National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities Residual Risk and Technology Review, 2742-2753 [2019-00786]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
2742
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3—ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS APPROVED FOR THE ENERGY FACILITIES SITE EVALUATION COUNCIL (EFSEC)
JURISDICTION
[See the SIP-approved provisions of WAC 463–78–020 for jurisdictional applicability]
State citation
State
effective
date
Title/subject
*
*
*
EPA approval date
*
Explanations
*
*
*
Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173–400 Regulations Incorporated by Reference in WAC 463–78–005
*
173–400–060 ..
*
*
Emission Standards for General
Process Units.
*
*
*
*
*
*
2/10/05
*
*
*
5/30/17, 82 FR 24531.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 8—ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS APPROVED FOR THE SOUTHWEST CLEAN AIR AGENCY (SWCAA) JURISDICTION
[Applicable in Clark, Cowlitz, Lewis, Skamania and Wahkiakum counties, excluding facilities subject to Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council
(EFSEC) jurisdiction, Indian reservations and any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction,
and facilities subject to the applicability sections of WAC 173–405–012, 173–410–012, and 173–415–012]
State/local
citation
State/local
effective
date
Title/subject
EPA approval date
Explanations
Southwest Clean Air Agency Regulations
SWCAA 400—General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources
*
400–113 ..........
*
*
Requirements for New Sources in
Attainment or Nonclassifiable
Areas.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2018–27774 Filed 2–7–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0358; FRL–9988–69–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AT66
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities
Residual Risk and Technology Review
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
Pmangrum on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
AGENCY:
This action finalizes the
residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities
source category regulated under
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:11 Feb 07, 2019
10/09/16
Jkt 247001
*
*
04/10/17, 82 FR 17136 ..................
*
*
national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In
addition, we are taking final action
addressing periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). We
are finalizing our proposed
determination that the risks from the
category are acceptable and that the
current NESHAP provides an ample
margin of safety to protect public health.
We identified no new cost-effective
controls under the technology review to
achieve further emissions reductions.
These final amendments include
amendments to revise reporting
requirements for deviations. These
amendments are made under the
authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
and will improve the effectiveness of
the rule. The amendments are
environmentally neutral.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
February 8, 2019.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0358. All
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
*
Except: 400–113(5).
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard
copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA
WJC West Building, Room Number
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
(EST), Monday through Friday. The
telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and
the telephone number for the Docket
Center is (202) 566–1742.
E:\FR\FM\08FER1.SGM
08FER1
2743
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
For
questions about this final action, contact
Korbin Smith, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (D243–04), Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
27711; telephone number: (919) 541–
2416; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and
email address: smith.korbin@epa.gov.
For specific information regarding the
risk modeling methodology, contact
James Hirtz, Health and Environmental
Impacts Division (C539–02), Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541–
0881; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and
email address: hirtz.james@epa.gov. For
information about the applicability of
the NESHAP to a particular entity,
contact Sara Ayres, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA WJC South
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (312) 353–6266; and email
address: ayres.sara@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and
abbreviations. We use multiple
acronyms and terms in this preamble.
While this list may not be exhaustive, to
ease the reading of this preamble and for
reference purposes, the EPA defines the
following terms and acronyms here:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Pmangrum on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
ICR Information Collection Request
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control
technology
NAICS North American Industry
Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RFPC Railroad Friction Products
Corporation
RTC response to comment
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Background information. On May 3,
2018, the EPA proposed revisions to the
Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities NESHAP based on our RTR. In
this action, we are finalizing decisions
and revisions for the rule. We
summarize some of the more significant
comments we timely received regarding
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:11 Feb 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
the proposed rule and provide our
responses in this preamble. A summary
of all other public comments on the
proposal and the EPA’s responses to
those comments is available in
‘‘Summary of Public Comments and
Responses for Friction Materials
Manufacturing Facilities Risk and
Technology Review,’’ Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0358. A ‘‘track
changes’’ version of the regulatory
language that incorporates the changes
in this action is available in the docket.
Organization of this document. The
information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document
and other related information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative
Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this
action?
B. What is the Friction Materials
Manufacturing Facilities source category
and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP
emissions from the source category?
C. What changes did we propose for the
Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities source category in our May 3,
2018, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments
based on the risk review for the Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities
source category?
B. What are the final rule amendments
based on the technology review for the
Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities source category?
C. What are the final rule amendments
addressing emissions during periods of
SSM?
D. What other changes have been made to
the NESHAP?
E. What are the effective and compliance
dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final
decisions and amendments for the
Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities source category?
A. Residual Risk Review for the Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities
Source Category
B. Technology Review for the Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities
Source Category
C. SSM
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and
Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice
did we conduct?
G. What analysis of children’s
environmental health did we conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Categories and
entities potentially regulated by this
action are shown in Table 1 of this
preamble.
TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL
SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY
THIS FINAL ACTION
NESHAP and
source category
Friction Materials
Manufacturing Facilities.
1 North
System.
American
NAICS 1 code
33634, 327999,
333613.
Industry
Classification
Table 1 of this preamble is not
intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding
entities likely to be affected by the final
action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is
affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate
NESHAP. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of any aspect
of this NESHAP, please contact the
appropriate person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble.
B. Where can I get a copy of this
document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of this final
action will also be available on the
internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a
copy of this final action at: https://
E:\FR\FM\08FER1.SGM
08FER1
2744
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/friction-materialsmanufacturing-facilities-nationalemission. Following publication in the
Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version and key
technical documents at this same
website.
Additional information is available on
the RTR website at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
This information includes an overview
of the RTR program, links to project
websites for the RTR source categories,
and detailed emissions and other data
we used as inputs to the risk
assessments.
Pmangrum on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
C. Judicial Review and Administrative
Reconsideration
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial
review of this final action is available
only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (the
Court) by April 9, 2019. Under CAA
section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by this final rule may not be
challenged separately in any civil or
criminal proceedings brought by the
EPA to enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA
further provides that only an objection
to a rule or procedure which was raised
with reasonable specificity during the
period for public comment (including
any public hearing) may be raised
during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to
reconsider the rule if the person raising
an objection can demonstrate to the
Administrator that it was impracticable
to raise such objection within the period
for public comment or if the grounds for
such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such
objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule. Any person seeking
to make such a demonstration should
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to
both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:11 Feb 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for
this action?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a
two-stage regulatory process to address
emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) from stationary sources. In the
first stage, we must identify categories
of sources emitting one or more of the
HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and
then promulgate technology-based
NESHAP for those sources. ‘‘Major
sources’’ are those that emit, or have the
potential to emit, any single HAP at a
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more,
or 25 tpy or more of any combination of
HAP. For major sources, these standards
are commonly referred to as maximum
achievable control technology (MACT)
standards and must reflect the
maximum degree of emission reductions
of HAP achievable (after considering
cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental
impacts). In developing MACT
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs
the EPA to consider the application of
measures, processes, methods, systems,
or techniques, including, but not limited
to, those that reduce the volume of or
eliminate HAP emissions through
process changes, substitution of
materials, or other modifications;
enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or
treat HAP when released from a process,
stack, storage, or fugitive emissions
point; are design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standards; or
any combination of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute
specifies certain minimum stringency
requirements, which are referred to as
MACT floor requirements, and which
may not be based on cost
considerations. See CAA section
112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT
floor cannot be less stringent than the
emission control achieved in practice by
the best-controlled similar source. The
MACT standards for existing sources
can be less stringent than floors for new
sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission
limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing
sources in the category or subcategory
(or the best-performing five sources for
categories or subcategories with fewer
than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider
control options that are more stringent
than the floor under CAA section
112(d)(2). We may establish standards
more stringent than the floor, based on
the consideration of the cost of
achieving the emissions reductions, any
non-air quality health and
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
environmental impacts, and energy
requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory
process, the CAA requires the EPA to
undertake two different analyses, which
we refer to as the technology review and
the residual risk review. Under the
technology review, we must review the
technology-based standards and revise
them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)’’ no less
frequently than every 8 years, pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the
residual risk review, we must evaluate
the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based
standards and revise the standards, if
necessary, to provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health or to
prevent, taking into consideration costs,
energy, safety, and other relevant
factors, an adverse environmental effect.
The residual risk review is required
within 8 years after promulgation of the
technology-based standards, pursuant to
CAA section 112(f). In conducting the
residual risk review, if the EPA
determines that the current standards
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health, it is not necessary
to revise the MACT standards pursuant
to CAA section 112(f).1 For more
information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 83 FR 19499.
B. What is the Friction Materials
Manufacturing Facilities source
category and how does the NESHAP
regulate HAP emissions from the source
category?
The EPA promulgated the Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities
NESHAP on October 18, 2002 (67 FR
64498). The standards are codified at 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
63, subpart QQQQQ. The Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities
industry consists of facilities that
manufacture 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,
blocks, brake discs, clutch facings, and
clutches. The source category covered
by this MACT standard currently
includes two facilities.
1 The Court has affirmed this approach of
implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v.
EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘‘If EPA
determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an ‘ample margin of safety,’ then
the Agency is free to readopt those standards during
the residual risk rulemaking.’’).
E:\FR\FM\08FER1.SGM
08FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
The affected source is each friction
material manufacturing solvent mixer.
The NESHAP regulates emissions of
HAP through emission standards for
solvent, which are emitted from solvent
mixers. Facilities subject to the
NESHAP must reduce the emissions by
using solvent recovery or another
approved method. The emission
standards are the same for new and
existing solvent mixers, but are different
for small and large solvent mixers. The
emission limit for new, reconstructed,
and existing large solvent mixers
requires each facility that operates a
large solvent mixer to 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. The emission limit for new,
reconstructed, and existing small
solvent mixers requires facilities
operating small solvent mixers to 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.
Pmangrum on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
C. What changes did we propose for the
Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities source category in our May 3,
2018, proposal?
On May 3, 2018, the EPA published
a proposed rule in the Federal Register
for the Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart QQQQQ, that took into
consideration the RTR analyses. In the
proposed rule, we proposed revisions to
the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in
order to ensure that they are consistent
with the Court decision in Sierra Club
v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
which vacated two provisions in the
EPA’s ‘‘General Provisions’’
implementing CAA section 112 at 40
CFR part 63, subpart A, that exempted
sources from the requirement to comply
with otherwise applicable CAA section
112(d) emission standards during
periods of SSM. In addition, we
proposed to revise the rule’s reporting
requirements for deviations.
III. What is included in this final rule?
This action finalizes the EPA’s
determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the
Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities source category. This action
also finalizes other changes to the
NESHAP, including amendments to the
SSM provisions of the MACT rule and
revisions to the rule’s reporting
requirements for deviations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:11 Feb 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
A. What are the final rule amendments
based on the risk review for the Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities
source category?
The EPA proposed no changes to the
40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ,
NESHAP based on the risk review
conducted pursuant to CAA section
112(f). We are finalizing our proposed
determination that risks from the source
category following implementation of
MACT standards are acceptable,
considering all the health information
and factors evaluated, and also
considering risk estimation uncertainty.
The EPA received no new data or other
information during the public comment
period that affected our determinations.
Therefore, we are not requiring
additional controls and, thus, are not
making any revisions to the existing
standards, in order to meet the
requirements of CAA section 112(f).
(However, as previously noted, we are
making limited changes in order to
improve implementation and to
conform our standards to the 2008
Sierra Club ruling regarding SSM.)
B. What are the final rule amendments
based on the technology review for the
Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities source category?
We determined that there are no
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies that warrant
revisions to the MACT standards for this
source category. The EPA received no
new data or other information during
the public comment period that affected
our determinations. Therefore, we are
not finalizing revisions to the MACT
standards in order to meet the
requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6).
(Again, however, we are making limited
changes for other purposes, as
previously noted and explained in
detail below.)
C. What are the final rule amendments
addressing emissions during periods of
SSM?
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v.
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the
Court vacated portions of two
provisions in the EPA’s CAA section
112 ‘‘General Provisions’’ regulations
governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court
vacated the SSM exemption contained
in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR
63.6(h)(1), holding that under section
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards
or limitations must be continuous in
nature and that the SSM exemption
violates the CAA’s requirement that
some CAA section 112 standards apply
continuously.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2745
We have eliminated the SSM
exemption in this rule. Consistent with
Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has
established standards in this rule that
apply at all times. We have also revised
Table 4 to subpart QQQQQ of Part 63
(the General Provisions applicability
table) in several respects as is explained
in more detail below. For example, we
have eliminated the incorporation of the
General Provisions’ requirement that the
source develop an SSM plan. We have
also eliminated and revised certain
recordkeeping and reporting that are
related to the SSM exemption as
described in detail in the proposal and
summarized below.
D. What other changes have been made
to the NESHAP?
The EPA is promulgating revisions to
the rule’s reporting requirements at 40
CFR 63.9540(c)(2) for deviations by
requiring facilities to now report the
date, time, a list of affected sources or
equipment, an estimate of the quantity
of each regulated pollutant emitted over
any emission limit, a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions,
and the corrective action taken. In
addition, facilities must continue to
report the number, duration, and cause
of deviations (including unknown
cause, if applicable). To see how the
revised regulatory text compares to the
previous text, see the document,
‘‘Redline Version Showing Proposed
Changes to 40 CFR part 63 subpart
QQQQQ,’’ presenting 40 CFR
63.9540(c)(2), in Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2017–0358.
E. What are the effective and
compliance dates of the standards?
The revisions to the NESHAP being
promulgated in this action are effective
on February 8, 2019. The compliance
date for existing affected sources,
whether subject to the existing or new
source limits in the original rule, to
comply with the revised requirements is
no later than 180 days after the effective
date of the final rule. Affected sources
that commenced construction or
reconstruction after May 3, 2018, must
comply with the all of the standards
immediately upon the effective date of
the standard, February 8, 2019, or upon
startup, whichever is later.
All affected existing facilities would
have to continue to meet the current
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
QQQQQ, until the applicable
compliance date of the amended rule.
The final action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the
effective date of the final rule will be the
promulgation date as specified in CAA
sections 112(d)(10) and 112(f)(3). For
E:\FR\FM\08FER1.SGM
08FER1
2746
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
existing sources, we are finalizing two
changes that would impact ongoing
compliance requirements for 40 CFR
part 63, subpart QQQQQ. As discussed
elsewhere in this preamble, we are
changing the requirements for SSM by
removing the exemption from the
requirements to meet the standard
during SSM periods and by removing
the requirement to develop and
implement an SSM plan. Our
experience with similar industries
shows that this sort of regulated facility
generally requires a time period of 180
days to read and understand the
amended rule requirements; evaluate
their operations to ensure that they can
meet the standards during periods of
startup and shutdown as defined in the
rule, and make any necessary
adjustments in their practice of
reporting deviations per the rule’s
revised requirements; adjust parameter
monitoring and recording systems to
accommodate revisions; and update
their operations to reflect the revised
requirements. From our assessment of
the timeframe needed for compliance
with the entirety of the revised
requirements, the EPA considers a
period of 180 days to be the most
expeditious compliance period
practicable and, thus, is finalizing that
existing affected sources must be in
compliance with all of this regulation’s
revised requirements within 180 days of
the regulation’s effective date.
IV. What is the rationale for our final
decisions and amendments for the
Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities source category?
For each issue, this section provides
a description of what we proposed and
what we are finalizing, the EPA’s
rationale for the final decisions and
amendments, and a summary of key
comments and responses. For all
comments not discussed in this
preamble, comment summaries and the
EPA’s responses can be found in the
comment summary and response
document available in the docket, EPA–
HQ–OAR–2017–0358.
Pmangrum on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
A. Residual Risk Review for the Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities
Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to
CAA section 112(f) for the Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities
source category?
For the 40 CFR part 63, subpart
QQQQQ, category risk assessment
conducted at proposal, the EPA
estimated risks based on actual and
allowable emissions from the two
facilities subject to the Friction
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:11 Feb 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
Materials Manufacturing Facilities
NESHAP. Allowable emissions for the
Railroad Friction Products Corporation
(RFPC) at proposal were estimated to be
equal to actual emissions. Allowable
emissions for Knowlton Technologies
LLC were set to the standard minimum
of 70 percent of what otherwise would
be emitted. The estimated inhalation
cancer risk to the individual most
exposed to emissions from the source
category was less than 1-in-1-million.
The assessment showed that no people
faced an increased cancer risk greater
than 1-in-1 million due to inhalation
exposure to HAP emissions from this
source category. The risk analysis at
proposal indicated very low cancer
incidence (0.000005 excess cancer cases
per year, or one excess case every
200,000 years), as well as low potential
for adverse chronic noncancer health
effects. The acute screening assessment
indicated no pollutants or facilities
exceeding a hazard quotient value of 1.
Therefore, we found there was little
potential concern of acute noncancer
health impacts. In evaluating the
potential for multipathway effects, no
HAP emissions known to be persistent
and bio-accumulative in the
environment were found in this source
category. Therefore, we estimate that
there is no multipathway risk from HAP
emissions from this source category.
Considering all the health risk
information, the EPA proposed that the
risks from the Friction Materials
Manufacturing Facilities source category
were acceptable, and that
implementation of the existing
standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health.
2. How did the risk review change for
the Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities source category?
In response to comments on the
proposed 40 CFR part 63, subpart
QQQQQ RTR, the EPA acknowledges
that, although the EPA’s method of
calculating cancer incidence was
implemented correctly, with the results
presented correctly in the RTR risk
report, we agree that the average risk
values provided for the demographic
analysis were calculated incorrectly.
The EPA corrected the values for the
demographics analysis and provided
those corrections in the final RTR risk
report for this source category. After
making this correction, the EPA finds
that the risks presented by HAP
emissions from this source category are
still acceptable and that the NESHAP
protects public health with an ample
margin of safety. The demographic
analysis provides information about the
demographic composition of the
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
populations exposed to HAP emissions
from this source category. The
correction to the average risk values for
the demographic analysis did not affect
any decision in this rulemaking. All
other parts of the risk review remained
unchanged from proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive
on the risk review, and what are our
responses?
We received several comments
regarding the proposed risk review and
our determination that no revisions
were warranted under CAA section
112(f)(2). Generally, the comments
misunderstood the type of data used for
the development of the risk review or
suggested changes to the underlying risk
assessment methodology. After review
of these comments, we determined that
no changes were necessary. The
comments and our specific responses
can be found in the document,
‘‘Summary of Public Comments and
Responses for Friction Materials
Manufacturing Facilities Risk and
Technology Review,’’ which is available
in the docket for this action.
These comments resulted in the EPA
correcting the demographic analysis,
which did not result in a change in the
EPA’s determination that the risks for
this source category are acceptable and
that the NESHAP protects public health
with an ample margin of safety.
Additionally, a stakeholder
commented on how the EPA set
allowable emissions equal to actual
emissions at RFPC. The EPA agrees with
the stakeholder that allowable emissions
should have been calculated by setting
the solvent mixer emissions at 30
percent of the total solvent used, which
is the requirement in the rule. However,
this would result in a lower emissions
calculation than what was used at
proposal to estimate risk at allowable
emission levels. Therefore, the EPA has
determined that the proposal risk
estimates for allowable emissions were
overestimated, and, since we found that
even with this overestimate that risks
are acceptable and that the current
standards provide an ample margin of
safety, it is not necessary to re-run the
model file in order to reflect such a
correction.
Lastly, one comment resulted in the
EPA clarifying the inclusion of
emissions that do not come from
affected sources in the source category.
The stakeholder points out that the EPA
assumes fugitive emissions are
controlled under this standard. The EPA
clarifies in the response to comments
(RTC) document that phenol and
formaldehyde emissions from Knowlton
are non-affected source fugitive
E:\FR\FM\08FER1.SGM
08FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
emissions. Including phenol and
formaldehyde in the risk model results
in a conservative assessment of risk
presented by emissions that do not
come from the affected sources in the
source category, but from other points at
the facility that are not subject to this
NESHAP.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach and final decisions for the risk
review?
We evaluated all the comments on the
EPA’s risk review and determined that
other than the change in the
demographic analysis calculation,
which did not result in a change to the
risk determination, no changes to the
review are needed. For the reasons
explained in the proposed rule, we
determined that the risks from the
Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities source category are acceptable,
and the current standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health and prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Therefore,
pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we
are finalizing our risk review
determination as proposed.
B. Technology Review for the Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities
Source Category
Pmangrum on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
1. What did we propose pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities
source category?
Our review of the developments in
technology for the Friction Materials
Manufacturing Facilities source category
did not reveal any changes in practices,
processes, and controls that warrant
revisions to the emission standards.
Because our review did not identify any
cost-effective practices, processes, or
controls to reduce emissions in the
category since promulgation of the
current NESHAP, we proposed that no
revisions to the NESHAP are necessary
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
2. How did the technology review
change for the Friction Materials
Manufacturing Facilities source
category?
The technology review did not change
from proposal. Therefore, we are
finalizing our proposal determination
that no revisions to the NESHAP are
necessary pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6).
3. What key comments did we receive
on the technology review, and what are
our responses?
We received several comments
regarding the proposed technology
review and our determination that no
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:11 Feb 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
revisions were warranted under CAA
section 112(d)(6). We received no
comments that identified improved
control technology, work practices,
operational procedures, process
changes, or pollution prevention
approaches to reduce emissions in the
category since promulgation of the
current NESHAP. Generally, the
commenters misunderstood the role of
the technology review and the
associated evaluations of technological
advancements. After review of these
comments, we determined that no
changes were necessary. The comments
and our specific responses can be found
in the document, ‘‘Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities Risk
and Technology Review,’’ which is
available in the docket for this action.
Of the comments pertaining to the
technology review, there were several
comments that addressed the EPA’s
discussion of non-solvent mixers.
Several comments addressed the
concern that the EPA was appearing to
endorse facilities’ averaging among
mixers in order to comply with the
standard. The EPA stated in the RTC
document and reiterates here that
compliance determinations are not part
of the RTR, that the current standards
apply on a mixer-by-mixer basis, and
that the EPA is not proposing any
changes to the source category or
affected source definitions in this
action.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach for the technology review?
Our technology review looked for
add-on control technology that was not
identified during the original NESHAP
development and for improvements to
existing add-on controls. We also looked
for new work practices, operational
procedures, process changes, pollution
prevention alternatives, coating
formulations, or application techniques
that have the potential to reduce
emissions. Since our review did not
identify any cost-effective improved
control technology, work practices,
operational procedures, process
changes, or pollution prevention
approaches to reduce emissions in the
category since promulgation of the
current NESHAP, we proposed that no
revisions to the NESHAP are necessary
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
Since proposal, no information has been
presented to cause us to change the
proposed determination. Consequently,
we are finalizing our CAA section
112(d)(6) determination as proposed.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2747
C. SSM
1. What did we propose for the Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities
source category?
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v.
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the
Court vacated portions of two
provisions in the EPA’s CAA section
112 General Provisions regulations
governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court
vacated the SSM exemption contained
in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR
63.6(h)(1), holding that under section
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards
or limitations must be continuous in
nature and that the SSM exemption
violates the CAA’s requirement that
some CAA section 112 standards apply
continuously.
We proposed amendments to the
Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities NESHAP to remove or revise
provisions related to SSM that are not
consistent with the requirement that the
standards apply at all times. More
information concerning SSM is in the
preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR
19499).
2. How did the SSM provisions change
for the Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities source category?
The SSM provisions did not change
from proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive
on the SSM provisions, and what are
our responses?
We received one comment supporting
our proposed changes to the SSM
provisions. The EPA acknowledges the
comment supporting the proposed
changes.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach for the SSM provisions?
We evaluated the comment on the
EPA’s proposed amendments to the
SSM provisions. For the reasons
explained in the proposed rule, we
determined that these amendments
remove or revise provisions related to
SSM that are not consistent with the
requirement that the standards apply at
all times. More information concerning
the proposed amendments to the SSM
provisions is in the preamble to the
proposed rule (83 FR 19499). We are
finalizing the amendments to remove or
revise provisions related to SSM, as
proposed.
E:\FR\FM\08FER1.SGM
08FER1
2748
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental,
and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
There are currently two friction
materials manufacturing facilities
operating in the United States that are
subject to the Friction Materials
Manufacturing Facilities NESHAP. The
40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ,
affected source is the solvent mixers
used for friction manufacturing
products. A new affected source is a
completely new friction products
manufacturing source where previously
no friction products manufacturing had
existed.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
At the current level of control, the
EPA estimates emissions of total HAP
are approximately 240 tpy. Because we
are not finalizing revisions to the
emission limits other than to make them
applicable during SSM periods, we do
not anticipate any air quality impacts as
a result of the proposed amendments,
since facilities are already in
compliance with emission limits during
all periods, including SSM.
C. What are the cost impacts?
The two existing friction materials
manufacturing facilities that are subject
to the final amendments would incur a
net cost savings resulting from the
revised recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. The 2016 equivalent
annualized value (in 2016 dollars) of
these net cost savings from 2019
through 2026 is $5,920 per year when
costs are discounted at a 7-percent rate,
and $6,648 per year when costs are
discounted at a 3-percent rate. For
further information on the costs and
cost savings associated with the
requirements being revised, see the
memorandum, ‘‘Economic Impact
Analysis for Friction Material
Manufacturing Final Rule,’’ and the
document, ‘‘Friction Materials
Manufacturing 2018 Supporting
Statement,’’ which are both available in
the docket for this action.
D. What are the economic impacts?
As noted earlier, this action will
result in a net cost savings to affected
entities. This cost savings is not
expected to have adverse economic
impacts.
E. What are the benefits?
The EPA did not change any of the
emission limit requirements and
estimates the final changes to SSM,
recordkeeping, reporting, and
monitoring are not economically
significant. Because these final
amendments are not considered
economically significant, as defined by
Executive Order 12866 and because no
emission reductions were estimated, we
did not estimate any benefits from
reducing emissions.
F. What analysis of environmental
justice did we conduct?
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
To examine the potential for any
environmental justice issues that might
be associated with the source category,
we performed a demographic analysis,
which is an assessment of risks to
individual demographic groups of the
populations living within 5 kilometers
(km) and within 50 km of the facilities.
In the analysis, we evaluated the
distribution of HAP-related cancer and
noncancer risks from the Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities
source category across different
demographic groups within the
populations living near facilities.2
The results of the demographic
analysis was updated from proposal to
reflect corrections made to the analysis
from comments received by the EPA
and are summarized in Table 2 below.
These results, for various demographic
groups, are based on the estimated risks
from actual emissions levels for the
population living within 50 km of the
facilities.
TABLE 2—FRICTION MATERIALS MANUFACTURING FACILITIES SOURCE CATEGORY DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS
Population with
cancer risk at
or above 1-in-1
million due to
Friction
Materials
Manufacturing
Facilities 1
Pmangrum on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Nationwide
Total Population .........................................................................................................
Race by Percent:
White ..........................................................................................................................
All Other Races .........................................................................................................
Race by Percent:
White ..........................................................................................................................
African American .......................................................................................................
Native American ........................................................................................................
Other and Multiracial .................................................................................................
Ethnicity by Percent:
Hispanic .....................................................................................................................
Non-Hispanic .............................................................................................................
Income by Percent:
Below Poverty Level ..................................................................................................
Above Poverty Level ..................................................................................................
Education by Percent:
2 Demographic groups included in the analysis
are: White, African American, Native American,
other races and multiracial, Hispanic or Latino,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:11 Feb 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
317,746,049
0
0
62
38
0
0
0
0
62
12
0.8
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
82
0
0
0
0
14
86
0
0
0
0
children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 64
years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults
without a high school diploma, people living below
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Population with
chronic hazard
index above 1
Friction
Materials
Manufacturing
Facilities
the poverty level, people living two times the
poverty level, and linguistically isolated people.
E:\FR\FM\08FER1.SGM
08FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
2749
TABLE 2—FRICTION MATERIALS MANUFACTURING FACILITIES SOURCE CATEGORY DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS
RESULTS—Continued
Population with
cancer risk at
or above 1-in-1
million due to
Friction
Materials
Manufacturing
Facilities 1
Nationwide
Over 25 and without High School Diploma ...............................................................
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma .................................................................
Linguistically Isolated by Percent:
Linguistically Isolated .................................................................................................
Pmangrum on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
1 Based
Population with
chronic hazard
index above 1
Friction
Materials
Manufacturing
Facilities
14
86
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
on actual emissions in the category.
The results of the Friction Materials
Manufacturing Facilities source category
demographic analysis indicate that
emissions from the source category do
not expose people to a cancer risk at or
above 1-in-1 million based on actual or
allowable emissions. Also, no people
are exposed to a chronic noncancer
target organ-specific hazard index
greater than 1 based on actual or
allowable emissions. The percentages of
the at-risk population are much smaller
than their respective nationwide
percentages for all demographic groups.
The EPA received comment on our
proposed rule stating that we ignored
unacceptably disproportionate effects
on environmental justice communities.
As noted above, we corrected our
demographic analysis. For this source
category, cancer risks were less than 1in-1 million and the noncancer hazards
were less than 1. At these risk levels, all
populations are exposed to an
acceptable level with an ample margin
of safety without any demographic
group (including Native American
Indians) being disproportionately
impacted. A more detailed demographic
risk analysis may be conducted at the
facility level if risk findings for the
source category indicate a level that is
unacceptable without an ample margin
of safety.
The EPA has, therefore, reaffirmed its
determination that this final rule will
not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low income, or
indigenous populations because it
maintains the level of environmental
protection for all affected populations
without having any disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any
population, including any minority, low
income, or indigenous populations.
The methodology and the results of
the demographic analysis are presented
in a technical report, ‘‘Risk and
Technology Review—Analysis of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:11 Feb 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Friction Materials
Manufacturing Facilities Source
Category,’’ available in Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0358 for this
action.
G. What analysis of children’s
environmental health did we conduct?
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action’s health and risk
assessments are contained in ‘‘Residual
Risk Assessment for the Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities
Source Category in Support of the 2018
Risk and Technology Review Final
Rule,’’ available in Docket ID No.
EPAHQ–OAR–2017–0358 for this
action.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was, therefore, not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This action is considered an
Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated cost
savings of this final rule can be found
in the EPA’s analysis of the potential
costs and benefits associated with this
action.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities
in this rule have been submitted for
approval to OMB under the PRA. The
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document that the EPA prepared has
been assigned EPA ICR number 2025.08.
You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here. The information
collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
We are finalizing changes to the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with 40 CFR
part 63, subpart QQQQQ, in the form of
eliminating the SSM plan and reporting
requirements and increasing reporting
requirements for the semiannual report
of deviation. We also recalculated the
estimated recordkeeping burden for
records of SSM to more accurately
represent the removal of the SSM
exemption, which is discussed in more
detail in the memorandum, ‘‘Email
Correspondence Estimating the Cost of
SSM Reporting with Knowlton
Technologies, LLC.’’
Respondents/affected entities: The
respondents to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are owners or
operators of facilities that produce
friction products subject to 40 CFR part
63, subpart QQQQQ.
Respondent’s obligation to respond:
Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart
QQQQQ).
Estimated number of respondents:
Two facilities.
Frequency of response: Initially and
semiannually.
Total estimated burden: The annual
recordkeeping and reporting burden for
responding facilities to comply with all
of the requirements in the NESHAP,
averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is
estimated to be 535 hours (per year). Of
these, 115 hours (per year) is the
reduced burden to comply with the rule
amendments. Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
E:\FR\FM\08FER1.SGM
08FER1
2750
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
Total estimated cost: The annual
recordkeeping and reporting cost for
responding facilities to comply with all
of the requirements in the NESHAP,
averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is
estimated to be $35,200 (rounded, per
year), including $544 annualized capital
or operation and maintenance costs.
This results in a decrease of $7,400
(rounded, per year) to comply with the
amendments to the rule.
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 the EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When
OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will
announce that approval in the Federal
Register and publish a technical
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display
the OMB control number for the
approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This action will not
impose any requirements on small
entities. There are no small entities in
this regulated industry.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain an
unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The
action imposes no enforceable duty on
any state, local, or tribal governments,
or the private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
Pmangrum on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. No tribal facilities are
known to be engaged in the friction
material manufacturing industry that
would be affected by this action. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:11 Feb 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action’s health and risk
assessments are contained in sections
III.A and IV.A and B of this preamble.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This action involves technical
standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted a search to identify
potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards. However, the
Agency identified no such standards.
Therefore, the EPA has decided to
continue the use of the weighing
procedures based on EPA Method 28 of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A (section
10.1) for weighing of recovered solvent.
A thorough summary of the search
conducted and results are included in
the memorandum titled ‘‘Voluntary
Consensus Standard Results for Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities
Residual Risk and Technology Review,’’
which is available in the docket for this
action.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does
not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous
peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision
is contained in the technical report,
‘‘Friction Materials Manufacturing
Demographic Analysis,’’ which is
available in the docket for this action.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: December 20, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting 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—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart QQQQQ—National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities
2. Section 63.9495 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (b) and
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
■
§ 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, except as
otherwise specified at this section and
§§ 63.9505, 63.9530, 63.9540, 63.9545,
and Table 1 to this subpart.
(b) If you have a new or reconstructed
solvent mixer for which construction or
reconstruction commenced after
October 18, 2002, but before May 4,
2018, you must comply with the
requirements for new and reconstructed
sources upon initial startup, except as
otherwise specified at this section and
§§ 63.9505, 63.9530, 63.9540, 63.9545,
and Table 1 to this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Solvent mixers constructed or
reconstructed after May 3, 2018, must be
in compliance with this subpart at
startup or by February 8, 2019,
whichever is later.
■ 3. Revise § 63.9505 to read as follows:
§ 63.9505 What are my general
requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) Before August 7, 2019, for each
existing source and each new or
reconstructed source for which
construction or reconstruction
commenced after October 18, 2002, but
E:\FR\FM\08FER1.SGM
08FER1
Pmangrum on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
before May 4, 2018, you must be in
compliance with the emission
limitations in this subpart at all times,
except during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction. On and after
August 7, 2019, for each such source
you must be in compliance with the
emission limitations in this subpart at
all times. For new and reconstructed
sources for which construction or
reconstruction commenced after May 3,
2018, you must be in compliance with
the emissions limitations in this subpart
at all times.
(b) Before August 7, 2019, for each
existing source, and for each new or
reconstructed source for which
construction or reconstruction
commenced after October 18, 2002, but
before May 4, 2018, you must always
operate and maintain your affected
source, including air pollution control
and monitoring equipment, according to
the provisions in § 63.6(e)(1)(i). On and
after August 7, 2019 for each such
source, and after February 8, 2019 for
new and reconstructed sources for
which construction or reconstruction
commenced after May 3, 2018, at all
times you must operate and maintain
any affected source, including
associated air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment,
in a manner consistent with safety and
good air pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions. The general duty
to minimize emissions does not require
you to make any further efforts to
reduce emissions if levels required by
the applicable standard have been
achieved. Determination of whether a
source is operating in compliance with
operation and maintenance
requirements will be based on
information available to the
Administrator which may include, but
is not limited to, monitoring results,
review of operation and maintenance
procedures, review of operation and
maintenance records, and inspection of
the source.
(c) Before August 7, 2019, for each
existing source, and for each new or
reconstructed source for which
construction commenced after October
18, 2002, but before May 4, 2018, you
must develop a written startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan
according to the provisions in
§ 63.6(e)(3). For each such source, a
startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan is not required on and after August
7, 2019. No startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan is required for any
new or reconstructed source for which
construction or reconstruction
commenced after May 3, 2018.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:11 Feb 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
4. Section 63.9530 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (e) to read
as follows:
■
§ 63.9530 How do I demonstrate
continuous compliance with the emission
limitation that applies to me?
(a) * * *
(1) For existing sources and for new
or reconstructed sources for which
construction or reconstruction
commenced after October 18, 2002, but
before May 4, 2018, before August 7,
2019, except for during malfunctions of
your weight measurement device and
associated repairs, you must collect and
record the information required in
§ 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. On and after August 7,
2019 for such sources, and after
February 8, 2019 for new or
reconstructed sources that commenced
construction after May 3, 2018, you
must collect and record the information
required in § 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.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) For existing sources and for new
or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or
reconstruction after October 18, 2002,
but before May 4, 2018, before August
7, 2019, consistent with §§ 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 § 63.6(e)(1). The
Administrator will determine whether
deviations that occur during a period of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction are
violations, according to the provisions
in § 63.6(e). On and after August 7, 2019
for such sources, and after February 8,
2019 for new or reconstructed sources
which commence construction or
reconstruction after May 3, 2018, all
deviations are considered violations.
■ 5. Section 63.9540 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(4), (c)(2), and (d)
to read as follows:
§ 63.9540
when?
What reports must I submit and
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) For existing sources and for new
or reconstructed sources for which
construction or reconstruction
commenced after October 18, 2002, but
before May 4, 2018, before August 7,
2019, if you had a startup, shutdown, or
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2751
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
§ 63.10(d)(5)(i). A startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan is not required for
such sources on and after August 7,
2019.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) For existing sources and for new
or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or
reconstruction after October 18, 2002,
but before May 4, 2018, before August
7, 2019, information on the number,
duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if
applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken. On and after
August 7, 2019 for such sources, and
after February 8, 2019 for new or
reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or
reconstruction after May 3, 2018,
information on the number of deviations
to meet an emission limitation. For each
instance, include the date, time,
duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if
applicable), as applicable, a list of the
affected source or equipment, an
estimate of the quantity of each
regulated pollutant emitted over any
emission limit, and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions,
and the corrective action taken.
(d) For existing sources and for new
or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or
reconstruction after October 18, 2002,
but before May 4, 2018, before August
7, 2019, 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 § 63.10(d)(5)(ii). An
immediate startup, shutdown, and
malfunction report is not required for
such sources on and after August 7,
2019.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Section 63.9545 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding
paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
§ 63.9545
What records must I keep?
(a) * * *
(2) For existing sources and for new
or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or
reconstruction after October 18, 2002,
but before May 4, 2018, before August
7, 2019, the records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii)
E:\FR\FM\08FER1.SGM
08FER1
2752
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
through (v) related to startup, shutdown,
or malfunction. For such sources, it is
not required to keep records in
§ 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to
startup, shutdown, or malfunction on
and after August 7, 2019.
(3) After February 8, 2019 for new or
reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or
reconstruction after May 3, 2018, and on
and after August 7, 2019 for all other
affected sources, in the event that an
affected unit fails to meet an applicable
standard, record the number of
deviations. For each deviation, record
the date, time and duration of each
deviation.
(i) For each deviation, record and
retain cause of deviations (including
unknown cause, if applicable), a list of
the affected source or equipment, an
estimate of the quantity of each
regulated pollutant emitted over any
emission limit, and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions.
(ii) Record actions taken to minimize
emissions in accordance with § 63.9505,
and any corrective actions taken to
return the affected unit to its normal or
usual manner of operation.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. Table 1 to subpart QQQQQ of part
63 is amended by:
■ a. Removing the entry ‘‘§ 63.6(a)–(c),
(e)–(f), (i)–(j)’’;
■ b. Adding the entries ‘‘§ 63.6(a)–(c),
(i)–(j)’’, ‘‘§ 63.6(e)(1)(i)–(ii)’’,
‘‘§ 63.6(e)(1)(iii), (e)(2)’’, ‘‘§ 63.6(e)(3)’’,
‘‘§ 63.6(f)(1)’’, and ‘‘§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3)’’ in
numerical order;
■ c. Removing the entry ‘‘§ 63.8(a)(1)–
(2), (b), (c)(1)–(3), (f)(1)–(5)’’;
■ d. Adding the entries ‘‘§ 63.8(a)(1)–
(2)’’, ‘‘§ 63.8(b)’’, ‘‘§ 63.8(c)(1)(i), (iii)’’,
‘‘§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(2), (c)(3)’’, and
‘‘§ 63.8(f)(1)–(5)’’ in numerical order;
■ e. Removing the entry ‘‘§ 63.10(a), (b),
(d)(1), (d)(4)–(5), (e)(3), (f)’’; and
■ f. Adding the entries ‘‘§ 63.10(a),
(b)(1), (d)(1), (d)(4), (e)(3), (f)’’,
‘‘§ 63.10(b)(2)(i), (ii), (iv), (v)’’,
‘‘§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii), (vi)–(xiv)’’, and
‘‘§ 63.10(d)(5)’’ in numerical order.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART QQQQQ OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART QQQQQ
*
*
*
*
*
Citation
Subject
*
§ 63.6(a)–(c), (i)–
(j).
*
Compliance with
Standards and
Maintenance
Requirements.
*
§ 63.6(e)(1)(i)–(ii)
*
SSM Operation
and Maintenance Requirements.
*
*
*
No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after May 3, 2018. Yes, for all other affected
sources before August 7, 2019, and No thereafter.
§ 63.6(e)(1)(iii),
(e)(2).
§ 63.6(e)(3) ........
Operation and
Maintenance.
SSM Plan Requirements.
Yes.
§ 63.6(f)(1) .........
SSM Exemption
§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ..
Compliance with
Nonopacity
Emission
Standards.
*
§ 63.8(a)(1)–(2)
*
Applicability and
Relevant
Standards for
CMS.
*
§ 63.8(b) ............
*
Conduct of Monitoring.
Continuous Monitoring System
(CMS) SSM
Requirements.
CMS Repairs,
Operating Parameters, and
Performance
Tests.
§ 63.8(c)(1)(i),
(iii).
Pmangrum on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
*
§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii),
(c)(2), (c)(3).
*
§ 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ..
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Applies to subpart QQQQQ?
*
Alternative Monitoring Procedure.
15:11 Feb 07, 2019
*
*
*
Explanation
*
*
*
Yes.
No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after May 3, 2018. Yes, for all other affected
sources before August 7, 2019, and No thereafter.
No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after May 3, 2018. Yes, for all other affected
sources before August 7, 2019, and No thereafter.
Yes.
*
*
Subpart QQQQQ requires affected units to meet emissions
standards at all times. See
§ 63.9505 for general duty requirement.
Subpart QQQQQ requires affected units to meet emissions
standards at all times.
Subpart QQQQQ requires affected units to meet emissions
standards at all times.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Yes.
Yes.
No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after May 3, 2018. Yes, for all other affected
sources before August 7, 2019, and No thereafter..
Yes.
*
*
*
Yes.
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\08FER1.SGM
08FER1
2753
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART QQQQQ OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART QQQQQ—
Continued
*
*
Citation
*
Subject
*
Recordkeeping
and Reporting
Requirements.
*
§ 63.10(b)(2)(i),
(ii), (iv), (v).
*
Recordkeeping
for Startup,
Shutdown and
Malfunction.
Owner/Operator
Recordkeeping
Requirements.
*
§ 63.10(d)(5) ......
*
SSM reports ......
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
See § 63.9545 for recordkeeping
requirements.
Yes.
*
*
*
No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after May 3, 2018. Yes, for all other affected
sources before August 7, 2019, and No thereafter.
*
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 5, 73, and 74
[MB Docket No. 18–121; FCC 18–174]
Posting of Station Licenses and
Related Information
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC or
Commission) eliminates provisions of
our rules that require broadcasters to
post and maintain copies of their
licenses and related information in
specific locations. These rules have
become redundant and obsolete now
that licensing information is readily
accessible online through the
Commission’s databases, including
CDBS, LMS, and ULS. It therefore finds
that eliminating these rules, which
apply in some form to all broadcast
licensees, will serve the public interest.
DATES: Effective February 8, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information, contact Jonathan
Mark, Jonathan.Mark@fcc.gov, of the
Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202)
418–3634. Direct press inquiries to
Janice Wise at (202) 418–8165.
SUMMARY:
Jkt 247001
*
This is a
summary of the Commission’s Report
and Order (Order), FCC 18–174, adopted
December 10, 2018 and released on
December 11, 2018. The full text of this
document is available electronically via
the FCC’s Electronic Document
Management System (EDOCS) website
at https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/
or via the FCC’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS) website at https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. (Documents will
be available electronically in ASCII,
Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.)
This document is also available for
public inspection and copying during
regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Information Center, which is
located in Room CY–A257 at FCC
Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20554. The Reference
Information Center is open to the public
Monday through Thursday from 8:00
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00
a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The complete text
may be purchased from the
Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th
Street, SW, Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554. Alternative
formats are available for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), by
sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or
calling the Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
*
*
See § 63.9540 for malfunction reporting requirements.
*
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Pmangrum on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
*
*
Explanation
*
*
*
No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after May 3, 2018. Yes, for all other affected
sources before August 7, 2019, and No thereafter.
*
15:11 Feb 07, 2019
*
Yes.
[FR Doc. 2019–00786 Filed 2–7–19; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
Applies to subpart QQQQQ?
*
§ 63.10(a),
(b)(1), (d)(1),
(d)(4), (e)(3),
(f).
§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii),
(vi)–(xiv).
*
Sfmt 4700
*
*
Synopsis
I. Report and Order
1. In this Report and Order (Order),
we eliminate the provisions in parts 1,
5, 73 and 74 of our rules that require the
posting and maintenance of broadcast
licenses and related information in
specific locations.1 In May 2018, the
Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (83 FR
30901) seeking comment on whether to
eliminate license posting rules that
appeared to be redundant and obsolete
now that licensing information is
readily accessible online through the
Commission’s databases. Commenters in
this proceeding unanimously support
the elimination of these rules. As
detailed below, we find that eliminating
these requirements, which apply in
some form to all broadcast licensees,
will serve the public interest. In doing
so, we advance the Commission’s goal
of modernizing our media rules and
remove unnecessary regulatory burdens
that impede competition and innovation
in the media marketplace.
2. Broadcast license posting rules
predate the establishment of the
Commission. As explained in the
NPRM, the Federal Radio Commission
promulgated the earliest iteration of
broadcast license posting requirements
on record in 1930. Subsequent
Commission decisions revised and
1 By this Order, we also eliminate provisions in
our rules which reference or cross-reference
broadcast license posting rules.
E:\FR\FM\08FER1.SGM
08FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 27 (Friday, February 8, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2742-2753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00786]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0358; FRL-9988-69-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT66
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities Residual Risk and
Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities
source category regulated under national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final
action addressing periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM).
We are finalizing our proposed determination that the risks from the
category are acceptable and that the current NESHAP provides an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. We identified no new cost-
effective controls under the technology review to achieve further
emissions reductions. These final amendments include amendments to
revise reporting requirements for deviations. These amendments are made
under the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and will improve the
effectiveness of the rule. The amendments are environmentally neutral.
DATES: This final rule is effective on February 8, 2019.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0358. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST),
Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room
is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Docket Center is
(202) 566-1742.
[[Page 2743]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Korbin Smith, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-2416; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email
address: smith.korbin@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the
risk modeling methodology, contact James Hirtz, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0881;
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: hirtz.james@epa.gov. For
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact Sara Ayres, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA WJC South
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (312) 353-6266; and email address: ayres.sara@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
ICR Information Collection Request
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RFPC Railroad Friction Products Corporation
RTC response to comment
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Background information. On May 3, 2018, the EPA proposed revisions
to the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities NESHAP based on our
RTR. In this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the
rule. We summarize some of the more significant comments we timely
received regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this
preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and
the EPA's responses to those comments is available in ``Summary of
Public Comments and Responses for Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities Risk and Technology Review,'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0358. A ``track changes'' version of the regulatory language that
incorporates the changes in this action is available in the docket.
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities
source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from
the source category?
C. What changes did we propose for the Friction Materials
Manufacturing Facilities source category in our May 3, 2018,
proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities source category?
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities source
category?
C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of SSM?
D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities source category?
A. Residual Risk Review for the Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities Source Category
B. Technology Review for the Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities Source Category
C. SSM
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP and source category NAICS \1\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friction Materials Manufacturing 33634, 327999, 333613.
Facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://
[[Page 2744]]
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/friction-materials-
manufacturing-facilities-national-emission. Following publication in
the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version
and key technical documents at this same website.
Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an
overview of the RTR program, links to project websites for the RTR
source categories, and detailed emissions and other data we used as
inputs to the risk assessments.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action
is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by
April 9, 2019. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the
requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources''
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly
referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards
and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques,
including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination
of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 83 FR 19499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What is the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities source
category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source
category?
The EPA promulgated the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities
NESHAP on October 18, 2002 (67 FR 64498). The standards are codified at
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 63, subpart QQQQQ. The
Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities industry consists of
facilities that manufacture 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, blocks, brake discs,
clutch facings, and clutches. The source category covered by this MACT
standard currently includes two facilities.
[[Page 2745]]
The affected source is each friction material manufacturing solvent
mixer. The NESHAP regulates emissions of HAP through emission standards
for solvent, which are emitted from solvent mixers. Facilities subject
to the NESHAP must reduce the emissions by using solvent recovery or
another approved method. The emission standards are the same for new
and existing solvent mixers, but are different for small and large
solvent mixers. The emission limit for new, reconstructed, and existing
large solvent mixers requires each facility that operates a large
solvent mixer to 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. The emission limit for new, reconstructed, and
existing small solvent mixers requires facilities operating small
solvent mixers to 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.
C. What changes did we propose for the Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities source category in our May 3, 2018, proposal?
On May 3, 2018, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register for the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities NESHAP, 40
CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ, that took into consideration the RTR
analyses. In the proposed rule, we proposed revisions to the SSM
provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent
with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir.
2008), which vacated two provisions in the EPA's ``General Provisions''
implementing CAA section 112 at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, that
exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM.
In addition, we proposed to revise the rule's reporting requirements
for deviations.
III. What is included in this final rule?
This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities source category. This action also finalizes other changes to
the NESHAP, including amendments to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule
and revisions to the rule's reporting requirements for deviations.
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities source category?
The EPA proposed no changes to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ,
NESHAP based on the risk review conducted pursuant to CAA section
112(f). We are finalizing our proposed determination that risks from
the source category following implementation of MACT standards are
acceptable, considering all the health information and factors
evaluated, and also considering risk estimation uncertainty. The EPA
received no new data or other information during the public comment
period that affected our determinations. Therefore, we are not
requiring additional controls and, thus, are not making any revisions
to the existing standards, in order to meet the requirements of CAA
section 112(f). (However, as previously noted, we are making limited
changes in order to improve implementation and to conform our standards
to the 2008 Sierra Club ruling regarding SSM.)
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities source category?
We determined that there are no developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT
standards for this source category. The EPA received no new data or
other information during the public comment period that affected our
determinations. Therefore, we are not finalizing revisions to the MACT
standards in order to meet the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6).
(Again, however, we are making limited changes for other purposes, as
previously noted and explained in detail below.)
C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of SSM?
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 ``General Provisions'' regulations governing the
emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated
the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1),
holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or
limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption
violates the CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards
apply continuously.
We have eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with
Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has established standards in this rule that
apply at all times. We have also revised Table 4 to subpart QQQQQ of
Part 63 (the General Provisions applicability table) in several
respects as is explained in more detail below. For example, we have
eliminated the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement
that the source develop an SSM plan. We have also eliminated and
revised certain recordkeeping and reporting that are related to the SSM
exemption as described in detail in the proposal and summarized below.
D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
The EPA is promulgating revisions to the rule's reporting
requirements at 40 CFR 63.9540(c)(2) for deviations by requiring
facilities to now report the date, time, a list of affected sources or
equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions, and the corrective action taken. In addition,
facilities must continue to report the number, duration, and cause of
deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable). To see how the
revised regulatory text compares to the previous text, see the
document, ``Redline Version Showing Proposed Changes to 40 CFR part 63
subpart QQQQQ,'' presenting 40 CFR 63.9540(c)(2), in Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0358.
E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
The revisions to the NESHAP being promulgated in this action are
effective on February 8, 2019. The compliance date for existing
affected sources, whether subject to the existing or new source limits
in the original rule, to comply with the revised requirements is no
later than 180 days after the effective date of the final rule.
Affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after
May 3, 2018, must comply with the all of the standards immediately upon
the effective date of the standard, February 8, 2019, or upon startup,
whichever is later.
All affected existing facilities would have to continue to meet the
current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ, until the
applicable compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date
of the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA
sections 112(d)(10) and 112(f)(3). For
[[Page 2746]]
existing sources, we are finalizing two changes that would impact
ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ. As
discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are changing the requirements
for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the
standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop
and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar industries shows
that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period
of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements;
evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards
during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule, and make
any necessary adjustments in their practice of reporting deviations per
the rule's revised requirements; adjust parameter monitoring and
recording systems to accommodate revisions; and update their operations
to reflect the revised requirements. From our assessment of the
timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised
requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most
expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is finalizing that
existing affected sources must be in compliance with all of this
regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of the regulation's
effective date.
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities source category?
For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing, the EPA's rationale for the final
decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and responses.
For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and
the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary and response
document available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0358.
A. Residual Risk Review for the Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities source category?
For the 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ, category risk assessment
conducted at proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and
allowable emissions from the two facilities subject to the Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities NESHAP. Allowable emissions for the
Railroad Friction Products Corporation (RFPC) at proposal were
estimated to be equal to actual emissions. Allowable emissions for
Knowlton Technologies LLC were set to the standard minimum of 70
percent of what otherwise would be emitted. The estimated inhalation
cancer risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from the source
category was less than 1-in-1-million. The assessment showed that no
people faced an increased cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million due
to inhalation exposure to HAP emissions from this source category. The
risk analysis at proposal indicated very low cancer incidence (0.000005
excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 200,000 years),
as well as low potential for adverse chronic noncancer health effects.
The acute screening assessment indicated no pollutants or facilities
exceeding a hazard quotient value of 1. Therefore, we found there was
little potential concern of acute noncancer health impacts. In
evaluating the potential for multipathway effects, no HAP emissions
known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment were
found in this source category. Therefore, we estimate that there is no
multipathway risk from HAP emissions from this source category.
Considering all the health risk information, the EPA proposed that the
risks from the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities source
category were acceptable, and that implementation of the existing
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
2. How did the risk review change for the Friction Materials
Manufacturing Facilities source category?
In response to comments on the proposed 40 CFR part 63, subpart
QQQQQ RTR, the EPA acknowledges that, although the EPA's method of
calculating cancer incidence was implemented correctly, with the
results presented correctly in the RTR risk report, we agree that the
average risk values provided for the demographic analysis were
calculated incorrectly. The EPA corrected the values for the
demographics analysis and provided those corrections in the final RTR
risk report for this source category. After making this correction, the
EPA finds that the risks presented by HAP emissions from this source
category are still acceptable and that the NESHAP protects public
health with an ample margin of safety. The demographic analysis
provides information about the demographic composition of the
populations exposed to HAP emissions from this source category. The
correction to the average risk values for the demographic analysis did
not affect any decision in this rulemaking. All other parts of the risk
review remained unchanged from proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
We received several comments regarding the proposed risk review and
our determination that no revisions were warranted under CAA section
112(f)(2). Generally, the comments misunderstood the type of data used
for the development of the risk review or suggested changes to the
underlying risk assessment methodology. After review of these comments,
we determined that no changes were necessary. The comments and our
specific responses can be found in the document, ``Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities
Risk and Technology Review,'' which is available in the docket for this
action.
These comments resulted in the EPA correcting the demographic
analysis, which did not result in a change in the EPA's determination
that the risks for this source category are acceptable and that the
NESHAP protects public health with an ample margin of safety.
Additionally, a stakeholder commented on how the EPA set allowable
emissions equal to actual emissions at RFPC. The EPA agrees with the
stakeholder that allowable emissions should have been calculated by
setting the solvent mixer emissions at 30 percent of the total solvent
used, which is the requirement in the rule. However, this would result
in a lower emissions calculation than what was used at proposal to
estimate risk at allowable emission levels. Therefore, the EPA has
determined that the proposal risk estimates for allowable emissions
were overestimated, and, since we found that even with this
overestimate that risks are acceptable and that the current standards
provide an ample margin of safety, it is not necessary to re-run the
model file in order to reflect such a correction.
Lastly, one comment resulted in the EPA clarifying the inclusion of
emissions that do not come from affected sources in the source
category. The stakeholder points out that the EPA assumes fugitive
emissions are controlled under this standard. The EPA clarifies in the
response to comments (RTC) document that phenol and formaldehyde
emissions from Knowlton are non-affected source fugitive
[[Page 2747]]
emissions. Including phenol and formaldehyde in the risk model results
in a conservative assessment of risk presented by emissions that do not
come from the affected sources in the source category, but from other
points at the facility that are not subject to this NESHAP.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
We evaluated all the comments on the EPA's risk review and
determined that other than the change in the demographic analysis
calculation, which did not result in a change to the risk
determination, no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons
explained in the proposed rule, we determined that the risks from the
Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities source category are
acceptable, and the current standards provide an ample margin of safety
to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect.
Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing our
risk review determination as proposed.
B. Technology Review for the Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the
Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities source category?
Our review of the developments in technology for the Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities source category did not reveal any
changes in practices, processes, and controls that warrant revisions to
the emission standards. Because our review did not identify any cost-
effective practices, processes, or controls to reduce emissions in the
category since promulgation of the current NESHAP, we proposed that no
revisions to the NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6).
2. How did the technology review change for the Friction Materials
Manufacturing Facilities source category?
The technology review did not change from proposal. Therefore, we
are finalizing our proposal determination that no revisions to the
NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
We received several comments regarding the proposed technology
review and our determination that no revisions were warranted under CAA
section 112(d)(6). We received no comments that identified improved
control technology, work practices, operational procedures, process
changes, or pollution prevention approaches to reduce emissions in the
category since promulgation of the current NESHAP. Generally, the
commenters misunderstood the role of the technology review and the
associated evaluations of technological advancements. After review of
these comments, we determined that no changes were necessary. The
comments and our specific responses can be found in the document,
``Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Friction Materials
Manufacturing Facilities Risk and Technology Review,'' which is
available in the docket for this action.
Of the comments pertaining to the technology review, there were
several comments that addressed the EPA's discussion of non-solvent
mixers. Several comments addressed the concern that the EPA was
appearing to endorse facilities' averaging among mixers in order to
comply with the standard. The EPA stated in the RTC document and
reiterates here that compliance determinations are not part of the RTR,
that the current standards apply on a mixer-by-mixer basis, and that
the EPA is not proposing any changes to the source category or affected
source definitions in this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
Our technology review looked for add-on control technology that was
not identified during the original NESHAP development and for
improvements to existing add-on controls. We also looked for new work
practices, operational procedures, process changes, pollution
prevention alternatives, coating formulations, or application
techniques that have the potential to reduce emissions. Since our
review did not identify any cost-effective improved control technology,
work practices, operational procedures, process changes, or pollution
prevention approaches to reduce emissions in the category since
promulgation of the current NESHAP, we proposed that no revisions to
the NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Since
proposal, no information has been presented to cause us to change the
proposed determination. Consequently, we are finalizing our CAA section
112(d)(6) determination as proposed.
C. SSM
1. What did we propose for the Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities source category?
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 General Provisions regulations governing the emissions
of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM
exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding
that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or
limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption
violates the CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards
apply continuously.
We proposed amendments to the Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities NESHAP to remove or revise provisions related to SSM that
are not consistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all
times. More information concerning SSM is in the preamble to the
proposed rule (83 FR 19499).
2. How did the SSM provisions change for the Friction Materials
Manufacturing Facilities source category?
The SSM provisions did not change from proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are
our responses?
We received one comment supporting our proposed changes to the SSM
provisions. The EPA acknowledges the comment supporting the proposed
changes.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
We evaluated the comment on the EPA's proposed amendments to the
SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we
determined that these amendments remove or revise provisions related to
SSM that are not consistent with the requirement that the standards
apply at all times. More information concerning the proposed amendments
to the SSM provisions is in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR
19499). We are finalizing the amendments to remove or revise provisions
related to SSM, as proposed.
[[Page 2748]]
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
There are currently two friction materials manufacturing facilities
operating in the United States that are subject to the Friction
Materials Manufacturing Facilities NESHAP. The 40 CFR part 63, subpart
QQQQQ, affected source is the solvent mixers used for friction
manufacturing products. A new affected source is a completely new
friction products manufacturing source where previously no friction
products manufacturing had existed.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
At the current level of control, the EPA estimates emissions of
total HAP are approximately 240 tpy. Because we are not finalizing
revisions to the emission limits other than to make them applicable
during SSM periods, we do not anticipate any air quality impacts as a
result of the proposed amendments, since facilities are already in
compliance with emission limits during all periods, including SSM.
C. What are the cost impacts?
The two existing friction materials manufacturing facilities that
are subject to the final amendments would incur a net cost savings
resulting from the revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
The 2016 equivalent annualized value (in 2016 dollars) of these net
cost savings from 2019 through 2026 is $5,920 per year when costs are
discounted at a 7-percent rate, and $6,648 per year when costs are
discounted at a 3-percent rate. For further information on the costs
and cost savings associated with the requirements being revised, see
the memorandum, ``Economic Impact Analysis for Friction Material
Manufacturing Final Rule,'' and the document, ``Friction Materials
Manufacturing 2018 Supporting Statement,'' which are both available in
the docket for this action.
D. What are the economic impacts?
As noted earlier, this action will result in a net cost savings to
affected entities. This cost savings is not expected to have adverse
economic impacts.
E. What are the benefits?
The EPA did not change any of the emission limit requirements and
estimates the final changes to SSM, recordkeeping, reporting, and
monitoring are not economically significant. Because these final
amendments are not considered economically significant, as defined by
Executive Order 12866 and because no emission reductions were
estimated, we did not estimate any benefits from reducing emissions.
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km)
and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the
distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the
Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities source category across
different demographic groups within the populations living near
facilities.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the demographic analysis was updated from proposal
to reflect corrections made to the analysis from comments received by
the EPA and are summarized in Table 2 below. These results, for various
demographic groups, are based on the estimated risks from actual
emissions levels for the population living within 50 km of the
facilities.
Table 2--Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with
cancer risk at or Population with
above 1-in-1 chronic hazard
million due to index above 1
Nationwide Friction Friction
Materials Materials
Manufacturing Manufacturing
Facilities \1\ Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population....................................... 317,746,049 0 0
Race by Percent:
White.................................................. 62 0 0
All Other Races........................................ 38 0 0
Race by Percent:
White.................................................. 62 0 0
African American....................................... 12 0 0
Native American........................................ 0.8 0 0
Other and Multiracial.................................. 7 0 0
Ethnicity by Percent:
Hispanic............................................... 18 0 0
Non-Hispanic........................................... 82 0 0
Income by Percent:
Below Poverty Level.................................... 14 0 0
Above Poverty Level.................................... 86 0 0
Education by Percent:
[[Page 2749]]
Over 25 and without High School Diploma................ 14 0 0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma................. 86 0 0
Linguistically Isolated by Percent:
Linguistically Isolated................................ 6 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual emissions in the category.
The results of the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities
source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the
source category do not expose people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-
1 million based on actual or allowable emissions. Also, no people are
exposed to a chronic noncancer target organ-specific hazard index
greater than 1 based on actual or allowable emissions. The percentages
of the at-risk population are much smaller than their respective
nationwide percentages for all demographic groups.
The EPA received comment on our proposed rule stating that we
ignored unacceptably disproportionate effects on environmental justice
communities. As noted above, we corrected our demographic analysis. For
this source category, cancer risks were less than 1-in-1 million and
the noncancer hazards were less than 1. At these risk levels, all
populations are exposed to an acceptable level with an ample margin of
safety without any demographic group (including Native American
Indians) being disproportionately impacted. A more detailed demographic
risk analysis may be conducted at the facility level if risk findings
for the source category indicate a level that is unacceptable without
an ample margin of safety.
The EPA has, therefore, reaffirmed its determination that this
final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority, low income, or indigenous
populations because it maintains the level of environmental protection
for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population,
including any minority, low income, or indigenous populations.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, ``Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Friction Materials
Manufacturing Facilities Source Category,'' available in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0358 for this action.
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
``Residual Risk Assessment for the Friction Materials Manufacturing
Facilities Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology
Review Final Rule,'' available in Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OAR-2017-0358 for
this action.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be
found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 2025.08. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this
rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
We are finalizing changes to the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ, in the form
of eliminating the SSM plan and reporting requirements and increasing
reporting requirements for the semiannual report of deviation. We also
recalculated the estimated recordkeeping burden for records of SSM to
more accurately represent the removal of the SSM exemption, which is
discussed in more detail in the memorandum, ``Email Correspondence
Estimating the Cost of SSM Reporting with Knowlton Technologies, LLC.''
Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are owners or operators of facilities that
produce friction products subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart QQQQQ).
Estimated number of respondents: Two facilities.
Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.
Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements
in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to
be 535 hours (per year). Of these, 115 hours (per year) is the reduced
burden to comply with the rule amendments. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
[[Page 2750]]
Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost
for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the
NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be
$35,200 (rounded, per year), including $544 annualized capital or
operation and maintenance costs. This results in a decrease of $7,400
(rounded, per year) to comply with the amendments to the rule.
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 the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. There are no
small entities in this regulated industry.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, or the
private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in
the friction material manufacturing industry that would be affected by
this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III.A and IV.A and B of this preamble.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards. However, the Agency identified no such standards.
Therefore, the EPA has decided to continue the use of the weighing
procedures based on EPA Method 28 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A
(section 10.1) for weighing of recovered solvent. A thorough summary of
the search conducted and results are included in the memorandum titled
``Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Friction Materials
Manufacturing Facilities Residual Risk and Technology Review,'' which
is available in the docket for this action.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is contained in the technical
report, ``Friction Materials Manufacturing Demographic Analysis,''
which is available in the docket for this action.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. 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 procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 20, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting 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--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart QQQQQ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities
0
2. Section 63.9495 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) and
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
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, except as otherwise specified at this section and Sec. Sec.
63.9505, 63.9530, 63.9540, 63.9545, and Table 1 to this subpart.
(b) If you have a new or reconstructed solvent mixer for which
construction or reconstruction commenced after October 18, 2002, but
before May 4, 2018, you must comply with the requirements for new and
reconstructed sources upon initial startup, except as otherwise
specified at this section and Sec. Sec. 63.9505, 63.9530, 63.9540,
63.9545, and Table 1 to this subpart.
* * * * *
(e) Solvent mixers constructed or reconstructed after May 3, 2018,
must be in compliance with this subpart at startup or by February 8,
2019, whichever is later.
0
3. Revise Sec. 63.9505 to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9505 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) Before August 7, 2019, for each existing source and each new or
reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced
after October 18, 2002, but
[[Page 2751]]
before May 4, 2018, you must be in compliance with the emission
limitations in this subpart at all times, except during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction. On and after August 7, 2019, for
each such source you must be in compliance with the emission
limitations in this subpart at all times. For new and reconstructed
sources for which construction or reconstruction commenced after May 3,
2018, you must be in compliance with the emissions limitations in this
subpart at all times.
(b) Before August 7, 2019, for each existing source, and for each
new or reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction
commenced after October 18, 2002, but before May 4, 2018, 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). On and after August 7, 2019 for each such
source, and after February 8, 2019 for new and reconstructed sources
for which construction or reconstruction commenced after May 3, 2018,
at all times you must operate and maintain any affected source,
including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring
equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to
minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to
reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have
been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in
compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on
information available to the Administrator which may include, but is
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection
of the source.
(c) Before August 7, 2019, for each existing source, and for each
new or reconstructed source for which construction commenced after
October 18, 2002, but before May 4, 2018, you must develop a written
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the provisions in
Sec. 63.6(e)(3). For each such source, a startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan is not required on and after August 7, 2019. No
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is required for any new or
reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced
after May 3, 2018.
0
4. Section 63.9530 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (e) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.9530 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitation that applies to me?
(a) * * *
(1) For existing sources and for new or reconstructed sources for
which construction or reconstruction commenced after October 18, 2002,
but before May 4, 2018, before August 7, 2019, 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. On and after August 7, 2019 for such sources,
and after February 8, 2019 for new or reconstructed sources that
commenced construction after May 3, 2018, 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.
* * * * *
(e) For existing sources and for new or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or reconstruction after October 18, 2002, but
before May 4, 2018, before August 7, 2019, 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 Sec. 63.6(e)(1). 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). On and after August 7, 2019 for such sources, and after
February 8, 2019 for new or reconstructed sources which commence
construction or reconstruction after May 3, 2018, all deviations are
considered violations.
0
5. Section 63.9540 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4), (c)(2),
and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9540 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) For existing sources and for new or reconstructed sources for
which construction or reconstruction commenced after October 18, 2002,
but before May 4, 2018, before August 7, 2019, 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). A startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not
required for such sources on and after August 7, 2019.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) For existing sources and for new or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or reconstruction after October 18, 2002, but
before May 4, 2018, before August 7, 2019, information on the number,
duration, and cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if
applicable), as applicable, and the corrective action taken. On and
after August 7, 2019 for such sources, and after February 8, 2019 for
new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or
reconstruction after May 3, 2018, information on the number of
deviations to meet an emission limitation. For each instance, include
the date, time, duration, and cause of deviations (including unknown
cause, if applicable), as applicable, a list of the affected source or
equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions, and the corrective action taken.
(d) For existing sources and for new or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or reconstruction after October 18, 2002, but
before May 4, 2018, before August 7, 2019, 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). An immediate
startup, shutdown, and malfunction report is not required for such
sources on and after August 7, 2019.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.9545 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding
paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9545 What records must I keep?
(a) * * *
(2) For existing sources and for new or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or reconstruction after October 18, 2002, but
before May 4, 2018, before August 7, 2019, the records in Sec.
63.6(e)(3)(iii)
[[Page 2752]]
through (v) related to startup, shutdown, or malfunction. For such
sources, it is not required to keep records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii)
through (v) related to startup, shutdown, or malfunction on and after
August 7, 2019.
(3) After February 8, 2019 for new or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or reconstruction after May 3, 2018, and on and
after August 7, 2019 for all other affected sources, in the event that
an affected unit fails to meet an applicable standard, record the
number of deviations. For each deviation, record the date, time and
duration of each deviation.
(i) For each deviation, record and retain cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source
or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions.
(ii) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec. 63.9505, and any corrective actions taken to return the affected
unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
0
7. Table 1 to subpart QQQQQ of part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the entry ``Sec. 63.6(a)-(c), (e)-(f), (i)-(j)'';
0
b. Adding the entries ``Sec. 63.6(a)-(c), (i)-(j)'', ``Sec.
63.6(e)(1)(i)-(ii)'', ``Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii), (e)(2)'', ``Sec.
63.6(e)(3)'', ``Sec. 63.6(f)(1)'', and ``Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)'' in
numerical order;
0
c. Removing the entry ``Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(2), (b), (c)(1)-(3), (f)(1)-
(5)'';
0
d. Adding the entries ``Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(2)'', ``Sec. 63.8(b)'',
``Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i), (iii)'', ``Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(2),
(c)(3)'', and ``Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)'' in numerical order;
0
e. Removing the entry ``Sec. 63.10(a), (b), (d)(1), (d)(4)-(5),
(e)(3), (f)''; and
0
f. Adding the entries ``Sec. 63.10(a), (b)(1), (d)(1), (d)(4), (e)(3),
(f)'', ``Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i), (ii), (iv), (v)'', ``Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(iii), (vi)-(xiv)'', and ``Sec. 63.10(d)(5)'' in numerical
order.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart QQQQQ of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart QQQQQ
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Applies to subpart QQQQQ? Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.6(a)-(c), (i)-(j)........ Compliance with Yes........................
Standards and
Maintenance
Requirements.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)-(ii).......... SSM Operation and No, for new or Subpart QQQQQ requires
Maintenance reconstructed sources affected units to
Requirements. which commenced meet emissions
construction or standards at all
reconstruction after May times. See Sec.
3, 2018. Yes, for all 63.9505 for general
other affected sources duty requirement.
before August 7, 2019, and
No thereafter.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii), (e)(2)..... Operation and Yes........................
Maintenance.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3).................. SSM Plan Requirements. No, for new or Subpart QQQQQ requires
reconstructed sources affected units to
which commenced meet emissions
construction or standards at all
reconstruction after May times.
3, 2018. Yes, for all
other affected sources
before August 7, 2019, and
No thereafter.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1).................. SSM Exemption......... No, for new or Subpart QQQQQ requires
reconstructed sources affected units to
which commenced meet emissions
construction or standards at all
reconstruction after May times.
3, 2018. Yes, for all
other affected sources
before August 7, 2019, and
No thereafter.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3).............. Compliance with Yes........................
Nonopacity Emission
Standards.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(2).............. Applicability and Yes........................
Relevant Standards
for CMS.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.8(b)..................... Conduct of Monitoring. Yes........................
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i), (iii)........ Continuous Monitoring No, for new or
System (CMS) SSM reconstructed sources
Requirements. which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after May
3, 2018. Yes, for all
other affected sources
before August 7, 2019, and
No thereafter..
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(2), CMS Repairs, Operating Yes........................
(c)(3). Parameters, and
Performance Tests.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5).............. Alternative Monitoring Yes........................
Procedure.
[[Page 2753]]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(a), (b)(1), (d)(1), Recordkeeping and Yes........................
(d)(4), (e)(3), (f). Reporting
Requirements.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i), (ii), (iv), Recordkeeping for No, for new or See Sec. 63.9545 for
(v). Startup, Shutdown and reconstructed sources recordkeeping
Malfunction. which commenced requirements.
construction or
reconstruction after May
3, 2018. Yes, for all
other affected sources
before August 7, 2019, and
No thereafter.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii), (vi)-(xiv) Owner/Operator Yes........................
Recordkeeping
Requirements.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)................. SSM reports........... No, for new or See Sec. 63.9540 for
reconstructed sources malfunction reporting
which commenced requirements.
construction or
reconstruction after May
3, 2018. Yes, for all
other affected sources
before August 7, 2019, and
No thereafter.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-00786 Filed 2-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
