Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0358-0043
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities Residual Risk and Technology Review
Posted Date: 2019-02-08T05:00Z

[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