[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64498-64512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-26309]



[[Page 64497]]

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

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2002 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 64498]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-7385-9]
RIN 2060-AG87


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing friction 
materials manufacturing facilities. Some of these facilities, 
specifically those that perform solvent mixing, have been identified as 
major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) including n-hexane, 
toluene, and trichloroethylene. Exposure to these substances has been 
demonstrated to cause adverse health effects such as irritation of the 
lungs, skin, mucous membranes, and effects on the central nervous 
system, liver, and kidney.
    Today's final rule will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission standards 
reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT). Implementation of today's final rule will reduce HAP emissions 
by approximately 290 tons per year (tpy).

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 18, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-97-57 contains supporting information used in 
developing the final rule. The docket is located at the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/
DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 
and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning 
applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate State or 
local agency representative. If no State or local representative is 
available, contact the EPA Regional Office staff listed in Sec.  63.13. 
For information concerning the analyses performed in developing this 
rule, contact Kevin Cavender, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards 
Division, Metals Group, (Mail Code 439-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711, telephone number (919) 541-2364, electronic mail address 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities 
potentially regulated by this action include those listed in the 
following table:

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

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities potentially regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.9485 of 
today's final rule. If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person 
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Judicial Review. The NESHAP for friction materials manufacturing 
was proposed on October 4, 2001 (66 FR 50768). Today's action announces 
EPA's final decisions on the rule. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 
judicial review of today's final rule is available by filing a petition 
for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit by December 17, 2002. Only those objections to this rule which 
were raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public 
comment may be raised during judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2) 
of the CAA, the requirements that are the subject of today's final rule 
may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by 
EPA to enforce these requirements.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's final rule will also be available on the 
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the 
Administrator's signature, a copy of the final rule will be posted on 
the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated 
rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and 
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more 
information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at 
(919) 541-5384.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background and Public Participation
    A. What is the statutory authority for NESHAP?
    B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
    C. How was the rule developed?
    D. How can I get copies of this document and other related 
information?
II. Summary of the Final Rule
    A. Who must comply with this rule?
    B. What sources are affected?
    C. What are the compliance dates?
    D. What are the emission limitations?
    E. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements?
    F. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
    A. De Minimis Use Exemption
    B. MACT Standard
    C. Compliance Deadline
V. Summary of Impacts
    A. What are the health impacts?
    B. What are the air emission reduction impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the non-air quality environmental and energy 
impacts?
VI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    H. Paperwork Reduction Act
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background and Public Participation

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list all categories and 
subcategories of major sources of HAP emissions and to establish NESHAP 
for their control. Major sources are those that emit or have the 
potential to emit at least 10 tpy

[[Page 64499]]

of any single HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. An initial list 
of source categories and accompanying schedules for regulation were 
published on December 3, 1993 (58 FR 63941). Friction materials 
manufacturing was not among the initially listed source categories. A 
subsequent notice published on June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197) added 
friction products manufacturing to the list of major source categories 
scheduled for regulation by November 15, 2000. The listing was based on 
information obtained in a 1992 survey of the industry from which we 
concluded that some facilities that manufacture friction products have 
the potential to be major sources of HAP emissions. Friction products 
manufacturing includes facilities that manufacture, assemble, or 
rebuild friction products such as brakes or clutches. Based on 
information obtained during the development of this final rule, we have 
determined that only facilities that manufacture friction materials 
have the potential to emit HAP at major source levels. As such, this 
final rule will affect only friction materials manufacturers and will 
not affect facilities that only assemble or rebuild friction products. 
Friction materials manufacturing was added to the source category list 
on February 12, 2002 (67 FR 6521), replacing friction products 
manufacturing.

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

    Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the 
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA 
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction of HAP 
emissions that is achievable. This level of control is commonly 
referred to as MACT.
    The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and 
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT 
floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all 
major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as 
that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting 
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the 
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT 
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than the standards 
for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of 
existing sources for categories or subcategories with 30 or more 
sources (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources) (CAA section 112(d)(3)).
    In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent 
than the floor taking into consideration the cost of achieving the 
emission reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements (CAA section 112(d)(2).

C. How Was the Rule Developed?

    We proposed the NESHAP for friction materials manufacturing on 
October 4, 2001 (66 FR 50768). The preamble for the proposed standards 
described the rationale for the proposed standards. Public comments 
were solicited at the time of proposal. The public comment period 
lasted from October 4, 2001 to December 3, 2001. Industry 
representatives, regulatory agencies, environmental groups, and the 
general public were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed 
rule and to provide additional information during the public comment 
period. Although we offered at proposal the opportunity for oral 
presentation of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed rule, 
no one requested a hearing, and a hearing was not held.
    We received a total of four letters containing comments on the 
proposed rule during and after the public comment period. Commenters 
included a Federal government agency, a law firm representing a 
friction materials manufacturing company, and an industry trade 
association. Today's final rule reflects our full consideration of all 
of the comments received. Major public comments on the proposed rule, 
along with our responses to those comments, are summarized in this 
preamble.

D. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    EPA has established an official public docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. A-97-57. The official public docket is the collection of 
materials that is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA 
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA 
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number 
for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1742, and the telephone number for 
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742).
    You may access this Federal Register document electronically 
through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at 
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may 
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments, 
access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, 
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available 
electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available 
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available 
docket materials through the Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the 
appropriate docket identification number.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

    This section presents a summary of the requirements of today's 
final rule.

A. Who Must Comply With This Rule?

    The final rule applies to any owner or operator of a friction 
materials manufacturing facility that is, or is part of, a major source 
of HAP emissions. Friction materials manufacturing includes any 
facility engaged in the manufacture of friction materials such as brake 
and clutch linings.

B. What Sources Are Affected?

    The final rule affects each existing or new solvent mixer at a 
friction materials manufacturing facility which uses a solvent in their 
mixer that contains one or more HAP as an ingredient to the friction 
material composition.

C. What Are the Compliance Dates?

    All existing affected sources must be in compliance no later than 
October 18, 2005. An affected source is an existing source if its 
construction began before October 4, 2001. A new or reconstructed 
affected source with an initial start up date on or after October 4, 
2001, but before October 18, 2002 must be in compliance by October 18, 
2002. A new or reconstructed source with an initial start up date after 
October 18, 2002 must be in compliance upon initial start up. An 
affected source is considered reconstructed if it meets definition of 
``reconstruction'' in 40 CFR 63.2.

D. What Are the Emission Limitations?

    Today's final rule will require owners or operators of new and 
existing large solvent mixers to limit emissions of total organic HAP 
discharged to the atmosphere to 30 percent or less of that

[[Page 64500]]

which would otherwise be emitted in the absence of solvent recovery 
and/or solvent substitution, based on a 7-day block average. Owners or 
operators of new and existing small solvent mixers will be required to 
limit emissions of total organic HAP discharged to the atmosphere to 15 
percent or less of that which would otherwise be emitted in the absence 
of solvent recovery and/or solvent substitution, based on a 7-day block 
average.

E. What Are the Initial and Continuous Compliance Requirements?

    For owners or operators of solvent mixers using a solvent recovery 
system, initial compliance will be determined by measuring and 
recording the weight of solvent added to each affected mixer and the 
weight of solvent recovered for each mix batch over the first 7 
consecutive days after the compliance date. For owners or operators of 
solvent mixers using solvent substitution, initial compliance will be 
determined by recording the use of a non-HAP material as a substitute 
for a HAP solvent for each mix batch. For owners or operators of new 
and existing large solvent mixers, initial compliance is demonstrated 
if the average amount of solvent discharged to the atmosphere recorded 
for each mix batch over the 7-day period does not exceed 30 percent of 
that which would otherwise be emitted in the absence of solvent 
recovery and/or solvent substitution. For owners or operators of new 
and existing small solvent mixers, initial compliance is demonstrated 
if the average amount of solvent discharged to the atmosphere recorded 
for each mix batch over the 7-day period does not exceed 15 percent of 
that which would otherwise be emitted in the absence of solvent 
recovery and/or solvent substitution. Today's final rule also includes 
performance specifications for the weight measurement device as well as 
procedures for conducting the measurements and computing the results.
    For owners or operators of solvent mixers using a solvent recovery 
system, continuous compliance will be determined by continuing to 
measure and record the weight of solvent added to each affected mixer 
and the weight of solvent recovered for each mix batch. For owners or 
operators of solvent mixers using solvent substitution, continuous 
compliance will be determined by continuing to record the use of a non-
HAP material as a substitute for HAP solvent for each mix batch. For 
owners or operators of new and existing large solvent mixers, 
continuous compliance is demonstrated by maintaining each 7-day block 
average at or below 30 percent of that which would otherwise be emitted 
in the absence of solvent recovery and/or solvent substitution. For 
owners or operators of new and existing small solvent mixers, 
continuous compliance is demonstrated by maintaining each 7-day block 
average at or below 15 percent of that which would otherwise be emitted 
in the absence of solvent recovery and/or solvent substitution.

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

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

III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

    This section describes the major changes made to the proposed rule 
based on public comments. We extended the compliance period for 
existing sources from 2 years to 3 years. We subcategorized the 
friction materials manufacturing source category into small and large 
solvent mixer subcategories and established new MACT floor and beyond-
the-floor control options for those subcategories. We chose the MACT 
floor option of 70 percent emission reduction as the standard for new 
and existing large solvent mixers and the beyond-the-floor option of 85 
percent emission reduction as the standard for new and existing small 
solvent mixers. We now allow owners and operators the option of 
complying with the standards by using solvent recovery, as proposed, or 
substitution to a non-HAP containing solvent. We revised the initial 
and continuous compliance requirements to reflect the change in 
standards. We also added definitions for small solvent mixer, large 
solvent mixer, and solvent substitution.

IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

    This section summarizes the major comments we received on the 
proposed rule and our responses to those comments. A more comprehensive 
summary of comments and responses can be found in Docket No. A-97-57.

A. De Minimis Use Exemption

    Comment: One commenter recommended that the final rule clarify the 
intended applicability of the rule by including a de minimis use 
(production) exemption that would exempt from the standard facilities 
that produce very small amounts of friction material.
    Response: A follow-up contact with the commenter revealed that the 
commenter's concerns are based on research and development (R&D) 
activities. Because Sec.  63.9485(b) of the rule includes an exemption 
for R&D facilities, as they are defined in section 112(c)(7) of the 
CAA, any R&D activities related to friction materials would not be 
covered under the friction materials

[[Page 64501]]

manufacturing NESHAP. As such, no change has been made in the final 
rule to address this comment.

B. MACT Standard

1. Additional Emission Reductions
    Comment: One commenter noted that the proposed rule affects only a 
few sources and will reduce baseline HAP emissions from the industry by 
only 50 percent, allowing 330 tpy of emissions to not be recovered 
through implementation of the proposed rule. The commenter stated that 
it was troubling that the proposal did not include a mechanism for 
addressing these remaining emissions.
    Response: Emissions due to the use of HAP solvents in solvent 
mixing operations account for 99 percent of the baseline HAP emissions. 
The emission standards contained in both the proposed rule and the 
final rule are based on what we believe to be the maximum technically 
and economically feasible level of emissions control achievable for 
solvent mixers. As such, the rule effectively addresses the solvent 
mixing component of HAP emissions from friction materials 
manufacturing. However, fugitive emissions resulting from the residual 
solvent in the mixed material, which accounts for approximately 70 
percent of the estimated HAP emissions that will remain once the final 
rule is implemented, are not addressed. These emissions occur in later 
process equipment (extruders, granulators, dryers, hot presses, and 
curing ovens.) None of these pieces of equipment are currently equipped 
with HAP emission controls. Therefore, the MACT floor is no additional 
emission reduction for these sources. The commenter did not provide any 
data that would indicate that control of these fugitive sources would 
be economically feasible, and we do not believe that it would be cost-
effective to capture and control the fugitive emissions from these 
sources. For these reasons, we have decided, as proposed, not to 
regulate these sources. No change has been made in the final rule to 
address this comment.
2. Consideration of Mixer Type/Configuration and Cost of Compliance
    Comment: According to one commenter, the proposed rule is factually 
flawed because it fails to account for the type and configuration of 
three of the mixers currently operated by the commenter's facility, 
which constitute 50 percent of the facility's operations. The commenter 
noted that these three small solvent mixers do not perform the mixing 
and drying in an enclosed space amenable to complete capture of VOC 
emissions, in contrast to the Plant A mixer used by EPA to establish 
MACT. The commenter stated that the proposed rule incorrectly assumes 
that all mixers in the industry can be retrofitted relatively easily 
with VOC capture and recovery systems.
    The commenter stated that it would be impossible, due to design and 
process parameters, to control the emissions from these three small 
uncontrolled mixers to achieve the proposed 85 percent overall 
standard. According to the commenter, the two major components of the 
three small uncontrolled mixers (mixing bowl and mixing assembly) are 
separate from each other, unlike the fourth mixer at the facility (and 
more typical of the industry) in which the mixing assembly is integral 
to the mixing bowl. In the case of the three small uncontrolled mixers, 
materials are dumped into the mixing bowl, the bowl is rolled under the 
mixing assembly, and the assembly is lowered and raised pneumatically 
in and out of the mixing bowl as needed. According to the commenter, 
the presence of the mixing assembly makes it impossible to get an 
acceptable vacuum seal to extract solvent vapors during the mixing 
process. The commenter stated that it would be very difficult if not 
impossible to install capture devices on the mixer, extrusion, and 
conveying processes to achieve the required minimum 90 percent capture 
efficiency. The commenter argued that the engineering obstacles to 
retrofitting the three small uncontrolled mixers with emission controls 
are so severe that the three mixers would need to be replaced under any 
scenario, at very substantial cost.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the proposed rule did 
not account for the cost to replace the existing small solvent mixers 
in order for the facility to meet the required 85 percent standard for 
small solvent mixers. In addition, we agree that because of their 
configuration, the small solvent mixers cannot be retrofitted with a 
system to capture and recover the hexane solvent, and, therefore, must 
be replaced. Based on information we have received from the commenter, 
we have revised our cost estimates for the final rule to include the 
cost for a new large solvent mixer to replace the existing small 
solvent mixers, as well as a solvent recovery system. We now estimate a 
capital cost of approximately $900,000, an annual cost of approximately 
$115,000 (without recovery credits, i.e., the value of the recovered 
solvent), and an annual cost credit of approximately $15,600 (with 
recovery credits) for the commenter's facility to achieve the required 
70 percent emission reduction for the new large solvent mixer. For 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, we estimate a capital cost of 
approximately $2,300 and an annual cost of approximately $12,000. 
Overall, we estimate a total annual cost of approximately $126,000 
(without recovery credits) and an annual cost credit of approximately 
$3,600 (with recovery credits).
    Based on 70 percent reduction of uncontrolled emissions for the new 
large solvent mixer, we estimate an emission reduction of approximately 
250 tpy. Using these cost and emission reduction values, we estimate a 
cost per ton of approximately $500/ton (without recovery credits) and a 
cost per ton credit of approximately $14/ton (with recovery credits). 
Based on these low cost per ton values, we conclude that replacing the 
existing small solvent mixers and with a large solvent mixer and 
installing a solvent recovery system (condenser) capable of meeting the 
required 70 percent standard for large mixers is cost-effective. The 
associated secondary air impacts and energy impacts are also estimated 
to be low; secondary emissions are less than 3 tpy, and energy impacts 
are only approximately 1,100 million Btu/yr. No change has been made in 
the final rule to address this comment.
3. Assumed Mixer Size
    Comment: One commenter disagreed with EPA's premise (described 
below) for using Plant A's vacuum system efficiency in determining MACT 
for the proposed rule. As noted by the commenter, the proposed rule 
states that vacuum systems remove solvents from the mixed material by 
evaporation at low pressure, so the higher the volatility of the 
solvent, the more easily it can be removed by a vacuum system. The 
proposal preamble states that, of the solvents used, hexane is the most 
volatile, while toluene is the least volatile. The preamble also 
indicates that, based on the available data, Plant A's vacuum system 
efficiency of 95 percent is the best of the existing systems. Because 
Plant A also uses the least volatile solvent, the proposed rule assumes 
that a vacuum system efficiency of 95 percent can be achieved for all 
three of the solvents used at the existing facilities. The commenter 
argued that this premise neglects other parameters, such as mixer size, 
mixer cycle, mixer type, or differences in product chemistry.
    The commenter stated that EPA incorrectly assumed that typical 
mixer

[[Page 64502]]

batch sizes range from 300 to 1,000 pounds of material. Based on 
information the commenter obtained from the docket, the commenter 
estimated that the weight of a typical batch at Plant A is 331 pounds 
(including solvent). The commenter contrasted this amount with the 
3,300 pounds (not including solvent) commonly mixed in one of the 
mixers at the commenter's facility, concluding that the subject mixer 
at the commenter's facility is about 10 times larger than the mixer at 
Plant A.
    The commenter argued that, when large batches are mixed, less 
solvent is volatilized in the mixer, and VOC capture is reduced. 
According to the commenter, operational experience at the commenter's 
facility indicates that larger batches generate more internal heat than 
smaller batches. The commenter pointed out that excess heat, if not 
properly controlled, would begin to cure the mix and make it unusable. 
As a result, the potential for heat generation limits the ability to 
remove solvent in the facility's large mixer.
    In addition, the commenter noted that it is significantly harder to 
remove VOC solvent in a larger solvent mixer than a smaller solvent 
mixer per unit time. The commenter pointed out that drying rates 
decrease linearly with time, and a larger volume of identical materials 
would take a longer period of time to achieve the same level of 
dryness. According to the commenter, drying theories suggest that 
internal diffusion and/or internal capillary effects limit the drying 
process. The commenter pointed out that in drying, it is necessary to 
remove free moisture from both the surface and the interior of the 
material. As free moisture is removed from the surface of the material, 
the rate of drying is constant, but when the surface can no longer 
supply sufficient free moisture, the rate of drying falls. The drying 
rate is then limited by the time it takes for the moisture to migrate 
from the interior of the material to the surface. The commenter 
believes that the further the solvent has to travel to the surface, the 
longer it will take or the harder it will be to remove. The commenter 
argued that the larger the mixer, the larger the mass of material, and 
the larger the mass of material, the farther the interior solvent 
content will have to travel, and the harder it will be to remove that 
solvent.
    The commenter argued that the distinction in mixer size is 
fundamental and that finalizing this MACT standard for existing sources 
without considering the differences in mixer size may effectively make 
it impossible for the commenter's facility to perform solvent mixing 
operations using any of its current mixers or other mixers of similar 
size.
    Response: We agree with the commenter's argument regarding the 
impact of mixer size on solvent recovery. Accordingly, we have decided 
to subcategorize the friction materials manufacturing source category 
into small and large solvent mixer subcategories and have established 
new control options for these subcategories. For the final rule, we 
have chosen the beyond-the-floor option (85 percent emission reduction) 
as the standard for new and existing small solvent mixers and the MACT 
floor option (70 percent emission reduction) as the standard for new 
and existing large solvent mixers. For large solvent mixers, beyond-
the-floor control similar to that achieved by small solvent mixers was 
determined to be technically infeasible. As noted in our response in 
section IV.C, we also have extended the compliance date for existing 
sources from 2 years to 3 years after the effective date.
4. Assumed Solvent Recovery Efficiency
    Comment: One commenter disagreed with EPA's conclusion that the 
same level of solvent recovery can be achieved at the same cost for 
different solvent mixers using different solvents at different 
facilities. More specifically, the commenter expressed concern 
regarding the statement in the preamble to the proposed rule that the 
hexane removal efficiency at the commenter's facility would increase 
from 80 percent to 90 percent if the outlet gas temperature from the 
condenser was reduced from 60[deg]F to 32[deg]F. The commenter contends 
that it is impractical and erroneous to predict a condenser efficiency 
of 90 percent for hexane at the facility solely by lowering the outlet 
temperature from 60[deg]F to 32[deg]F. The commenter acknowledged that 
reducing the temperature would improve efficiency, but the commenter 
believes the following variables must also be taken into account: (1) 
Volumetric flow rate of the gas stream; (2) inlet temperature of the 
gas stream; (3) concentration and composition of the VOC in the gas 
stream; (4) moisture content of the gas stream; (5) properties of the 
VOC, such as heat of condensation, heat capacity, and vapor pressure; 
and (6) degree of subcooling (difference between the condensing 
temperature and the outlet temperature of the condenser exhaust).
    The commenter explained that many of the materials used in brake 
mixes at the commenter's facility are hygroscopic or contain moisture 
as delivered. Because of the potential that this moisture could cause 
icing problems in the condenser, the facility maintains the coolant 
temperature at or slightly above 35[deg]F. The commenter believes that 
it would be impractical or impossible to operate the existing condenser 
with an outlet gas temperature of 32[deg]F because the coolant 
temperature would have to be below the freezing point of water.
    In addition, the commenter disagrees with our position stated in 
the preamble to the proposed rule that establishing separate standards 
for individual solvents would be unwise. The commenter noted that the 
efficiency of a comparable condenser would be better for toluene than 
for hexane for the following reasons. First, a lower temperature would 
be needed to condense hexane than to condense toluene because hexane 
has a much higher vapor pressure. Second, at the facility's operating 
vacuum level, the boiling point of hexane is much lower than the 
boiling point of toluene, which means a condenser for hexane would have 
to operate at about -43[deg]F to match the same amount of subcooling as 
a condenser for toluene operating at 32[deg]F.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter's position regarding the 
need for separate standards for each type of solvent. We understand 
that the HAP vapor pressures and specific control conditions differ for 
different solvents, and that, for a given condenser design and set of 
operating conditions, the removal efficiency would be better for 
toluene than for hexane. However, a properly designed and operated 
condenser can achieve a 90 percent removal efficiency on mixer exhausts 
at a reasonable cost for any of the three solvents currently being used 
at friction materials manufacturing facilities. Refrigerated condensers 
are commercially available which can reduce the exhaust temperature to 
well below -50[deg]F. In addition, multi-stage condensers are available 
and can be used when water vapor poses a problem with water freezing on 
the cold condenser surfaces. No change has been made in the final rule 
to address this comment.

C. Compliance Deadline

    Comment: One commenter noted that EPA has proposed a compliance 
deadline for existing sources of 2 years from the publication date of 
the final rule. The commenter pointed out that EPA is authorized by the 
CAA to set a 3-year compliance deadline (42 U.S.C. 7412(i)(3)(A)). The 
commenter argued that EPA's proposed 2-year compliance deadline is not 
based on any finding supported by the administrative record that mixers 
of the type and size used by

[[Page 64503]]

the commenter's facility can achieve MACT compliance within this time 
frame. The commenter's facility is in the process of developing 
alternative manufacturing techniques which, when fully developed and 
implemented, would eliminate VOC emissions from the mixing operations 
at the facility. The commenter stated that, upon achieving this goal, 
the rule should no longer apply to the facility's operations.
    While some of the facility's mixing operations will be converted to 
non-VOC emitting techniques, the commenter could not ensure that all of 
the unique formulations can be converted, tested, and approved for 
implementation by the various transportation agencies and/or boards 
within 2 years after publication of the final rule. According to the 
commenter, the proposed rule would force the facility to spend several 
million dollars unnecessarily if it is compelled to meet the 2-year 
compliance deadline and would delay the implementation of the long-term 
program. Based on these arguments, the commenter recommended that EPA 
specify a 3-year compliance deadline in the final rule.
    Response: Based on information from the commenter, the uncontrolled 
small solvent mixers at the commenter's facility are not amenable to 
control and will need to be replaced. (See section IV.B.3.) The 
facility will need time to replace the mixers, install the necessary 
control equipment, and bring the system into compliance. Therefore, to 
provide the commenter with sufficient time to achieve compliance, we 
have decided to extend the compliance deadline for existing sources to 
3 years, which is consistent with section 112(i)(3)(A) of the CAA. If 
the commenter's facility wanted to comply by using non-VOC techniques 
with the new solvent mixer, the 3-year compliance time should also 
provide the facility with sufficient time to conduct the tests and 
obtain the approvals necessary to implement the techniques. The 
existing large mixer at the commenter's facility is already in 
compliance with the 70 percent standard for large solvent mixers.

V. Summary of Impacts

A. What Are the Health Impacts?

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

B. What Are the Air Emission Reduction Impacts?

    Estimates of organic HAP emissions from the use of solvents are 
based on a mass balance using solvent usage data collected during the 
industry survey, estimates of solvent recovery efficiencies for 
existing controls, and the promulgated solvent emission limitations of 
30 percent emissions (or 70 percent emission reduction) for new and 
existing large solvent mixers and 15 percent emissions (or 85 percent 
emission reduction) for new and existing small solvent mixers. We 
assumed that one currently uncontrolled small mixer will be fitted with 
a solvent recovery system, and three currently uncontrolled small 
mixers (which are not amenable to control) will be replaced with a new 
mixer, and the new mixer will be equipped with a solvent recovery 
system. The remaining three existing mixers (one large, two small) 
currently meet the promulgated standards and as such should require no 
additional upgrades. We estimate that today's final rule will reduce 
organic HAP emissions by approximately 290 tpy from a baseline level of 
approximately 660 tpy. Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) 
will also be reduced by approximately 290 tpy because these HAP are 
also VOC.

C. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    We obtained process and emissions data from the facilities with the 
best-controlled solvent mixers and incorporated these data into the 
control cost algorithms for condensers in the OAQPS Control Cost 
Manual. We also obtained cost data from one facility to replace 
existing solvent mixers not amenable to control. We then applied these 
costs to those facilities that we project will be impacted by today's 
final rule.
    As stated above, we project that four mixers located at two 
facilities will be impacted by the final rule. To meet the promulgated 
standard, we assumed that one existing small mixer will be equipped 
with a solvent recovery system, and three existing small mixers (which 
are not amenable to control) will be replaced with a new mixer, and the 
new mixer will be equipped with a solvent recovery system. One impacted 
facility is assumed to incur capital costs to install one or more new 
mixers to meet the promulgated standard, as well as annual costs to 
operate and maintain the new equipment. Both impacted facilities are 
assumed to incur capital costs to install condensers to meet the 
promulgated standard, as well as annual costs to operate and maintain 
the condensers.
    Monitoring is also an important component of MACT and the cost 
estimate. We expect that all four facilities affected by the final rule 
will incur some additional annual costs due

[[Page 64504]]

to the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the 
final rule.
    Implementation of the final rule is expected to result in a 
nationwide capital cost of approximately $947,000, with total 
annualized costs of approximately $213,000 per year (without recovery 
credits) and $60,000 per year (with recovery credits).

D. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    Based on the cost estimates provided above, we believe the economic 
impacts associated with today's final rule will be negligible. In 1992, 
there were 53 facilities manufacturing friction materials. Of these 53 
facilities, four are affected by the final rule and will incur control 
and monitoring costs. When we consider the solvent recovery credits 
along with control technology costs, the total economic impact of this 
final rule is a cost to the industry of $60,000 per year, which is less 
than 1 percent of industry revenues. We consider impacts of less than 1 
percent of industry revenues to be minor. In addition, we do not 
believe these impacts to be significant enough to alter the market 
price for friction materials.

E. What Are the Non-air Environmental and Energy Impacts?

    Indirect air impacts of today's final rule will result from 
increased electricity usage associated with operation of control 
devices (i.e., condensers) installed to meet the promulgated standard. 
Assuming that facilities will purchase electricity from a power plant, 
we estimate that the final rule will increase secondary emissions of 
criteria pollutants from power plants by less than 3.0 tpy. These 
criteria pollutants include particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, 
nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide. The overall energy demand is 
expected to increase by approximately 40 kilowatts nationwide under the 
final rule. This energy demand is based on the electricity required to 
operate the vacuum and condenser systems needed to comply with the 
promulgated standard. Both the indirect air impact and energy impact 
are considered minor.
    Because impacted facilities are expected to reuse or sell the 
solvent recovered by the condensers, we do not anticipate any 
significant wastewater or solid waste impacts as a result of the final 
rule.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism 
implications and that preempts State law unless EPA consults with State 
and local officials early in the process of developing the regulation.
    If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA 
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble 
to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS 
must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation 
with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their 
concerns and EPA's position supporting the need to issue the 
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of 
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a 
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review 
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, it must include a certification from 
EPA's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the requirements of 
Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.
    Today's final rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities 
are owned or operated by State governments, and the rule requirements 
will not supercede State regulations that are more stringent. Thus, the 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply to this final rule.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    Today's final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal

[[Page 64505]]

government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No 
tribal governments own or operate friction materials manufacturing 
facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final 
rule.

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

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

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

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

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA's regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    The EPA has determined that today's final rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or 
more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost of this 
proposed rule for any year has been estimated to be approximately 
$213,000 without solvent recovery credits and $60,000 with solvent 
recovery credits. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has 
determined that this final rule contains no regulatory requirements 
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because 
it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose 
obligations upon them. Therefore, today's final rule is not subject to 
the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that 
has no more than 500 employees for NAICS codes 327999 and 333613 or no 
more than 750 employees for NAICS code 33634; (2) a small governmental 
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; 
and (3) a small organization that is any not-for profit enterprise 
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 
field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have 
determined that only one company meets one of the definitions of small 
entity--a small business that has no more than 500 employees for NAICS 
code 333613. This company owns only one of the four facilities subject 
to this final rule. The mixer at this facility is equipped with a 
solvent recovery system capable of meeting the requirements of this 
final rule. As such, the additional burden to this facility as a result 
of this final rule will only be approximately $16,400 per year for 
recordkeeping and reporting costs associated with demonstrating 
continued compliance with the final rule. There are several firms 
subject to this final rule whose costs will be a greater percentage of 
sales than this small business.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in today's final rule will 
be submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA has prepared an Information Collection 
Request (ICR) document (ICR No. 2025.02), and you may obtain a copy 
from Sandy Farmer by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, 
Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; by 
electronic mail at [email protected]; or by calling (202) 260-2740. 
You may also download a copy off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information

[[Page 64506]]

requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to NESHAP. These recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant to the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA's policies set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The final rule will require maintenance inspections of the control 
devices but will not require any notifications or reports beyond those 
required by the NESHAP General Provisions. The recordkeeping 
requirements require only the specific information needed to determine 
compliance.
    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the 
effective date of the final rule) is estimated to be approximately 
1,390 labor hours per year, at a total annual cost of approximately 
$65,300. This burden estimate includes the cost to install and operate 
the weight measurement device; one-time submission of a startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan, with semiannual reports for any event 
when the procedures in the plan were not followed; semiannual 
compliance reports; maintenance inspections; notifications; and 
recordkeeping. Total capital/startup costs associated with the 
recordkeeping requirements over the 3-year period of the ICR are 
estimated at approximately $940, with operation and maintenance costs 
of approximately $250/yr.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to: (1) Review instructions; (2) develop, acquire, install, and 
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, 
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining 
information, and disclosing and providing information; (3) adjust the 
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and 
requirements; (4) train personnel to be able to respond to a collection 
of information; (5) search existing data sources; (6) complete and 
review the collection of information; and (7) transmit or otherwise 
disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs all 
Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards instead of 
government-unique standards in their regulatory and procurement 
activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law 
or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more 
voluntary consensus bodies. Examples of organizations generally 
regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include the American 
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers (ASME), National Fire Protection Association 
(NFPA), and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires 
Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, 
with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking involves a technical standard. The EPA is 
promulgating test methods based on the weighing portion of EPA Method 
28 (section 10.1) for weighing of recovered solvent. Consistent with 
the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus 
standards that could be used in addition to this EPA method. The search 
for emissions measurement procedures identified two voluntary consensus 
standards potentially applicable to this final rule. However, after 
reviewing the available standards, EPA determined that these two 
standards, identified for measuring recovered solvent on a scale, were 
impractical alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purposes of 
today's final rule. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these 
standards for this purpose.
    The voluntary consensus standard ASTM E319-85 (Reapproved 1997), 
``Standard Practice for the Evaluation of Single-Pan Mechanical 
Balances,'' is impractical for the purposes of this rulemaking 
primarily because this standard is not a complete weighing procedure 
because it does not include a pretest procedure.
    The voluntary consensus standard ASME Power Test Codes, 
``Supplement on Instruments and Apparatus, part 5, Measurement of 
Quantity of Materials, Chapter 1, Weighing Scales,'' is impractical for 
the purposes of this rulemaking because it does not specify the number 
of initial calibration weights to be used nor a specific pretest weight 
procedure.
    Section 63.9525 to subpart QQQQQ lists the testing procedures 
included in today's final rule. Under Sec.  63.8 of the NESHAP General 
Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use an 
alternative method in place of any of the EPA testing methods.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until December 17, 2002. This action is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: October 9, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

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

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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


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

[[Page 64507]]

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

What This Subpart Covers

Sec.
63.9480 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.9485 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.9490 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.9495 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations

63.9500 What emission limitations must I meet?

General Compliance Requirements

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

Initial Compliance Demonstration Requirements

63.9510 By what date must I conduct my initial compliance 
demonstration?
63.9515 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitation that applies to me?
63.9520 What procedures must I use to demonstrate initial 
compliance?
63.9525 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance 
requirements for my weight measurement device?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

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

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.9535 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.9540 What reports must I submit and when?
63.9545 What records must I keep?
63.9550 In what form and how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.9555 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.9560 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.9565 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.9570 How do I apply for alternative compliance requirements?
63.9571-63.9579 [Reserved]

Table

Table 1 to Subpart QQQQQ--Applicability of General Provisions to 
Subpart QQQQQ

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

What This Subpart Covers


Sec.  63.9480  What is the purpose of this subpart?

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


Sec.  63.9485  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a 
friction materials manufacturing facility (as defined in Sec.  63.9565) 
that is (or is part of) a major source of hazardous air pollutants 
(HAP) emissions on the first compliance date that applies to you, as 
specified in Sec.  63.9495. Your friction materials manufacturing 
facility is a major source of HAP if it emits or has the potential to 
emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per 
year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) 
or more per year.
    (b) The requirements in this subpart do not apply to research and 
development facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean 
Air Act.


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

    (a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or existing 
affected source at your friction materials manufacturing facility.
    (b) The affected source covered by this subpart is each new, 
reconstructed, or existing solvent mixer (as defined in Sec.  63.9565) 
at your friction materials manufacturing facility.
    (c) A solvent mixer at your friction materials manufacturing 
facility is new if you commence construction of the solvent mixer after 
October 18, 2002. An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the 
definition of ``reconstruction'' in Sec.  63.2, and reconstruction is 
commenced after October 18, 2002.
    (d) A solvent mixer at your friction materials manufacturing 
facility is existing if it is not new or reconstructed.


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

    (a) If you have an existing solvent mixer, you must comply with 
each of the requirements for existing sources no later than October 18, 
2005.
    (b) If you have a new or reconstructed solvent mixer and its 
initial startup date is after October 18, 2002, you must comply with 
the requirements for new and reconstructed sources upon initial 
startup.
    (c) If your friction materials manufacturing facility is an area 
source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that 
it becomes a (or part of a) major source of HAP emissions, then 
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section apply.
    (1) For any portion of the area source that becomes a new or 
reconstructed affected source, you must comply with the requirements 
for new and reconstructed sources upon startup or no later than October 
18, 2002, whichever is later.
    (2) For any portion of the area source that becomes an existing 
affected source, you must comply with the requirements for existing 
sources no later than 1 year after the area source becomes a major 
source or no later than October 18, 2005, whichever is later.
    (d) You must meet the notification and schedule requirements in 
Sec.  63.9535. Several of the notifications must be submitted before 
the compliance date for your affected source.

Emission Limitations


Sec.  63.9500  What emission limitations must I meet?

    (a) For each new, reconstructed, or existing large solvent mixer at 
your friction materials manufacturing facility, you must limit HAP 
solvent emissions to the atmosphere to no more than 30 percent of that 
which would otherwise be emitted in the absence of solvent recovery 
and/or solvent substitution, based on a 7-day block average.
    (b) For each new, reconstructed, or existing small solvent mixer at 
your friction materials manufacturing facility, you must limit HAP 
solvent emissions to the atmosphere to no more than 15 percent of that 
which would otherwise be emitted in the absence of solvent recovery 
and/or solvent substitution, based on a 7-day block average.

General Compliance Requirements


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

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

Initial Compliance Demonstration Requirements


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

    (a) If you use a solvent recovery system and/or solvent 
substitution, you

[[Page 64508]]

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


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

    (a) You have demonstrated initial compliance for each new, 
reconstructed, or existing large solvent mixer subject to the emission 
limitation in Sec.  63.9500(a) if the HAP solvent discharged to the 
atmosphere during the first 7 days after the compliance date, 
determined according to the provisions in Sec.  63.9520, does not 
exceed a 7-day block average of 30 percent of that which would 
otherwise be emitted in the absence of solvent recovery and/or solvent 
substitution.
    (b) You have demonstrated initial compliance for each new, 
reconstructed, or existing small solvent mixer subject to the emission 
limitation in Sec.  63.9500(b) if the HAP solvent discharged to the 
atmosphere during the first 7 days after the compliance date, 
determined according to the provisions in Sec.  63.9520, does not 
exceed a 7-day block average of 15 percent of that which would 
otherwise be emitted in the absence of solvent recovery and/or solvent 
substitution.
    (c) You must submit a notification of compliance status containing 
the results of the initial compliance demonstration according to Sec.  
63.9535(e).


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

    (a) If you use a solvent recovery system, you must use the 
procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations in Sec.  
63.9500(a) and (b).
    (1) Record the date and time of each mix batch.
    (2) Record the identity of each mix batch using a unique batch ID, 
as defined in Sec.  63.9565.
    (3) Measure and record the weight of HAP solvent loaded into the 
solvent mixer for each mix batch.
    (4) Measure and record the weight of HAP solvent recovered for each 
mix batch.
    (5) If you use a solvent recovery system, you must determine the 
percent of HAP solvent discharged to the atmosphere for each mix batch 
according to Equation 1 of this section as follows: (Eq. 1)
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR18OC02.002


Where:

Pb = Percent of HAP solvent discharged to the atmosphere for 
each mix batch, percent;
Srec = Weight of HAP solvent recovered for each mix batch, 
lb;
Smix = Weight of HAP solvent loaded into the solvent mixer 
for each mix batch, lb.

    (6) If you use solvent substitution for a mix batch, you must 
record the use of a non-HAP material as a substitute for a HAP solvent 
for that mix batch and assign a value of 0 percent to the percent of 
HAP solvent discharged to the atmosphere for that mix batch (Pb).
    (7) Determine the 7-day block average percent of HAP solvent 
discharged to the atmosphere according to Equation 2 of this section as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR18OC02.003


Where:

%P7 = 7-day block average percent of HAP solvent discharged 
to the atmosphere, percent;
i = mix batch;
n = number of mix batches in 7-day block average.

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


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

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

Continuous Compliance Requirements


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

    (a) If you use a solvent recovery system and/or solvent 
substitution, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations for solvent mixers in Sec.  63.9500(a) and (b) 
according to the

[[Page 64509]]

provisions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Except for during malfunctions of your weight measurement 
device and associated repairs, you must collect and record the 
information required in Sec.  63.9520(a)(1) through (8) at all times 
that the affected source is operating and record all information needed 
to document conformance with these requirements.
    (2) For new, reconstructed, or existing large solvent mixers, 
maintain the 7-day block average percent of HAP solvent discharged to 
the atmosphere at or below 30 percent of that which would otherwise be 
emitted in the absence of solvent recovery and/or solvent substitution.
    (3) For new, reconstructed, or existing small solvent mixers, 
maintain the 7-day block average percent of HAP solvent discharged to 
the atmosphere at or below 15 percent of that which would otherwise be 
emitted in the absence of solvent recovery and/or solvent substitution.
    (b) If you use a control technique other than a solvent recovery 
system and/or solvent substitution, you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the emission limitations for solvent mixers in Sec.  
63.9500(a) and (b) according to the provisions in Sec.  63.9570.
    (c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet the 
emission limitations for solvent mixers in Sec.  63.9500(a) and (b). 
This includes periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. These 
instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. 
These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in 
Sec.  63.9540.
    (d) During periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, you must 
operate in accordance with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
plan.
    (e) Consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations 
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not 
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that 
you were operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan. The Administrator will determine whether deviations 
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are 
violations, according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e).

Notifications, Reports, and Records


Sec.  63.9535  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.  
63.8(f)(4) and 63.9(b), (c), (d), and (h) that apply to you by the 
specified dates.
    (b) If you use a control technique other than a solvent recovery 
system and/or solvent substitution, you must comply with the provisions 
in Sec.  63.9570.
    (c) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2), if you start up your affected 
source before October 18, 2002, you must submit your initial 
notification no later than 120 calendar days after October 18, 2002.
    (d) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new 
affected source on or after October 18, 2002, you must submit your 
initial notification no later than 120 calendar days after you become 
subject to this subpart.
    (e) You must submit a notification of compliance status according 
to Sec.  63.9(h)(2)(ii). You must submit the notification of compliance 
status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following 
the completion of the initial compliance demonstration.


Sec.  63.9540  What reports must I submit and when?

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

[[Page 64510]]

affected source along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring 
report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) of this chapter, and the compliance report includes 
all the required information concerning deviations from any emission 
limitation in this subpart, then submission of the compliance report 
satisfies any obligation to report the same deviations in the 
semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a compliance 
report does not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report 
deviations from permit requirements to your permitting authority.


Sec.  63.9545  What records must I keep?

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


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

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

Other Requirements and Information


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

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


Sec.  63.9560  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

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


Sec.  63.9565  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec.  63.2, and in this section as follows:
    Batch ID means a unique identifier used to differentiate each 
individual mix batch.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit);
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating 
limit) in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, 
regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
    Friction ingredients means any of the components used in the 
manufacture of friction materials, excluding the HAP solvent. Friction 
ingredients include, but are not limited to, reinforcement materials, 
property modifiers, resins, and other additives.
    Friction materials manufacturing facility means a facility that 
manufactures friction materials using a solvent-based process. Friction 
materials are used in the manufacture of products used to accelerate or 
decelerate objects. Products that use friction materials include, but 
are not limited to, disc brake pucks, disc brake pads, brake linings, 
brake shoes, brake segments, brake blocks, brake discs, clutch facings, 
and clutches.
    HAP solvent means a solvent that contains 10 percent or more of any 
one HAP, as listed in section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act, or any 
combination of HAP that is added to a solvent mixer. Examples include 
hexane, toluene, and trichloroethylene.
    Initial startup means the first time that equipment is put into 
operation. Initial startup does not include operation solely for 
testing equipment. Initial startup does not include subsequent startups 
(as defined in this section) following malfunction or shutdowns or 
following changes in product or between batch operations.
    Large solvent mixer means a solvent mixer with a design capacity 
greater than or equal to 2,000 pounds, including friction ingredients 
and HAP solvent.
    Mix batch means each batch of friction materials manufactured in a 
solvent mixer.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in Sec.  
63.2.
    7-day block average means an averaging technique for a weekly 
compliance determination where the calculated values for percent HAP 
solvent discharged to the atmosphere are averaged together for all mix 
batches (for which there are valid data) in a 7-day block period 
according to the equation provided in Sec.  63.9520(a)(6).
    Small solvent mixer means a solvent mixer with a design capacity 
less than 2,000 pounds, including friction ingredients and HAP solvent.
    Solvent mixer means a mixer used in the friction materials 
manufacturing process in which HAP solvent is used as one of the 
ingredients in at least one batch during a semiannual reporting period. 
Trace amounts of HAP solvents in resins or other friction ingredients 
do not qualify mixers as solvent mixers.
    Solvent recovery system means equipment used for the purpose of 
recovering the HAP solvent from the exhaust stream. An example of a 
solvent recovery system is a condenser.

[[Page 64511]]

    Solvent substitution means substitution of a non-HAP material for a 
HAP solvent.
    Startup means bringing equipment online and starting the production 
process.
    Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan means a plan developed 
according to the provisions of Sec.  63.6(e)(3).


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

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


Sec. Sec.  63.9571-63.9579  [Reserved]

                 Table 1 to Subpart QQQQQ--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart QQQQQ
 [As required in Sec.  63.9505, you must comply with each applicable General Provisions requirement according to
                                              the following table]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Applies to subpart
             Citation                       Subject                    QQQQQ?                  Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.1.......................  Applicability............  Yes.....................
Sec.  63.2.......................  Definitions..............  Yes.....................
Sec.  63.3.......................  Units and Abbreviations..  Yes.....................
Sec.  63.4.......................  Prohibited Activities....  Yes.....................
Sec.  63.5.......................  Construction/              Yes.....................
                                    Reconstruction.
Sec.  63.6(a)-(c), (e)-(f), (i)-   Compliance with Standards  Yes.....................
 (j).                               and Maintenance
                                    Requirements.
Sec.  63.6(d)....................  [Reserved]...............
Sec.  63.6(g)....................  Use of an Alternative      No......................  Subpart QQQQQ contains
                                    Nonopacity Emission                                  no work practice
                                    Standard.                                            standards.
Sec.  63.6(h)....................  Compliance with Opacity    No......................  Subpart QQQQQ contains
                                    and Visible Emission                                 no opacity or VE
                                    Standards.                                           limits.
Sec.  63.7(a)(1)-(2).............  Applicability and          No......................  Subpart QQQQQ includes
                                    Performance Test Dates.                              dates for initial
                                                                                         compliance
                                                                                         demonstrations.
Sec.  63.7(a)(3), (b)-(h)........  Performance Testing        No......................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                    Requirements.                                        require performance
                                                                                         tests.
Sec.  63.8(a)(1)-(2), (b), (c)(1)- Monitoring Requirements..  Yes.....................
 (3), (f)(1)-(5).
Sec.  63.8(a)(3).................  [Reserved]...............
Sec.  63.8(a)(4).................  Additional Monitoring      No......................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                    Requirements for Control                             require flares.
                                    Devices in Sec.  63.11.
Sec.  63.8(c)(4).................  Continuous Monitoring      No......................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                    System (CMS)                                         require CMS.
                                    Requirements.
Sec.  63.8(c)(5).................  Continuous Opacity         No......................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                    Monitoring System (COMS)                             require COMS.
                                    Minimum Procedures.
Sec.  63.8(c)(6).................  Zero and High Level        No......................  Subpart QQQQQ specifies
                                    Calibration Check                                    calibration
                                    Requirements.                                        requirements.
Sec.  63.8(c)(7)-(8).............  Out-of-Control Periods...  No......................  Subpart QQQQQ specifies
                                                                                         out-of-control periods
                                                                                         and reporting
                                                                                         requirements.
Sec.  63.8(d)....................  CMS Quality Control......  No......................  Subpart QQQQQ requires a
                                                                                         monitoring plan that
                                                                                         specifies CMS quality
                                                                                         control procedures.
Sec.  63.8(e)....................  CMS Performance            No......................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                    Evaluation.                                          require CMS performance
                                                                                         evaluations.
Sec.  63.8(f)(6).................  Relative Accuracy Test     No......................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                    Audit (RATA) Alternative.                            require continuous
                                                                                         emissions monitoring
                                                                                         systems (CEMS).
Sec.  63.8(g)(1)-(5).............  Data Reduction...........  No......................  Subpart QQQQQ specifies
                                                                                         data reduction
                                                                                         requirements.
Sec.  63.9(a)-(d), (h)-(j).......  Notification Requirements  Yes.....................  Except that subpart
                                                                                         QQQQQ does not require
                                                                                         performance tests or
                                                                                         CMS performance
                                                                                         evaluations.
Sec.  63.9(e)....................  Notification of            No......................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                    Performance Test.                                    require performance
                                                                                         tests.

[[Page 64512]]

 
Sec.  63.9(f)....................  Notification of VE/        No......................  Subpart QQQQQ contains
                                    Opacity Test.                                        no opacity or VE
                                                                                         limits.
Sec.  63.9(g)....................  Additional Notifications   No......................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                    When Using CMS.                                      require CMS performance
                                                                                         evaluations.
Sec.  63.10(a), (b), (d)(1),       Recordkeeping and          Yes.....................
 (d)(4)-(5), (e)(3), (f).           Reporting Requirements.
Sec.  63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-(15)..  Additional Records for     No......................  Subpart QQQQQ specifies
                                    CMS.                                                 record requirements.
Sec.  63.10(c)(7)-(8)............  Records of Excess          No......................  Subpart QQQQQ specifies
                                    Emissions and Parameter                              record requirements.
                                    Monitoring Exceedances
                                    for CMS.
Sec.  63.10(d)(2)................  Reporting Results of       No......................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                    Performance Tests.                                   require performance
                                                                                         tests.
Sec.  63.10(d)(3)................  Reporting Opacity or VE    No......................  Subpart QQQQQ contains
                                    Observations.                                        no opacity or VE
                                                                                         limits.
Sec.  63.10(e)(1)-(2)............  Additional CMS Reports...  No......................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                                                                         require CMS.
Sec.  63.10(e)(4)................  Reporting COMS Data......  No......................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                                                                         require COMS.
Sec.  63.11......................  Control Device             No......................  Subpart QQQQQ does not
                                    Requirements.                                        require flares.
Sec. Sec.  63.12-63.15...........  Delegation, Addresses,     Yes.....................
                                    Incorporation by
                                    Reference Availability
                                    of Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 02-26309 Filed 10-17-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P