from all friction materials manufacturing, we believe it is 
not feasible currently to eliminate HAP solvent usage from all friction 
materials manufacturing.
Selection of the Standards
    The CAA requires us to set numerical emission limitations unless 
the setting or enforcement of a numerical emission limitation is 
infeasible, in which case a design, equipment, work practice, or 
operational standard can be set. Consequently, we have selected a 
format for the standards that expresses the goal of 85 percent solvent 
recovery as an emission limit based on the amount of solvent loaded 
into the mixer and the amount recovered. Specifically, the proposed 
standards would limit the HAP solvent emissions to the atmosphere to no 
more than 15 percent of that loaded into the solvent mixer.
    We also evaluated several averaging times to determine an 
appropriate averaging time for the standards. We determined that a long 
averaging time (such as a 30-day or annual average) would not be 
appropriate because it would allow for long periods of under 
performance by the solvent recovery system. In addition, one deviation 
from a 30-day or annual average would put the plant at risk of being 
determined to be out of compliance for the entire period. We determined 
that requiring compliance on a per batch basis (i.e. no averaging) 
would also be inappropriate since it would not accommodate normal 
variability in the residual solvent requirements for different product 
mixes. The use of a 7-day block average provides time to detect and 
correct problems (e.g., individual mix batches not achieving the 
emission limitation) without the risk of the longer averaging periods. 
A 7-day block average is also consistent with the existing State 
operating permit requirements for Plant A.

E. How Did We Select the Initial and Continuous Compliance 
Requirements?

    We selected the initial and continuous compliance requirements 
based on a combination of the generic requirements in the General 
Provisions (subpart A, 40 CFR part 63) and specific requirements 
tailored to the friction materials manufacturing source category.
    We are requiring owners or operators of all affected sources to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitation for solvent 
mixers within 2 years of the date of publication of the final rule. We 
feel that 2 years should provide sufficient time for the affected 
facilities to purchase and install control

[[Page 50775]]

equipment capable of meeting the standards. We feel that a compliance 
date of less than 2 years may not be long enough due to the potential 
need for process modifications and product testing to accommodate 
solvent recovery.
    To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitation for 
solvent mixers, owners or operators would be required to demonstrate 
that the percent of HAP solvent discharged to the atmosphere during the 
first 7 days after the compliance date, expressed as a 7-day block 
average, does not exceed 15 percent of that loaded into an affected 
solvent mixer. In order to demonstrate continuous compliance, owners 
and operators would be required to show on an ongoing basis that the 
percent of HAP solvent discharged to the atmosphere for each successive 
7-day period does not average more than 15 percent of that loaded into 
an affected mixer. We selected a 7-day block averaging period as part 
of the standards to accommodate necessary variations in residual 
solvent in some product mixes.
    Testing requirements include the weighing of solvent loaded into 
each affected solvent mixer and the weighing of solvent recovered for 
each mix batch. Compliance is then determined against the average 
recovery achieved for each mix batch over each 7-day block period. 
Requirements of the weight measurement device include a minimum 
accuracy and requirements for calibration and inspection.
    We selected weighing as the means for determining compliance based 
on our strong belief that each affected facility will elect to comply 
with the HAP solvent emission limit by installing and operating a 
condenser-based solvent recovery system over other control measures 
such as carbon adsorption or incineration. Weighing precludes the need 
for costly emissions testing and provides continuing compliance 
assurance on a weekly basis. If an owner or operator elects to use a 
control device other than a condenser-based solvent recovery system, 
they would be allowed to petition the Administrator for approval to use 
an alternative means of demonstrating initial and continuous compliance 
with the emission limitation for solvent mixers.

F. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    Generally, we selected the notification, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements consistent with those contained in the subpart A 
General Provisions. We deleted, however, notifications, records, and 
reports that relate to performance tests, continuous emissions 
monitoring systems (CEMS), continuous opacity monitoring systems 
(COMS), opacity observations or other visible emission (VE) 
observations since none of these requirements are relevant to the 
proposed rule. The records and reports required by the proposed rule 
are the minimum needed to demonstrate continuous compliance.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts

A. What Are the Air Emission Impacts?

    Estimates of organic HAP emissions from the use of solvents are 
based on a mass balance using solvent usage data collected during the 
industry survey, estimates of solvent recovery efficiencies for 
existing controls, and the proposed solvent emission limitation of 15 
percent or 85 percent recovery. Four currently uncontrolled mixers will 
need to be fitted with a solvent recovery system, and the solvent 
recovery system on one existing mixer will need to be upgraded. The 
remaining two mixers currently meet the proposed standards and as such 
should require no additional upgrades. We estimate that the proposed 
rule would reduce organic HAP emissions by approximately 340 tpy from a 
baseline level of about 670 tpy. Emissions of volatile organic 
compounds (VOC) would also be reduced by 340 tpy because these HAP are 
also VOC.

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    We obtained process and emissions data from the facilities with the 
best-controlled solvent mixers and incorporated these data into the 
control cost algorithms for condensers in the ``OAQPS Control Cost 
Manual'' (EPA 450/3-90-006). We then applied these costs to those 
facilities that we project would be impacted by the proposed standards. 
As stated above, we project that five mixers located at two facilities 
would be impacted by the proposed rule. Four existing mixers would need 
to be equipped with solvent recovery systems, and the existing solvent 
recovery system on a fifth mixer would need to be upgraded to meet the 
proposed standards. Both facilities would incur capital costs to 
install condensers to meet the proposed standards, as well as annual 
costs to operate and maintain the condensers. Monitoring is also an 
important component of MACT and the cost estimate. We expect that all 
four facilities affected by today's proposed rule will incur some 
additional yearly costs due to the monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements of this proposed rule.
    Implementation of the control and monitoring requirements is 
expected to result in a nationwide capital cost of about $253,000, with 
a total annualized cost (without recovery credits) of approximately 
$206,000 per year. Nationwide total annualized cost, including credits 
for recovered solvent, is estimated to be about $43,000 per year.

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    Based on the control cost estimates provided above, we believe the 
economic impacts associated with this proposed rule will be negligible. 
In 1992, there were 53 facilities manufacturing friction materials. Of 
these 53 facilities, four are affected by the proposed rule and will 
incur control and monitoring costs. The total annualized cost of 
$206,000 per year (without recovery credits) is much less than 1 
percent of industry revenues. When we consider the solvent recovery 
credits along with control technology costs, the total economic impact 
of this proposed rule is a cost to the industry of $43,000 per year. As 
a result, the impacts of this rule are substantivally less than 1 
percent of total revenues and is not significant enough to alter the 
market price for friction materials.

D. What Are the Non-Air Quality Environmental and Energy Impacts?

    Indirect air impacts of today's proposed rule would result from 
increased electricity usage associated with operation of control 
devices (i.e., condensers) installed to meet the proposed emission 
limitation. Assuming that plants will purchase electricity from a power 
plant, we estimate that the proposed rule would increase secondary 
emissions of criteria pollutants from power plants by less than 0.5 
tpy. These criteria pollutants include particulate matter, sulfur 
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide. The overall energy 
demand is expected to increase by about 340 million British thermal 
units per year (MMBtu/yr) nationwide under the proposed rule. This 
increase in energy demand is based on the electricity required to 
operate the vacuum and condenser systems needed to comply with the 
proposed rule.
    Because impacted facilities are expected to reuse or sell the 
solvent recovered by the condensers, we do not anticipate any 
significant wastewater or solid waste impacts as a result of today's 
proposed rule.

[[Page 50776]]

V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation

    We seek full public participation in arriving at final decisions 
and encourage comments on all aspects of this proposal from all 
interested parties. You need to submit full supporting data and 
detailed analyses with your comments to allow us to make the best use 
of them. Be sure to direct your comments to the Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center, Docket No. A-97-57 (see ADDRESSES).

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order 
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
because none of the listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently, 
this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 
12866.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities 
are owned or operated by State governments, and the rule requirements 
will not supercede State regulations that are more stringent. Thus, 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comments on this proposed rule 
from State and local officials.

C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No 
tribal governments own or operate friction material manufacturing 
facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed 
rule.

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives that EPA considered.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the rule. This proposed rule is not subject 
to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance 
and not on health or safety risks. No children's risk analysis was 
performed because no alternative technologies exist that would provide 
greater stringency at a reasonable cost. Furthermore, this proposed 
rule has been determined not to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal

[[Page 50777]]

governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA's regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or 
more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost of this 
proposed rule for any year has been estimated to be less than $206,000. 
Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that 
this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains 
no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations 
upon them. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business that 
has no more than 500 employees for NAICS codes 327999 and 333613 or no 
more than 750 employees for SIC code 33634; (2) a small governmental 
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; 
and (3) a small organization that is any not-for profit enterprise 
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 
field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have 
determined that only one company meets one of the definitions of small 
entity--a small business that has no more than 500 employees for NAICS 
code 333613. This company owns only one of the four facilities subject 
to today's proposed rule. The mixer at this facility is equipped with a 
solvent recovery system capable of meeting the requirements of this 
proposed rule. As such, the additional burden to this facility as a 
result of this proposed rule would be $21,000 per year for 
recordkeeping and reporting costs associated with demonstrating 
continued compliance with the proposed rule. There are several firms 
subject to today's proposed rule whose costs will be a greater 
percentage of sales than this small business.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to 
reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. We held a 
number of meetings with industry in which the one small business 
participated, and we visited the one small business impacted by this 
proposed rule. The EPA continues to be interested in the potential 
impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcomes comments on 
issues related to such impacts.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA has prepared an Information Collection 
Request (ICR) document (ICR No. 2025.01), and you may obtain a copy 
from Sandy Farmer by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, 
Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; by email at [email protected]; or 
by calling (202) 260-2740. You may also download a copy off the 
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are 
not effective until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to NESHAP. These recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant to the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA's policies set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The proposed rule would require maintenance inspections of the 
control devices but would not require any notifications or reports 
beyond those required by the NESHAP General Provisions. The 
recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed 
to determine compliance.
    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the 
effective date of the final rule) is estimated to be 577 labor hours 
per year, at a total annual cost of $26,657. This burden estimate 
includes the cost to install and operate the weight measurement device; 
one-time submission of a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, with 
semiannual reports for any event when the procedures in the plan were 
not followed; semiannual compliance reports; maintenance inspections; 
notifications; and recordkeeping. Total capital/startup costs 
associated with the monitoring requirements over the 3-year period of 
the ICR are estimated at $15,913, with operation and maintenance costs 
of $261/yr.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to: review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search existing data sources; complete and review the collection of 
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the EPA's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection

[[Page 50778]]

techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection 
Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, 
Washington, DC 20503; marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' 
Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to 
make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after October 
4, 2001, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if 
OMB receives it by November 5, 2001. The final rule will respond to any 
OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements 
contained in this proposal.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 
the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory and 
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more 
voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, 
through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does 
not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking involves a technical standard. The EPA is proposing 
test methods based on the weighing portion of EPA Method 28 (section 
7.1) for weighing of recovered solvent. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA 
conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards that could 
be used in addition to this EPA method.
    The search for emissions measurement procedures identified two 
voluntary consensus standards potentially applicable to this proposed 
rule. The EPA determined these two standards identified for measuring 
recovered solvent on a scale were impractical alternatives to the EPA 
test methods for the purposes of this proposed rule. Therefore, EPA 
does not intend to adopt these standards for this purpose.
    The voluntary consensus standard ASTM E319-85 (Reapproved 1997), 
``Standard Practice for the Evaluation of Single-Pan Mechanical 
Balances,'' is impractical for the purposes of this rulemaking 
primarily because this standard is not a complete weighing procedure 
since it does not include a pretest procedure.
    The voluntary consensus standard ASME Power Test Codes, 
``Supplement on Instruments and Apparatus, Part 5, Measurement of 
Quantity of Materials, Chapter 1, Weighing Scales,'' is impractical for 
the purposes of this rulemaking because it does not specify the number 
of initial calibration weights to be used nor a specific pretest weight 
procedure.
    Section 63.9525 to proposed subpart QQQQQ lists the testing 
procedures included in this proposed rule. Under Sec. 63.8 of the 
General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use 
alternative monitoring in place of any of the EPA testing methods.

I. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
    We welcome comment on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 
specifically, invite the public to identify potentially applicable 
voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should 
be used in this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Friction products manufacturing, Hazardous 
substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: September 28, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

    2. Part 63 is proposed to be amended by adding subpart QQQQQ to 
read as follows:

Subpart QQQQQ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers
63.9480  What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.9485  Am I subject to this subpart?
63.9490  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.9495  When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Emission Limitation
63.9500  What emission limitation must I meet?
General Compliance Requirements
63.9505  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?
Initial Compliance Demonstration Requirements
63.9510  By what date must I conduct my initial compliance 
demonstration?
63.9515  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitation that applies to me?
63.9520  What procedures must I use to demonstrate initial 
compliance?
63.9525  What are the installation, operation, and maintenance 
requirements for my weight measurement device?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
63.9530  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitation that applies to me?
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.9535 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.9540  What reports must I submit and when?
63.9545  What records must I keep?
63.9550  In what form and how long must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
63.9555  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.9560  Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.9565  What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.9570  How do I apply for alternative compliance requirements?
63.9571-63.9579  [Reserved]
Table
Table 1 to Subpart QQQQQ--Applicability of General Provisions to 
Subpart QQQQQ

Subpart QQQQQ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities

What This Subpart Covers


Sec. 63.9480  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for friction materials manufacturing facilities 
that use a solvent-based process. This subpart also establishes 
requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous

[[Page 50779]]

compliance with all applicable emission limitations in this subpart.


Sec. 63.9485  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a 
friction materials manufacturing facility (as defined in Sec. 63.9565) 
that is (or is part of) a major source of hazardous air pollutants 
(HAP) emissions on the first compliance date that applies to you. Your 
friction materials manufacturing facility is a major source of HAP if 
it emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 
megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a 
rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.
    (b) The requirements in this subpart do not apply to research and 
development facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean 
Air Act.


Sec. 63.9490  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or existing 
affected source at your friction materials manufacturing facility.
    (b) The affected source covered by this subpart is each new, 
reconstructed, or existing solvent mixer (as defined in Sec. 63.9565) 
at your friction materials manufacturing facility.
    (c) A solvent mixer at your friction materials manufacturing 
facility is new if you commence construction of the solvent mixer after 
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. An 
affected source is reconstructed if it meets the definition of 
``reconstruction'' in Sec. 63.2, and reconstruction is commenced after 
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
    (d) A solvent mixer at your friction materials manufacturing 
facility is existing if it is not new or reconstructed.


Sec. 63.9495  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have an existing solvent mixer, you must comply with 
each of the requirements for existing sources no later than 2 years 
after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
    (b) If you have a new or reconstructed solvent mixer and its 
initial startup date is on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must comply with the requirements 
for new and reconstructed sources by [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register].
    (c) If you have a new or reconstructed solvent mixer and its 
initial startup date is after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 
THE Federal Register], you must comply with the requirements for new 
and reconstructed sources upon initial startup.
    (d) If your friction materials manufacturing facility is an area 
source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that 
it becomes a (or part of a) major source of HAP emissions, then 
paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section apply.
    (1) For any portion of the area source that becomes a new or 
reconstructed affected source, you must comply with the requirements 
for new and reconstructed upon startup or no later than [DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], whichever is 
later.
    (2) For any portion of the area source that becomes an existing 
affected source, you must comply with the requirements for existing 
sources no later than 1 year after the area source becomes a major 
source or [DATE 2 YEARS FROM PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], whichever is later.
    (e) You must meet the notification and schedule requirements in 
Sec. 63.9535. Several of the notifications must be submitted before the 
compliance date for your affected source.

Emission Limitation


Sec. 63.9500  What emission limitation must I meet?

    For each new, reconstructed, or existing solvent mixer at your 
friction materials manufacturing facility, you must limit HAP solvent 
emissions to the atmosphere to no more than 15 percent of that loaded 
into an affected solvent mixer, based on a 7-day block average.

General Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.9505  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitation in this 
subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction.
    (b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source, 
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to 
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
    (c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).

Initial Compliance Demonstration Requirements


Sec. 63.9510  By what date must I conduct my initial compliance 
demonstration?

    (a) If you use a solvent recovery system, you must conduct your 
initial compliance demonstration within 7 calendar days after the 
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.9495.
    (b) If you use a control device other than a solvent recovery 
system, you must comply with the provisions in Sec. 63.9570.


Sec. 63.9515  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitation that applies to me?

    (a) You have demonstrated initial compliance for each solvent mixer 
subject to the emission limitation in Sec. 63.9500 if the HAP solvent 
discharged to the atmosphere during the first 7 days after the 
compliance date, determined according to the provisions in 
Sec. 63.9520, does not exceed a 7-day block average of 15 percent.
    (b) You must submit a notification of compliance status containing 
the results of the initial compliance demonstration according to 
Sec. 63.9535(d).


Sec. 63.9520  What procedures must I use to demonstrate initial 
compliance?

    (a) If you use a solvent recovery system, you must use the 
procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of this section to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitation in 
Sec. 63.9500.
    (1) Record the date and time of each mix batch.
    (2) Record the identity of each mix batch using a unique batch ID, 
as defined in Sec. 63.9565.
    (3) Measure and record the weight of HAP solvent loaded into the 
solvent mixer for each mix batch.
    (4) Measure and record the weight of HAP solvent recovered for each 
mix batch.
    (5) Determine the percent of HAP solvent discharged to the 
atmosphere for each mix batch according to Equation 1 of this section 
as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC01.008


Where:


%Db = Percent of HAP solvent discharged to the atmosphere 
for each mix batch, percent;

Srec = Weight of HAP solvent recovered for each mix batch, 
lb;

Smix = Weight of HAP solvent loaded into the solvent mixer 
for each mix batch, lb.

    (6) Determine the 7-day block average percent of HAP solvent 
discharged to the atmosphere according to Equation 2 of this section as 
follows:

[[Page 50780]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC01.009


Where:


%D7 = 7-day block average percent of HAP solvent discharged 
to the atmosphere, percent
i = mix batch
n = number of mix batches in 7-day block average

    (7) Have valid data for at least 90 percent of the mix batches over 
the 7-day averaging period.
    (b) If you use a control device other than a solvent recovery 
system, you may apply to EPA for approval to use an alternative method 
of demonstrating compliance with the emission limitation for solvent 
mixers in Sec. 63.9500, as provided in Sec. 63.9570.


Sec. 63.9525  What are the installation, operation, and maintenance 
requirements for my weight measurement device?

    (a) If you use a solvent recovery system, you must install, 
operate, and maintain a weight measurement device to measure the weight 
of HAP solvent loaded into the solvent mixer and the weight of HAP 
solvent recovered for each mix batch.
    (b) For each weight measurement device required by this section, 
you must develop and submit for approval a site-specific monitoring 
plan that addresses the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) 
of this section:
    (1) Installation of the weight measurement device;
    (2) The minimum accuracy of the weight measurement device in pounds 
and as a percent of the average weight of solvent to be loaded into the 
solvent mixer;
    (3) Site-specific procedures for how the measurements will be made;
    (4) How the measurement data will be recorded, reduced, and stored;
    (5) Procedures and acceptance criteria for calibration of the 
weight measurement device; and
    (6) How the measurement device will be maintained including a 
routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list.
    (c) The site-specific monitoring plan required in paragraph (b) of 
this section must include, at a minimum, the requirements of paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (3) of this section:
    (1) The weight measurement device must have a minimum accuracy of 
0.05 kilograms (0.1 pounds) or 1 
percent of the average weight of solvent to be loaded into the solvent 
mixer, whichever is greater.
    (2) An initial multi-point calibration of the weight measurement 
device must be made using 5 points spanning the expected range of 
weight measurements before the weight measurement device can be used. 
The manufacturer's calibration results can be used to meet this 
requirement.
    (3) Once per day, a calibration audit must be made using a single 
Class F calibration weight that corresponds to 20 to 80 percent of the 
average weight of solvent to be loaded into the solvent mixer. If the 
weight measurement device cannot reproduce the value of the calibration 
weight within 0.05 kilograms (0.1 pounds) or 1 
percent of the average weight of solvent to be loaded into the solvent 
mixer, whichever is greater, the scale must be recalibrated before use 
with at least five Class F calibration weights spanning the expected 
range of weight measurements.
    (d) You must operate and maintain the weight measurement device 
according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
    (e) You must maintain records of all maintenance activities, 
calibrations, and calibration audits.

Continuous Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.9530  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitation that applies to me?

    (a) If you use a solvent recovery system, you must demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the emission limitation for solvent mixers 
in Sec. 63.9500 according to the provisions in paragraphs (a)(1) and 
(2) of this section.
    (1) Except for during malfunctions of your weight measurement 
device and associated repairs, you must collect and reduce the 
information required in Sec. 63.9520(a)(1) through (7) at all times 
that the affected source is operating and record all information needed 
to document conformance with these requirements.
    (2) Maintain the 7-day block average percent of HAP solvent 
discharged to the atmosphere at or below 15 percent.
    (b) If you use a control device other than a solvent recovery 
system, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 
limitation for solvent mixers in Sec. 63.9500 according to the 
provisions in Sec. 63.9570.
    (c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet the 
emission limitation for solvent mixers in Sec. 63.9500. This includes 
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. These instances are 
deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These 
deviations must be reported according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.9540.
    (d) During periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, you must 
operate in accordance with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
plan.
    (e) Consistent with Secs. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that 
occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not 
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that 
you were operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan. The Administrator will determine whether deviations 
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are 
violations, according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e).

Notifications, Reports, and Records


Sec. 63.9535  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Secs. 63.8(f)(4) 
and 63.9(b), (c), (d), and (h) that apply to you by the specified 
dates.
    (b) If you use a control device other than a solvent recovery 
system, you must comply with the provisions in Sec. 63.9570.
    (c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you start up your affected 
source before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER], you must submit your initial notification no later than 120 
calendar days after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (d) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new 
affected source on or after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must submit your initial notification no 
later than 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.
    (e) You must submit a notification of compliance status according 
to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii). You must submit the notification of compliance 
status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following 
the completion of the initial compliance demonstration.


Sec. 63.9540  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule, you 
must submit each semiannual compliance report according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in 
Sec. 63.9495 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date comes 
first after the

[[Page 50781]]

compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.9495.
    (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes first after your 
first compliance report is due.
    (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual 
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes 
first after the end of the semiannual reporting period.
    (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71 of this chapter, and if 
the permitting authority has established dates for submitting 
semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) of this chapter, you may submit the first and 
subsequent compliance reports according to the dates the permitting 
authority has established instead of according to the dates in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (b) Each compliance report must include the information in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, and if applicable, 
paragraphs (b)(4) through (6) of this section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official, with the official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and belief 
formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the 
report are true, accurate, and complete.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.
    (4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the 
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the 
information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
    (5) If there were no deviations from the emission limitation for 
solvent mixers in Sec. 63.9500, a statement that there were no 
deviations from the emission limitation during the reporting period.
    (6) If there were no periods during which a monitoring system was 
out-of-control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there 
were no periods during which a monitoring system was out-of-control 
during the reporting period.
    (c) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an 
affected source, you must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (4) and (c)(1) and (2) of this section. This includes periods 
of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
    (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the 
corrective action taken.
    (d) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the 
semiannual reporting period that was not consistent with your startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan, you must submit an immediate startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction report according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii).
    (e) If you have obtained a title V operating permit for an affected 
source pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71 of this chapter, you must 
report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual 
monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) of this chapter. If you submit a compliance report 
for an affected source along with, or as part of, the semiannual 
monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) of this chapter, and the compliance report includes 
all the required information concerning deviations from any emission 
limitation in this subpart, then submission of the compliance report 
satisfies any obligation to report the same deviations in the 
semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a compliance 
report does not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report 
deviations from permit requirements to your permitting authority.


Sec. 63.9545  What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the records in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 
section that apply to you.
    (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to 
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any 
initial notification or notification of compliance status that you 
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
    (b) You must keep the records required in Sec. 63.9525 to show 
proper operation and maintenance of the weight measurement device.
    (c) You must keep the records required in Sec. 63.9530 to show 
continuous compliance with the emission limitation for solvent mixers 
in Sec. 63.9500.


Sec. 63.9550  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

    (a) You must keep your records in a form suitable and readily 
available for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
    (b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for 
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
    (c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after 
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective 
action, report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You can keep 
the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec. 63.9555  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 1 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Secs. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.


Sec. 63.9560  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. 
EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal 
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your 
State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the 
U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You 
should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this 
subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (c) of this section 
are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not 
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local or 
tribal agencies are as follows:
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limitation in 
Sec. 63.9500 under Sec. 63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under 
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) 
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.

[[Page 50782]]

Sec. 63.9565  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec. 63.2, and in this section as follows:
    Batch ID means a unique identifier used to differentiate each 
individual mix batch.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit);
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating 
limit) in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, 
regardless or whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
    Friction ingredients means any of the components used in the 
manufacture of friction material, excluding the HAP solvent. Friction 
ingredients include, but are not limited to, reinforcement materials, 
property modifiers, resins, and other additives.
    Friction materials manufacturing facility means a facility that 
manufactures friction materials using a solvent-based process. Friction 
materials are used in the manufacture of products used to accelerate or 
decelerate objects. Products that use friction materials include, but 
are not limited to, disc brake pucks, disc brake pads, brake linings, 
brake shoes, brake segments, brake blocks, brake discs, clutch facings, 
and clutches.
    HAP solvent means a solvent that contains 10 percent or more of any 
one HAP, as listed in section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act, or any 
combination of HAP that is added to a solvent mixer. Examples include 
hexane, toluene, and trichloroethylene.
    Initial startup means the first time that equipment is put into 
operation. Initial startup does not include operation solely for 
testing equipment. Initial startup does not include subsequent startups 
(as defined in this section) following malfunction or shutdowns or 
following changes in product or between batch operations.
    Mix batch means the process of manufacturing each batch of friction 
materials in a solvent mixer.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 
Sec. 63.2.
    7-day block average means an averaging technique for a weekly 
compliance determination where the calculated values for percent HAP 
solvent discharged to the atmosphere are averaged together for all mix 
batches (for which there are valid data) in a 7-day block period 
according to the equation provided in Sec. 63.9520(a)(6).
    Solvent mixer means a mixer used in the friction materials 
manufacturing process in which HAP solvent is used as one of the 
ingredients. Trace amounts of HAP solvents in resins or other friction 
ingredients do not qualify mixers as solvent mixers.
    Solvent recovery system means equipment used for the purpose of 
recovering the HAP solvent from the exhaust stream. An example of a 
solvent recovery system is a condenser.
    Startup means bringing equipment online and starting the production 
process.
    Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan means a plan developed 
according to the provisions of Sec. 63.6(e)(3).


Sec. 63.9570  How do I apply for alternative compliance requirements?

    (a) If you use a control device other than a solvent recovery 
system, you may request approval to use an alternative method of 
demonstrating compliance with the emission limitation in Sec. 63.9500 
according to the procedures in this section.
    (b) You can request approval to use an alternative method of 
demonstrating compliance in the initial notification for existing 
sources, the notification of construction or reconstruction for new 
sources, or at any time.
    (c) You must submit a description of the proposed testing, 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting that will be used and the 
proposed basis for demonstrating compliance.
    (1) If you have not previously performed testing, you must submit a 
proposed test plan. If you are seeking permission to use an alternative 
method of compliance based on previously performed testing, you must 
submit the results of testing, a description of the procedures followed 
in testing, and a description of pertinent conditions during testing.
    (2) You must submit a monitoring plan that includes a description 
of the control device, test results verifying the performance of the 
control device, the appropriate operating parameters that will be 
monitored, and the frequency of measuring and recording to establish 
continuous compliance with the emission limitation in Sec. 63.9500. You 
must also include the proposed performance specifications and quality 
assurance procedures for the monitors. The monitoring plan is subject 
to the Administrator's approval. You must install, calibrate, operate, 
and maintain the monitors in accordance with the monitoring plan 
approved by the Administrator.
    (d) Use of the alternative method of demonstrating compliance must 
not begin until approval is granted by the Administrator.


Secs. 63.9571-63.9579  [Reserved]

Tables

                 Table 1 to Subpart QQQQQ.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart QQQQQ
[As required in Sec.  63.9505, you must comply with each applicable General Provisions requirements according to
                                              the following table]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Applies to subpart
             Citation                         Subject                   QQQQQ?                Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.1........................  Applicability.............  Yes.
Sec.  63.2........................  Definitions...............  Yes.
Sec.  63.3........................  Units and Abbreviations...  Yes.
Sec.  63.4........................  Prohibited Activities.....  Yes.
Sec.  63.5........................  Construction/               Yes.
                                     Reconstruction.
Sec.  63.6(a)-(c), (e)-(f), (i)-    Compliance with Standards   Yes.
 (j).                                and Maintenance
                                     Requirements.
Sec.  63.6(d).....................  [Reserved]

[[Page 50783]]

 
Sec.  63.6(g).....................  Use of an Alternative       No...................  Subpart QQQQQ contains no
                                     Nonopacity Emission                                work practice standards.
                                     Standard.
Sec.  63.6(h).....................  Compliance with Opacity     No...................  Subpart QQQQQ contains no
                                     and Visible Emission                               opacity or VE limits.
                                     Standards.
Sec.  63.7(a)(1)-(2)..............  Applicability and           No...................  Subpart QQQQQ includes
                                     Performance Test Dates.                            dates for initial
                                                                                        compliance
                                                                                        demonstrations.
Sec.  63.7(a)(3), (b)-(h).........  Performance Testing         No...................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                     Requirements.                                      require performance
                                                                                        tests.
Sec.  63.8(a)(1)-(2), (b), (c)(1)-  Monitoring Requirements...  Yes.
 (3), (f)(1)-(5).
Sec.  63.8(a)(3)..................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.8(a)(4)..................  Additional Monitoring       No...................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                     Requirements for Control                           require flares.
                                     Devices in 63.11.
Sec.  63.8(c)(4)..................  Continuous Monitoring       No...................  Subpart QQQQQ specifies
                                     System (CMS) Requirements.                         requirements for
                                                                                        operation of monitoring
                                                                                        systems.
Sec.  63.8(c)(5)..................  Continuous Opacity          No...................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                     Monitoring System (COMS)                           require COMS.
                                     Minimum Procedures.
Sec.  63.8(c)(6)..................  Zero and High Level         No...................  Subpart QQQQQ specifies
                                     Calibration Check                                  calibration
                                     Requirements.                                      requirements.
Sec.  63.8(c)(7)-(8)..............  Out-of-Control Periods....  No...................  Subpart QQQQQ specifies
                                                                                        out-of-control periods
                                                                                        and reporting
                                                                                        requirements.
Sec.  63.8(d).....................  CMS Quality Control.......  No...................  Subpart QQQQQ requires a
                                                                                        monitoring plan that
                                                                                        specifies CMS quality
                                                                                        control procedures.
Sec.  63.8(e).....................  CMS Performance Evaluation  No...................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                                                                        require performance
                                                                                        evaluations.
Sec.  63.8(f)(6)..................  Relative Accuracy Test      No...................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                     Audit (RATA) Alternative.                          require continuous
                                                                                        emissions monitoring
                                                                                        systems (CEMS).
Sec.  63.8(g)(1)-(5)..............  Data Reduction............  No...................  Subpart QQQQQ specifies
                                                                                        data reduction
                                                                                        requirements.
Sec.  63.9(a)-(d), (h)-(j)........  Notification Requirements.  Yes..................  Except that subpart QQQQQ
                                                                                        does not require
                                                                                        performance tests or
                                                                                        performance evaluations.
Sec.  63.9(e).....................  Notification of             No...................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                     Performance Test.                                  require performance
                                                                                        tests.
Sec.  63.9(f).....................  Notification of VE/Opacity  No...................  Subpart QQQQQ contains no
                                     Test.                                              opacity or VE limits.
Sec.  63.9(g).....................  Additional Notifications    No...................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                     When Using CMS.                                    require performance
                                                                                        evaluations.
Sec.  63.10(a),(b), (d)(1), (d)(4)- Recordkeeping and           Yes.
 (5), (e)(3), (f).                   Reporting Requirements.
Sec.  63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-(15)...  Additional Records for CMS  No...................  Subpart QQQQQ specifies
                                                                                        record requirements.
Sec.  63.10(c)(7)-(8).............  Records of Excess           No...................  Subpart QQQQQ specifies
                                     Emissions and Paramter                             record requirements.
                                     Monitoring Exceedances
                                     for CMS.
Sec.  63.10(d)(2).................  Reporting Results of        No...................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                     Performance Tests.                                 require performance
                                                                                        tests.
Sec.  63.10(d)(3).................  Reporting Opacity or VE     No...................  Subpart QQQQQ contains no
                                     Observations.                                      opacity or VE limits.
Sec.  63.10(e)(1)-(2).............  Additional CMS Reports....  No...................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                                                                        require CEMS.
Sec.  63.10(e)(4).................  Reporting COMS Data.......  No...................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                                                                        require COMS.
Sec.  63.11.......................  Control Device              No...................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                     Requirements.                                      require flares.
Sec.  63.12-63.15.................  Delegation, Addresses,      Yes.
                                     Incorporation by
                                     Reference Availability of
                                     Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 01-24887 Filed 10-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P