[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 21, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58610-58642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-28192]



[[Page 58609]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asphalt 
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 58610]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-7101-7]
RIN 2060-AG66


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asphalt 
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for existing and new asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities. The EPA has identified 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities as 
major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) such as formaldehyde, 
hexane, hydrogen chloride (HCl), phenol, polycyclic organic matter 
(POM), and toluene. These proposed standards would implement section 
112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to 
meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT). The total HAP reduction is 
expected to be 8.87 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (9.78 tons per year 
(tpy)).

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before January 22, 2002.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by December 11, 2001, a public hearing will be held on 
December 21, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in 
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-95-32, U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20460. In person or by courier, 
deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-95-32, 
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC 20460. The EPA requests a 
separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed below.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the 
EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina, beginning at 10 a.m., or at an alternate site nearby.
    Docket. Docket No. A-95-32 contains supporting information used in 
developing the proposed standards. The docket is located at the U.S. 
EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 in room M-1500, Waterside 
Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Colyer, Policy, Planning, and 
Standards Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 
541-5262, e-mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by e-mail to: [email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file 
to avoid the use of special characters and encryption problems and will 
also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect'' version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 
file format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must 
note the docket number: A-95-32. No confidential business information 
(CBI) should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed 
online at many Federal depository libraries.
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such 
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to 
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not 
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Rick Colyer, U.S. EPA, 
c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer, 411 W. Chapel Hill Street, Room 
740B, Durham NC 27701. The EPA will disclose information identified as 
CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 
part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it 
is received by the EPA, the information may be made available to the 
public without further notice to the commenter.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of this proposed rule will also be available on the 
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, 
a copy of the rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page 
for newly proposed or promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. 
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas 
of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is 
needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or 
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Dorothy 
Apple, Policy, Planning, and Standards Group, Emission Standards 
Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone number (919) 541-4487, at least 2 days in advance of 
the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing 
must also call Dorothy Apple to verify the time, date, and location of 
the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the 
opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these 
proposed emission standards.
    Docket. The docket reflects the full administrative record for this 
action and includes all the information relied upon by EPA in 
development of this proposed rule. The docket is a dynamic file because 
material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing 
system is intended to allow members of the public and industries 
involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can 
effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the 
proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of 
the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. 
(See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other 
materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in the 
docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air Docket by 
calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying 
docket materials.
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in Table 1. This table is not intended to be 
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities 
likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your 
facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the 
applicability criteria in Secs. 63.8681 and 63.8682 of the proposed 
rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this 
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

[[Page 58611]]



                                   Table 1.--Regulated Categories and Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             NAICS a                                  SIC b
            Category             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Code        Description        Code                 Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing...................    324122  Asphalt shingle and      2952  Asphalt felts and coatings.
                                             coating materials
                                             manufacturing.
Manufacturing...................     32411  Petroleum                2911  Petroleum refining.
                                             refineries.
Federal Government..............           Not affected
                                           Not affected
State/Local/Tribal Government...           Not affected
                                          Not affected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Standard Industrial Classification Code.
b North American Information Classification System.

    Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed NESHAP?
    B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
    C. What operations constitute asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacture?
    D. What are the emissions and emission sources?
    E. What are the health effects associated with the asphalt 
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing source categories?
II. Summary of the Proposed Standards
    A. Do these proposed NESHAP apply to me?
    B. What are the affected sources?
    C. What pollutants are regulated by the proposed NESHAP?
    D. What emission limits must I meet?
    E. When must I comply?
    F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
    G. What are the continuous compliance provisions?
    H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements?
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the air quality impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy 
impacts?
IV. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
    A. How did we select the source categories to regulate?
    B. How did we select the affected sources?
    C. How did we select the pollutants to regulate?
    D. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed 
standards for existing and new sources?
    E. How did we select the format of the standards?
    F. How did we select the emission limits?
    G. How did we select the testing and initial compliance 
requirements?
    H. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements?
    I. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements?
    J. What is the relationship of this subpart to other standards?
V. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    H. Paperwork Reduction Act
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Background

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for the Proposed NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish 
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. A major 
source of HAP is any stationary source or group of stationary sources 
within a contiguous area under common control that emits or has the 
potential to emit, considering controls, in the aggregate, 9.1 Mg/yr 
(10 tpy) or more of any single HAP, or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) or more of 
any combination of HAP. Based on the emissions data collected for this 
rulemaking, asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing 
facilities have the potential to be major sources of HAP.
    The asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing categories 
of major sources were listed as separate source categories on July 16, 
1992 (57 FR 31576). However, because these processes are closely 
related and are often collocated, we are proposing to regulate 
emissions from both source categories under a single NESHAP.

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

    Section 112(c)(2) of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for 
control of HAP from both existing and new major sources, based upon the 
criteria set out in section 112(d). The CAA requires the NESHAP to 
reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is 
achievable, taking into consideration the cost of achieving the 
emission reduction, any non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements. This level of control is commonly 
referred to as the MACT.
    The minimum control level allowed for NESHAP (the minimum level of 
stringency for MACT) is the so-called ``MACT floor,'' as defined under 
section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. The MACT floor for existing sources is 
the emission limitation achieved by the average of the best performing 
12 percent of existing sources for categories and subcategories with 30 
or more sources, or the average of the best performing 5 sources for 
categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources. For new 
sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission 
control achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source.
    In developing the NESHAP, we also consider control options that are 
more stringent than the MACT floor (so-called beyond-the-floor control 
options), taking into consideration (as noted previously) the cost of 
achieving the emission reductions, and any non-air quality 
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. In this rule, EPA is 
proposing standards for both existing and new sources based on the 
MACT.

C. What Operations Constitute Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacture?

    The proposed NESHAP would regulate both asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing operations. Asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing operations can be stand-alone or 
integrated with each other or related operations such as wet-formed 
fiberglass mat manufacturing. Additionally, some asphalt processing is 
performed at petroleum refineries.

[[Page 58612]]

    Processed asphalt is produced using asphalt flux as the raw 
material. Asphalt flux is a product that is obtained in the last stages 
of fractional distillation of crude oil. Asphalt is processed to change 
its physical properties for use primarily in the roofing industry. In 
asphalt processing, heated asphalt flux is taken from storage and 
charged to a heated blowing still where air is bubbled up through the 
flux. This process raises the softening temperature of the asphalt. The 
blowing process also decreases the penetration rate of the asphalt when 
applied to the roofing substrate. Some processing operations use a 
catalyst (e.g., ferric chloride, phosphoric acid) in the blowing still. 
A catalyst is used to promote the oxidation of asphalt in the blowing 
still. The need to use catalyst is primarily driven by the type of 
feedstock used. Certain feedstocks require catalyst to be used to 
attain desired product specifications.
    In asphalt roofing manufacturing, processed or modified asphalt 
(also called modified bitumen) is applied to a fibrous substrate 
(typically made of fiberglass or organic felt) to produce the following 
types of roofing products: shingles, laminated shingles, smooth-
surfaced roll roofing, mineral-surfaced roll roofing, and saturated 
felt roll roofing. Modified asphalt is asphalt that is mixed with 
plastic modifiers (which add strength and durability to the asphalt) 
and is typically used to produce roll roofing products. A roofing 
manufacturing line is a largely continuous operation, with line 
stoppages occurring primarily due to breaks in the substrate.
    In asphalt roofing manufacturing, asphalt is typically mixed with 
filler materials before application to the substrate. If a fiberglass 
substrate is used, coating asphalt is applied by a coater. If an 
organic substrate is used, a saturator and wet looper are typically 
used prior to the coater to provide additional time for the asphalt to 
impregnate the substrate. The type of final product being manufactured 
determines the process steps that follow the coating or impregnation 
steps.
    For shingles and mineral-surfaced roll roofing, granules are 
applied to the hot surface of the coated substrate. This step is 
omitted in manufacture of smooth-surfaced and saturated felt roll 
roofing. In shingle manufacture, a strip of sealant (typically oxidized 
or modified asphalt) is applied to the back of the product after it has 
cooled. This sealant strip, which is heated by the sun after the 
roofing product is installed, provides some adhesion and sealing 
between layers of roofing product. In shingle manufacture, the coated 
substrate is cut into the desired size. Multiple single-ply shingles 
can be glued together (typically using oxidized or modified asphalt as 
an adhesive) to produce laminated or dimensional shingles. When asphalt 
roofing manufacturing lines are collocated with asphalt processing 
operations, the two operations typically share storage and process 
tanks.

D. What Are the Emissions and Emission Sources?

    Asphalt is essentially the material that remains after fractional 
distillation of crude oil. Consequently, asphalt consists primarily of 
heavy organic compounds with low boiling points. Hazardous air 
pollutants are volatilized from asphalt as it is heated and agitated 
during processing and roofing manufacturing operations. Hazardous air 
pollutants are also volatilized during asphalt processing as a result 
of the oxidation reactions that occur in the blowing still.
    Because the HAP volatilized from asphalt generally have low boiling 
points, they can be present in both condensed particulate matter (PM) 
and gaseous forms, depending on the temperature of the vent or exhaust 
gas. When the temperature of the vent gas is below the boiling point of 
a HAP, the HAP will condense into particulate form (i.e., a cooler vent 
gas will have more HAP in the form of condensed PM, whereas a hotter 
vent stream will contain mostly gaseous HAP).
    The following types of equipment are sources of PM and gaseous HAP 
emissions: asphalt storage and process tanks, asphalt blowing stills, 
oxidized asphalt loading racks, saturators, wet loopers, coating 
mixers, coaters, sealant applicators, and adhesive applicators. Most 
blowing stills are controlled by a thermal oxidizer to comply with the 
Standards of Performance for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacture (40 CFR part 60, subpart UU, hereafter referred to as the 
asphalt NSPS) or State regulations. If a chlorinated catalyst is used 
in the blowing still, HCl is emitted from the blowing still thermal 
oxidizer outlet.

E. What Are the Health Effects Associated With the Asphalt Processing 
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories?

    A variety of HAP are emitted from asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing source categories. The following HAP account for 
the majority (approximately 98 percent) of the total HAP emissions: 
formaldehyde, hexane, HCl (at asphalt processing facilities that use 
chlorinated catalysts), phenol, POM, and toluene. The remaining 2 
percent of the total HAP emissions is a combination of several 
different organic HAP, each contributing less than 0.5 percent to the 
total HAP emissions.
    The HAP emitted from these source categories (controlled under this 
proposed rule) are associated with a variety of adverse health effects. 
These adverse health effects include both chronic health disorders 
(e.g., irritation of the lung, skin, and mucous membranes; effects on 
the central nervous system; and damage to the blood and liver) and 
acute health disorders (e.g., respiratory irritation and central 
nervous system effects such as drowsiness, headache, and nausea). The 
EPA has classified two of the HAP (formaldehyde and POM) as probable 
human carcinogens.
    The adverse health effects associated with the exposure to specific 
HAP are further described below. In general, these findings have only 
been shown with concentrations higher than those typically in the 
ambient air.
    Formaldehyde. Both acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) 
exposure to formaldehyde irritates the eyes, nose, and throat, and may 
cause coughing, chest pains, and bronchitis. Reproductive effects such 
as menstrual disorders and pregnancy problems have been reported in 
female workers exposed to formaldehyde. Limited human studies have 
reported an association between formaldehyde exposure and lung and 
nasopharyngeal cancer. Animal inhalation studies have reported an 
increased incidence of nasal squamous cell cancer. The EPA considers 
formaldehyde a probable human carcinogen (Group B2).
    Hexane. Acute inhalation exposure of humans to high levels of 
hexane causes mild central nervous system effects, including dizziness, 
giddiness, slight nausea, and headache. Chronic exposure to hexane in 
air causes numbness in the extremities, muscular weakness, blurred 
vision, headache, and fatigue. One study reported testicular damage in 
rats exposed to hexane through inhalation. No information is available 
on the carcinogenic effects of hexane in humans or animals. The EPA has 
classified hexane in Group D, not classifiable as to human 
carcinogenicity.
    Hydrogen Chloride. Hydrogen chloride, also called hydrochloric 
acid, is corrosive to the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes. Acute 
inhalation exposure may cause eye, nose, and respiratory tract 
irritation and inflammation and pulmonary edema in humans. Chronic 
occupational exposure to hydrochloric acid has been reported to cause 
gastritis, bronchitis, and

[[Page 58613]]

dermatitis in workers. Prolonged exposure to low concentrations may 
also cause dental discoloration and erosion. No information is 
available on the reproductive or developmental effects of hydrochloric 
acid in humans. In rats exposed to hydrochloric acid by inhalation, 
altered estrus cycles have been reported in females and increased fetal 
mortality and decreased fetal weight have been reported in offspring. 
The EPA has not classified hydrochloric acid for carcinogenicity.
    Phenol. Acute inhalation and dermal exposure to phenol is highly 
irritating to the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes in humans. Oral 
exposure to small amounts of phenol may cause irregular breathing, 
muscular weakness and tremors, coma, and respiratory arrest at lethal 
concentrations. Anorexia, progressive weight loss, diarrhea, vertigo, 
salivation, and a dark coloration of the urine have been reported in 
chronically exposed humans. Gastrointestinal irritation and blood and 
liver effects have also been reported. No studies of developmental or 
reproductive effects of phenol in humans are available, but animal 
studies have reported reduced fetal body weights, growth retardation, 
and abnormal development in the offspring of animals exposed to phenol 
by the oral route. The EPA has classified phenol in Group D, not 
classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.
    POM. The term polycyclic organic matter defines a broad class of 
compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) 
compounds, of which benzo[a]pyrene is a member. Dermal exposures to 
mixtures of PAH cause skin disorders in humans and animals. No 
information is available on the reproductive or developmental effects 
of POM in humans. Human studies have reported an increase in lung 
cancer in humans exposed to POM-bearing mixtures including coke oven 
emissions, roofing tar emissions, and cigarette smoke. The EPA has 
classified seven PAH compounds (benzo[a]pyrene, benz[a]anthracene, 
chrysene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, 
dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene) as Group B2, 
probable human carcinogens.
    Toluene. Acute inhalation of toluene by humans may cause effects to 
the central nervous system, such as fatigue, sleepiness, headache, and 
nausea, as well as irregular heartbeat. Adverse central nervous system 
effects have been reported in chronic abusers (those that inhale 
toluene or other toluene-containing substances) exposed to high levels 
of toluene. Symptoms include tremors, decreased brain size, involuntary 
eye movements, and impaired speech, hearing, and vision. Chronic (long-
term) inhalation exposure of humans to lower levels of toluene also 
causes irritation of the upper respiratory tract, eye irritation, sore 
throat, nausea, dizziness, headaches, and difficulty with sleep. 
Studies of children whose mothers were exposed to toluene by inhalation 
or mixed solvents during pregnancy have reported central nervous system 
problems, facial and limb abnormalities, and delayed development. 
However, these effects may not be attributable to toluene alone. The 
EPA has classified toluene in Group D, not classifiable as to human 
carcinogenicity.
    This proposed rule would also protect air quality and the public 
health by reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and PM 
from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing.
    Volatile Organic Compounds. Emissions of VOC have been associated 
with a variety of health and welfare impacts. Volatile organic compound 
emissions, together with nitrogen oxides, are precursors to the 
formation of tropospheric ozone. Exposure to ambient ozone is 
responsible for a number of public health impacts, such as alterations 
in lung capacity; eye, nose, and throat irritation; nausea; and 
aggravation of existing respiratory disease. Ozone exposure can also 
damage forests and crops.
    Particulate Matter. Particulate matter can accumulate in the 
respiratory system and is associated with numerous adverse health 
effects. Exposure to coarse particles is primarily associated with the 
aggravation of respiratory conditions, such as asthma. Fine particles 
are most closely associated with such health effects as increased 
hospital admissions and emergency room visits for heart and lung 
disease, increased respiratory symptoms and disease, decreased lung 
function, and even premature death.

II. Summary of the Proposed Standards

A. Do These Proposed NESHAP Apply to Me?

    This proposed rule would apply to you if you process asphalt or 
manufacture asphalt roofing products at a facility that is a major 
source of HAP emissions. Major sources of HAP are those that emit or 
have the potential to emit at least 10 tpy of any one HAP or 25 tpy of 
any combination of HAP. All emission sources at a facility, not just 
those related to asphalt processing or roofing manufacture, must be 
considered in determining major source status. If your facility is 
determined to be an area source (i.e., not a major source), you would 
not be subject to these proposed NESHAP.
    This proposed rule would not regulate emissions from the wet-formed 
fiberglass mat production industry, even though a wet-formed fiberglass 
mat is produced at both stand-alone facilities and those collocated 
with asphalt processing and roofing facilities. Emissions from wet-
formed fiberglass mat manufacturing processes are being regulated by 
the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH).

B. What Are the Affected Sources?

    An affected source is the process equipment that is regulated by 
the NESHAP. For these proposed NESHAP, there would be two affected 
sources: each asphalt processing facility and each asphalt roofing 
manufacturing line. An asphalt processing facility is any facility that 
prepares asphalt at asphalt processing plants, petroleum refineries, 
and asphalt roofing plants. An asphalt roofing manufacturing line is 
the collection of equipment used to manufacture asphalt roofing 
products through a series of sequential process steps.

C. What Pollutants Are Regulated by the Proposed NESHAP?

    These proposed NESHAP would establish emission limits for PM and 
total hydrocarbons (THC) as surrogates for total organic HAP which 
includes the following compounds: formaldehyde, hexane, phenol, POM, 
and toluene.
    Although HCl is emitted from some asphalt processing facilities 
(those that use chlorinated catalysts in the blowing still), we are 
proposing not to regulate HCl emissions since we can identify no 
duplicable or otherwise available means of controlling HCl as a floor 
standard, and beyond the floor controls are not warranted after 
considering the factors set out in section 112(d)(2) of the Act. A more 
detailed discussion of the basis for this decision is provided in 
section IV.C of this preamble.

D. What Emission Limits Must I Meet?

    We are proposing that you meet the emission limits that are 
summarized in Table 2. The emission limits are expressed in appropriate 
formats for the various process equipment being regulated. Depending on 
the piece of process equipment, you have the option of complying with 
any of several formats. These formats include a PM

[[Page 58614]]

emission limit, expressed in terms of kilograms of PM per megagram (kg/
Mg) of product manufactured, a THC percent reduction standard, or a 
combustion efficiency standard.
    The combustion efficiency standard is provided as an alternative to 
the THC percent reduction standard. This option is provided in the 
proposed rule because there are some emission sources (e.g., blowing 
stills) for which testing of the control device inlet is impractical.
    Additionally, saturators (including wet loopers and coaters) at 
existing asphalt roofing manufacturing lines would have to meet an 
opacity limit, and the emission capture system for the saturator 
(including the wet looper and coater) would have to meet a visible 
emission standard. The proposed rule also provides the option for 
coating mixers, saturators (including wet loopers and coaters), sealant 
applicators, and adhesive applicators at existing asphalt roofing 
manufacturing lines to comply with either the THC or the combustion 
efficiency standards instead of the PM and opacity standards.

   Table 2.--Summary of Proposed Emission Limits for Existing and New
     Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               For * * *                          You must * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each asphalt storage tank with a         Reduce THC mass emissions by 95
 capacity of 1.93 Mg (2.13 tons) or       percent; or
 greater of asphalt, blowing still, and  Route the emissions to a
 loading rack at existing new, and        thermal oxidizer achieving a
 reconstructed asphalt processing         combustion efficiency of 99.6
 facilities.                              percent.
Each coating mixer, saturator            Reduce THC mass emissions by 95
 (including wet looper and coater),       percent; or
 sealant applicator, and adhesive        Route the emissions to a
 applicator at new and reconstructed      thermal oxidizer achieving a
 asphalt roofing manufacturing lines.     combustion efficiency of 99.6
                                          percent.
The total emissions from the coating     Limit PM emissions to 0.04 kg/
 mixer, saturator (including wet looper   Mg (0.08 pounds per ton) of
 and coater), sealant applicator, and     asphalt shingle or mineral-
 adhesive applicator at each existing     surfaced roll roofing
 asphalt roofing manufacturing line..     produced, or 0.4 kg/Mg (0.8
                                          pounds per ton) of saturated
                                          felt or smooth-surfaced roll
                                          roofing produced.
Each saturator (including wet looper     Limit exhaust gases to 20
 and coater) at an existing or new        percent opacity; and
 asphalt roofing manufacturing line.     Limit visible emissions from
                                          the emission capture system to
                                          20 percent of any period of
                                          consecutive valid observations
                                          totaling 60 minutes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. When Must I Comply?

    We are proposing that existing sources would have to comply with 
the NESHAP no later than [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER THE DATE THE FINAL RULE IS 
PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register]. The 3-year period is necessary to 
allow owners and operators sufficient time to design, purchase, and 
install emission capture systems and air pollution control equipment. 
New or reconstructed sources would have to comply with the NESHAP at 
startup or [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], 
whichever is later.
    If your asphalt processing facility or asphalt roofing 
manufacturing line is located at a facility that is an area source 
which increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it 
becomes a major source of HAP after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED 
IN THE Federal Register], then any portion of the existing facility 
that is a new affected source or a reconstructed affected source would 
have to either be in compliance with this subpart upon startup after 
becoming a major source or by [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER THE DATE THE FINAL 
RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], whichever is later. All 
other parts of any facility to which this proposed rule would apply 
would have to be in compliance with this subpart by 3 years after 
becoming a major source.

F. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?

    You would have to conduct a performance test to demonstrate initial 
compliance with the NESHAP emission limits. As specified in 
Sec. 63.7(e) of the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
A), performance tests would have to be conducted under normal operating 
conditions. To ensure that compliance can be achieved over the entire 
range of operating conditions, the performance tests should be 
conducted under the operating conditions that reflect the highest rate 
of asphalt processing or roofing production reasonably expected to be 
achieved by the facility. For example, performance tests of roofing 
manufacturing line equipment should be conducted while manufacturing 
the roofing product with the greatest asphalt content.
    The proposed NESHAP contain PM emission limits, a THC percent 
reduction standard, and a combustion efficiency standard. For these 
standards, you would have to conduct a minimum of three 1-hour test 
runs to measure emissions. Compliance is determined based on the 
average of the three test runs. To measure PM, use EPA test method 5A; 
for THC emissions, use EPA test method 25A. The EPA reference methods 
are contained in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60. For the combustion 
efficiency standard, you would measure emissions of THC, carbon 
monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2) to demonstrate 
compliance. You would use EPA method 10 to measure CO emissions and EPA 
method 3A to measure CO2 emissions. You would demonstrate 
compliance with the PM emission limit, THC percent reduction standard, 
and the combustion efficiency standard using the instructions and 
equations in the performance test requirement section of these proposed 
NESHAP.
    The proposed NESHAP also contain opacity and visible emission 
standards for saturators at an existing asphalt roofing manufacturing 
line. Opacity and visible emission compliance determinations would be 
made using EPA methods 9 and 22, respectively, in appendix A of 40 CFR 
part 60.
    You would have to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 
continuous monitoring system (CMS) to monitor the control device 
parameters. During the performance test, you would continuously monitor 
and record control device parameters and establish the monitoring 
parameter value(s) that constitute compliance with the emission limits. 
If you use a thermal oxidizer to comply with the standards, you would 
record the average operating temperature. The temperature monitoring 
device would be installed at the exit of the combustion zone or in the 
ductwork immediately downstream of the combustion zone, before any 
substantial heat loss occurs. If you use a PM control device, you would 
record

[[Page 58615]]

the device inlet gas temperature and pressure drop across the device.
    For thermal oxidizers and PM control devices, the parameters would 
have to be monitored and values recorded in 15-minute blocks during 
each of three 1-hour test runs from which you would compute the 3-hour 
average parameter values. If you use a control device other than a 
thermal oxidizer or PM control device to comply with the NESHAP, you 
would propose to the Administrator the appropriate monitoring 
parameters, monitoring frequencies, and averaging periods. All 
monitoring parameters for control devices not specified in the proposed 
rule would have to be approved by the Administrator as specified in 
Sec. 63.8(f) of the NESHAP general provisions.
    During the performance test, you would also monitor and record the 
average hourly roofing line production rate or the asphalt processing 
rate, as applicable. If you are complying with the PM emission limit, 
you would also determine the asphalt content of the product 
manufactured during the performance test.

G. What Are the Continuous Compliance Provisions?

    After the performance test, you would have to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the emission limits by monitoring either 
control device or process operating parameters. The parameters would 
have to remain within the limits established during the initial 
performance test.
    If you use a thermal oxidizer or PM control device to achieve 
compliance with the emission limits, you would have to monitor the 
following operating parameters, determining and recording the parameter 
values in 15-minute and 3-hour block averages:
     The operating temperature for thermal oxidizers,
     The inlet gas temperature and pressure drop across the 
device for PM control devices.

    If you use a control device other than a thermal oxidizer or PM 
control device to achieve compliance with the emission limits, you 
would have to monitor the parameters that were established during the 
initial performance test and approved by the Administrator. To change 
the value of any monitored parameter, you would have to conduct a 
performance test and submit a request to the Administrator for approval 
using the procedures specified in Sec. 63.8(f) of the NESHAP general 
provisions.

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

    You would have to comply with the notification, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A general provisions, 
as specified in Table 7 of the proposed rule. The notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements include, but are not limited 
to: (1) Initial notification of applicability of the rule, notification 
of the dates for conducting the performance test, and notification of 
compliance status; (2) reports of any startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction events that occur; and (3) semiannual reports of excess 
emissions (i.e., deviations from monitoring parameter limits). When no 
deviations occur, you would submit semiannual reports indicating that 
no deviations have occurred during the period. For a thermal oxidizer, 
a deviation would be any time (excluding periods of startup, shutdown 
and malfunction) that the operating temperature falls below the limit 
established during the initial performance test. For a PM control 
device, a deviation would be any time (excluding periods of startup, 
shutdown and malfunction) that the temperature of the gas at the inlet 
to the control device or the pressure drop across the control device 
are above their respective limits established during the initial 
performance test.
    You would have to maintain records of the following, as applicable: 
(1) Thermal oxidizer operating temperature; (2) PM control device inlet 
gas temperature and pressure drop; (3) approved parameters for sources 
that comply with the emission limits using a control device other than 
a thermal oxidizer or PM control device; and (4) the date and time a 
deviation commenced if a monitoring parameter deviation occurs, the 
date and time corrective actions were initiated and completed, a 
description of the cause of the deviation, and a description of the 
corrective actions taken. You would also prepare a startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction plan and maintain records of actions taken during these 
events, as required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of the NESHAP general 
provisions. The proposed rule also includes a requirement to develop 
and make available for inspection by the permitting authority, upon 
request, a site-specific monitoring plan that specifies how the 
continuous parameter monitoring system will be installed, operated, and 
maintained, as well as the data quality assurance procedures and 
ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures.
    The NESHAP general provisions (Sec. 63.10(b)) require that records 
be maintained for at least 5 years from the date of each record. You 
would have to retain the records onsite for at least 2 years. You may 
retain records for the remaining 3 years at an offsite location. The 
records must be readily available and in a form suitable for efficient 
inspection and review. The files may be retained on paper, microfilm, 
microfiche, a computer, computer disks, or magnetic tape. Reports may 
be made on paper or on a labeled computer disk using commonly available 
and compatible computer software.

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts

    Although MACT floors must be based exclusively on the emission 
limitation achieved by the best performing sources (or, for new 
sources, the best performing source), EPA has compiled information on 
air quality impacts, costs, non-air quality impacts, and energy impacts 
in compliance with Executive Orders. We estimate the proposed NESHAP 
would affect a total of 18 existing facilities (ten asphalt processing 
and asphalt roofing facilities and eight petroleum refineries). We 
estimated the number of major sources by estimating emissions using 
emission factors and available production data and extrapolating 
potential emissions from actual emissions. We identified major 
facilities for the purposes of estimating emissions, emission 
reductions, control costs, and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
costs only. It should be noted that facilities may not necessarily be 
major sources for the purposes of determining applicability of these 
proposed NESHAP because they were identified as major by our estimates. 
Likewise, facilities would not be relieved from complying with these 
proposed NESHAP because they were not identified as major sources in 
our estimates.

A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

    Baseline HAP emissions from the asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing facilities that would be subject to the proposed 
NESHAP are estimated to be 192 Mg/yr (212 tpy). Baseline THC emissions 
are estimated to be 173 Mg/yr (191 tpy). The baseline emission 
estimates were developed using equipment, control device, and 
production rate data reported in a 1995 industry survey. The proposed 
NESHAP would reduce HAP emissions by 8.87 Mg/yr (9.78 tpy) and THC by 
135 Mg/yr (149 tpy). The proposed NESHAP would also reduce PM emissions 
from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing

[[Page 58616]]

manufacturing facilities. However, we do not have sufficient data to 
estimate baseline emissions or emission reductions for PM. The HAP 
reductions that would be achieved by these proposed NESHAP are limited 
because most of the emission sources in the asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing industry are currently controlled, and 
because these proposed NESHAP would not require control of HCl 
emissions.
    The baseline emissions and emission reductions do not include 
contributions from area sources because they would not be subject to 
the proposed NESHAP. The estimates also do not include contributions 
from petroleum refineries because we did not have sufficient data 
(production rates for blowing stills or population sizes or control 
devices for storage tanks and loading racks) to estimate baseline 
emissions or emission reductions from those sources. We believe, based 
on limited information, most if not all asphalt processing facilities 
at petroleum refineries are well controlled using thermal oxidizers. 
Therefore, little additional emission reduction would occur. However, 
we are specifically requesting comment on the current level of control 
of asphalt processing facilities located at petroleum refineries.
    The proposed NESHAP would also likely cause an increase in 
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX), CO, and sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) due to increased use of thermal oxidizers as control 
devices. The estimated secondary impacts of NOX, CO, and 
SO2 are approximately 32.0, 53.8, and 0.385 Mg/yr (35.3, 
59.3, and 0.424 tpy), respectively. These estimates are based on the 
amount of exhaust and auxiliary fuel that will be burned at the ten 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities that 
are estimated to be major sources.

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    The cost impacts for the proposed NESHAP for asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing were developed using site-specific 
information, obtained by an industry information survey distributed by 
the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA), and the 
procedures contained in the Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards (OAQPS) Control Cost Manual. For some facilities where site-
specific data necessary for estimating costs (e.g., a vent flow rate) 
were not available, average factors developed from the industry data 
were used.
    The total capital cost for the industry to achieve compliance with 
the proposed NESHAP for existing facilities is estimated to be $2.16 
million. The capital costs arise from the purchase of emission capture 
systems and control devices. The total annualized cost is estimated to 
be $758,000. The annualized costs for the industry include the 
annualized capital cost of emission capture systems and control devices 
and operation, maintenance, supervisory labor, maintenance materials, 
utilities, administrative charges, taxes, and insurance. It is 
estimated that the industry will spend an additional industrywide 
average of $250,000 per year for monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting to comply with the proposed NESHAP. This results in a total 
annualized cost of $1.01 million.
    The total capital and annualized costs cited above do not include 
the control costs for asphalt processing facilities that would be 
subject to the proposed NESHAP that are located at petroleum 
refineries. For petroleum refineries, we did not have data on actual 
production rates for blowing stills or the populations, capacities, and 
types of control devices used for storage tanks and loading racks. The 
capital and annualized costs are anticipated to be significantly less 
for petroleum refineries than asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing facilities because most of the blowing stills at these 
sources are already controlled. Additionally, refineries typically have 
existing combustion sources (flares, process heaters, and boilers) that 
can be used as control devices. The only cost anticipated for petroleum 
refineries will be for emission capture systems.

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    The Agency conducted a detailed economic impact analysis to 
determine the market- and industry-level impacts associated with the 
proposed rule. The compliance costs of today's proposed rule are 
expected to increase the prices of asphalt roofing and processing 
products by less than 0.1 percent across the directly affected product 
markets, and domestic production and consumption of the affected 
products are expected to decrease by less than 0.1 percent also.
    In terms of industry impacts, the asphalt roofing and processing 
manufacturers are projected to experience a decrease in operating 
profits of about 0.1 percent, which reflects the compliance costs 
associated with the production of asphalt roofing and processing 
products and the resulting reductions in revenues due to the increase 
in the prices of the directly affected product markets and reduced 
quantities purchased. Through the market impacts described above, the 
proposed rule created both gainers and losers within the asphalt 
roofing and processing industry. The majority of facilities, almost 76 
percent, are expected to experience profit increases with the proposed 
rule; however, there are some facilities projected to lose profits 
(about 8 percent). Furthermore, the economic impact analysis indicates 
that of the 123 existing asphalt roofing and processing facilities, 
none are at risk of closure because of the proposed standards. 
Therefore, none of the companies that own asphalt roofing and 
processing facilities are projected to close due to this proposed rule.
    Based on the market analysis, the annual social costs of the 
proposed rule is projected to be about $1.01 million. The estimated 
social costs differ from the projected engineering costs by less than 
0.01 percent for this proposed rule. These two costs differ because 
social costs account for producer and consumer behavior. These social 
costs are distributed across the many consumers and producers of 
asphalt roofing and processing products. For this proposed rule, the 
producers of asphalt roofing and processing products, in aggregate, are 
expected to incur about $0.46 million annually in costs, while the 
consumers of asphalt roofing and processing products are expected to 
incur $0.55 million annually across the product markets.
    The economic analysis also addressed potential changes in new 
asphalt roofing and processing facility construction for the year 
following promulgation of this rule. This was done by estimating the 
total annualized costs for new facilities and projecting changes in 
equilibrium output due to the proposed rule. The economic impact 
analysis estimated a very small reduction in the growth of the asphalt 
industry represented by a small reduction in equilibrium output of 
asphalt products in the year following promulgation. However, the 
reduction in equilibrium output was only a small fraction of estimated 
new plant capacity. Thus, the control costs are not expected to 
influence the decision to enter the market for asphalt products. For 
more information, consult the Economic Impact Analysis report 
supporting this proposed rule.

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

    Spent filter media from certain types of PM control devices (e.g., 
high-efficiency air filters) is periodically replaced and disposed of 
as solid waste. Although many of the emission sources subject to the 
proposed NESHAP are already controlled by PM devices, an

[[Page 58617]]

increase in the generation of spent filter media is expected as a 
result of the proposed NESHAP. However, we do not have sufficient data 
to quantify this anticipated increase in solid waste generation.
    No water impacts are anticipated due to the proposed NESHAP since 
none of the control devices expected to be used to comply with the 
proposed NESHAP require the use of water or generate wastewater 
streams.
    Increased energy usage is expected due to the proposed NESHAP. 
Electricity is required to power fans for emission capture systems, and 
new thermal oxidizers will require supplemental fuel (e.g., natural 
gas) to efficiently combust the HAP vent streams. The estimated annual 
increase in electricity consumption is 0.787 million kilowatt hours. 
The approximate increase in natural gas consumption is 12.0 million 
standard cubic feet per year. These estimates are for the ten 
facilities considered to be major sources.

IV. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards

A. How Did We Select the Source Categories To Regulate?

    In section 112(c)(2), the CAA requires that we regulate each 
category of major sources of HAP. An initial list of source categories 
was published on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) and, pursuant to section 
112(c)(1) of the CAA, we have revised the list on four occasions in 
response to public comment or new information. Asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacture are on the list of source categories 
because these processes can be major sources of HAP or located at major 
sources of HAP. Hazardous air pollutants are any of the 188 chemicals 
listed under section 112(b) of the CAA. The proposed NESHAP do not 
apply to processes that are located at area sources.

B. How Did We Select the Affected Sources?

    The affected sources are the pieces of process equipment that are 
subject to the NESHAP emission limits. The two affected sources in this 
proposal are defined as each asphalt processing facility and each 
asphalt roofing manufacturing line. An asphalt processing facility 
includes the following process equipment: Blowing stills, asphalt flux 
storage tanks, oxidized asphalt storage tanks, and oxidized asphalt 
loading racks. An asphalt roofing manufacturing line includes the 
following process equipment: A saturator, a wet looper, a coater, 
coating mixers, sealant applicators, adhesive applicators, and 
associated storage tanks.
    Asphalt storage tanks at asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing facilities that are collocated may be shared by the two 
operations. If the asphalt roofing manufacturing line is collocated 
with an asphalt processing facility, the storage tanks that receive 
asphalt directly from the on-site blowing stills would be defined as 
part of the asphalt processing affected source.
    A facility that manufactures asphalt roofing may have more than one 
manufacturing line. At these facilities, asphalt storage tanks and 
sealant and adhesive applicators may be shared by roofing manufacturing 
lines. A shared storage tank would be considered part of the asphalt 
roofing manufacturing line to which the tank supplies the greatest 
amount of asphalt, on an annual basis. A sealant or adhesive applicator 
that is shared by two or more asphalt roofing manufacturing lines would 
be considered part of the line that provides the greatest throughput to 
the applicator, on an annual basis.
    This definition of affected source would also be used to determine 
if new source standards apply when subject equipment is ``constructed'' 
or ``reconstructed,'' as defined in the NESHAP general provisions 
(Sec. 63.2). We defined the affected source as the asphalt processing 
facility or asphalt roofing manufacturing line rather than on a narrow 
equipment-piece basis because we believe that it is inappropriate for 
small changes (e.g., the addition of a sealant applicator to a 
manufacturing line) to trigger the new source emission limits for only 
part of the manufacturing line. For asphalt processing facilities, this 
is not a concern since the existing and new source standards are the 
same. However, the existing and new source standards are substantially 
different for asphalt roofing manufacturing lines.
    For asphalt roofing manufacturing lines, the new source emission 
limits would be triggered only when an entire new line is added or when 
an existing line is reconstructed. This is appropriate because the 
manufacture of roofing products is a continuous process, with the 
equipment for the different process steps arranged in sequence. 
Consequently, an increase in production cannot be achieved simply by 
adding a single piece of process equipment (e.g., a coater). To 
increase production capacity, the entire line would have to be modified 
or a new line would need to be constructed.

C. How Did We Select the Pollutants To Regulate?

    The available emission data show that HAP are emitted from asphalt 
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities. As discussed 
previously in section I.D of this preamble, HAP emitted from the 
sources that would be regulated by these proposed NESHAP can be present 
in both gaseous and condensed PM forms, depending on the temperature of 
the vent or exhaust gas.
    For the purposes of this proposed rule, the HAP emitted from 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities have 
been divided into three categories: Total gaseous organic HAP, total 
particulate organic HAP, and HCl.
    Total Gaseous Organic HAP. We are proposing to regulate gaseous HAP 
emissions using THC as a surrogate. Total hydrocarbons are an 
appropriate surrogate for total HAP, since organic HAP constitute a 
significant portion of the THC. Controlling THC would result in a 
proportionate amount of organic HAP control.
    Total Particulate Organic HAP. Particulate matter emitted from 
blowing stills consists of condensed organic hydrocarbons. For organic 
HAP that are present in condensed PM form, we are proposing to use PM 
as a surrogate. Similarly to the THC surrogate for gaseous HAP, PM is 
an appropriate surrogate because it would include the HAP that would be 
emitted as condensed PM. Controlling PM would result in a proportionate 
amount of condensed particulate organic HAP control.
    Hydrogen Chloride. We are proposing not to regulate HCl emissions 
associated with blowing stills that use chlorinated catalysts. The 
reasons are discussed in section IV.D of this preamble.

D. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards 
for Existing and New Sources?

    How did we determine the MACT floor? The majority of data used for 
the MACT floor analysis were obtained from responses to a survey 
distributed by ARMA in 1995. We reviewed the survey information and 
obtained clarifications and additional information in subsequent 
meetings with representatives of the asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing industry.
    Approximately half of the asphalt processing and roofing 
manufacturing facilities in the industry responded to the survey. 
Because the survey was not targeted at a specific subset of the

[[Page 58618]]

industry (for example, large facilities or well-controlled facilities), 
we believe the collected data provide a generally representative sample 
of the industry, but may in fact be slightly biased to larger, well-
controlled facilities that had the resources to respond to the survey.
    The survey requested information on the types of products 
manufactured, process equipment, and control devices used in asphalt 
processing and roofing manufacturing operations. Data were provided on 
the following types of equipment which have been identified as sources 
of HAP emissions: blowing stills, loading racks, storage tanks, 
coaters, saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, sealant applicators 
and adhesive applicators. Data characterizing the performance of 
control devices were not collected by the survey. Data for blowing 
stills at petroleum refineries (which were gathered to support 
development of the petroleum refineries NESHAP but were not covered by 
those NESHAP) were included in the MACT floor analysis for blowing 
stills.
    To establish the MACT floor, we considered two approaches: 
determine the MACT floor across the affected source as a whole, and 
determine the MACT floor for each type of process equipment. To 
determine the MACT floor using the first approach, a mass emission 
limit or a mass emission reduction percentage across the affected 
source as a whole must be established. For the definition of affected 
source in this proposal, this approach would require determination of 
the best performing 12 percent of the asphalt processing facilities and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines. However, the data currently 
available are not sufficient to establish either a mass emission limit 
or a percent reduction for entire affected sources. The variety of 
equipment configurations used in the asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing industries makes it difficult to compare mass 
emissions or overall levels of control from various affected sources. 
For example, not all processing facilities, especially those collocated 
with roofing manufacturing facilities, have loading racks. 
Additionally, adequate test data for estimating uncontrolled emissions 
and the emission reductions associated with the variety of control 
devices used are not available.
    Consequently, we have decided to establish the existing and new 
source MACT floors for each type of process equipment used in asphalt 
processing facilities and in asphalt roofing manufacturing lines. We 
believe that this approach is the most appropriate use of the available 
data. Additionally, this approach provides assurance that the resulting 
MACT floors for each piece of equipment, when combined, would not be 
less stringent than the MACT floor for the affected source as a whole.
    Section 112(d)(3)(A) of the CAA requires that standards be no less 
stringent than ``the average emission limitation achieved by the best 
performing 12 percent of existing sources * * *  for categories and 
subcategories with 30 or more sources.'' We have interpreted this 
language to mean that EPA first determines the emission limitations 
achieved by sources within the best performing 12 percent and then 
averages those limitations. In this proposal, we interpret the term 
``average'' to mean the mean, median, or mode, or some other measure of 
central tendency. In most cases, ``average'' is interpreted to be the 
arithmetic mean or the median. The choice between using the median 
value or mean value depends on which value best represents the central 
tendency of the data. For asphalt processing and roofing sources, we 
have determined that the median best represents the central tendency. 
For most pieces of equipment, the control devices used by the best 
performing 12 percent are limited to two types (thermal oxidizers and 
PM control devices). A mean destruction efficiency would result in a 
floor that does not correspond to any actual control device in use. The 
median of the best performing 12 percent of sources was identified to 
determine the MACT floor for blowing stills, loading racks, storage 
tanks, coaters, coating mixers, and sealant and adhesive applicators.
    For saturators and wet loopers, we have data for less than 30 
pieces of equipment. Section 112(d)(3)(B) of the CAA requires that 
standards be no less stringent than ``the average emission limitation 
achieved by the best performing five sources * * * for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.'' Therefore, the MACT floor 
for saturators and wet loopers is based on the average emission 
limitation achieved by the best performing five sources, rather than 
the best performing 12 percent of sources. As with other equipment, the 
median of the five best performing sources was determined to best 
represent the central tendency of the data.
    To identify the best performing sources and the median level of 
emission reduction, we determined the level of control for each piece 
of process equipment based on the type of control device installed and 
the operating characteristics of the control device. For each equipment 
type, the equipment pieces were ranked in order of level of control. 
The categories of control, in descending order of HAP emission 
reduction, are as follows: thermal oxidizers operating at or above 1200 
degrees Fahrenheit ( deg.F); thermal oxidizers operating below 
1200 deg.F; PM control devices (e.g., high-velocity air filters (HVAF), 
electrostatic precipitators (ESP); fiberbed filters) used to comply 
with the asphalt new source performance standard (NSPS) (40 CFR 60, 
subpart UU); PM control devices not used to comply with the asphalt 
NSPS; and no control device.
    We ranked thermal oxidizers over PM control devices because thermal 
oxidizers reduce both gaseous HAP and condensed HAP. Particulate matter 
control devices control only the HAP that have condensed into PM at the 
operating temperature of the control device.
    Thermal oxidizers operating at or above 1200 deg.F were considered 
to achieve a greater emission reduction than those operating below 
1200 deg.F. This conclusion was based on a study of thermal oxidizers 
that found that most hydrocarbons are destroyed at a temperature of 
1200 deg.F or above. Although operating temperatures for thermal 
oxidizers reported in the survey range up to 1600 deg.F, thermal 
oxidizers operating at or above 1200 deg.F were not further subdivided. 
The EPA/ARMA test program showed no consistent increase in emission 
reduction with increased temperatures above 1200 deg.F. For example, 
the THC destruction efficiencies for some test runs of a thermal 
oxidizer operating at 1400 deg.F were less than the destruction 
efficiencies achieved at 1250 deg.F, while other runs were greater than 
the efficiencies achieved at 1600 deg.F.
    Particulate matter control devices used to comply with the emission 
limits of the asphalt NSPS were assumed to be better performing than 
those that were not. This assumption was based on the fact that a 
performance test is required to demonstrate compliance with the asphalt 
NSPS PM emission limits. After the performance test, continuous 
compliance with the emission limits is demonstrated by monitoring the 
inlet gas temperature. We ranked the PM control devices above no 
control because PM emissions contain condensed HAP and, in controlling 
PM, some HAP control is achieved.
    Blowing Stills. All blowing stills emit organic HAP. However, 
blowing stills in which a chlorinated catalyst is used to promote the 
oxidation reaction also produce emissions of chlorinated compounds. 
When these compounds are combusted in the thermal oxidizer

[[Page 58619]]

typically used to control blowing still emissions, HCl emissions are 
produced. Because different methods are used to control organic HAP and 
HCl, separate analyses were conducted to identify the MACT floor for 
organic HAP and HCl from blowing stills.
    We have control device information for 91 blowing stills. Organic 
HAP emissions from all of these blowing stills are controlled using a 
thermal oxidizer. All of the best performing 12 percent of blowing 
stills are controlled with a thermal oxidizer operating at or above 
1200 deg.F. Therefore, a thermal oxidizer operating at or above 
1200 deg.F is the basis for the floor for control of organic HAP from 
blowing stills at existing, new, and reconstructed affected sources.
    Of the 91 blowing stills for which we have data, 37 use a chloride-
based catalyst. In considering a potential floor for HCl emissions from 
these sources, we considered both at-the-stack controls and prohibiting 
chlorinated catalyst use as a potential basis for a standard. None of 
these facilities use a control device to reduce HCl emissions generated 
by the thermal oxidizer. Therefore, an add-on control device (i.e., a 
further control in addition to the thermal oxidizer, which is itself an 
add-on control device) cannot be the basis for a floor standard for HCl 
emissions.
    The only other potential MACT floor for HCl emissions that we 
considered (and the only potential means available) was the pollution 
prevention option of not allowing use of a chlorinated catalyst. This 
would eliminate HCl emissions from the thermal oxidizer. Well over 12 
percent of blowing stills do not use a catalyst. However, the need to 
use catalyst is driven by the type of asphalt feedstocks used.
    The asphalt flux used in the production of asphalt roofing 
materials is a by-product of the petroleum refining process. Because 
the characteristics of crude oil are highly variable, the quality of 
the asphalt flux that remains after the refinery distillation processes 
also varies. Also, the degree of refining has an effect on the 
suitability of the asphalt flux for use in manufacturing asphalt 
roofing products. Because the demand for high-quality asphalt flux can 
sometimes be greater than the supply and because high-quality 
feedstocks might not be available in a particular region, some roofing 
manufacturers must accept lower quality feedstock. Catalysts must be 
used to attain the desired roofing product specifications if certain 
low-quality asphalt flux feedstocks (e.g., the flux derived from crude 
oils that have been extensively refined) are used. These sources must 
use a catalyst in the asphalt flux blowing operation or an acceptable 
asphalt product for roofing materials cannot be produced. Thus, for 
these sources, use of a catalyst (with consequent HCl emissions when 
other organic emissions are controlled with a thermal oxidizer control 
device) is a necessity unless asphalt production is discontinued. This, 
of course, is not an intended result from application of MACT. See H. 
Rep. No. 490, 101st Cong. 2d sess. 328 (``However, MACT is not intended 
* * * to drive sources to the brink of shutdown'').
    Consequently, control of HCl emissions through substitution of 
higher quality asphalt flux is not an achievable means of control, 
because such higher quality flux is not consistently or reliably 
available, i.e., there is generally not enough higher quality flux 
available at any one time for the demand. Since this potential means of 
control is not duplicable (i.e., not consistently or reliably available 
to all sources), standards based on this means of control would not be 
achievable, as required by section 112(d)(2) of the Act. EPA 
consequently is not proposing a floor standard based on the unavailable 
means of process substitution.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The situation might also be conceptualized in terms of 
subcategories: plants that produce asphalt using higher quality 
flux, and those without access to higher quality flux producing 
asphalt using catalysts. The higher quality flux process subcategory 
controls HCl emissions through its process (in essence, there are no 
such emissions); the catalyst subcategory does not control HCl 
emissions at the floor level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because there are no control devices in use to control HCl from 
blowing still thermal oxidizers and disallowing the use of catalyst is 
not a technically achievable option for all sources, the MACT floor for 
HCl emissions at existing, new, and reconstructed affected sources is 
based on no emission reduction.
    We do not believe this proposal is inconsistent with the holding in 
National Lime v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2000). That case 
remanded MACT standards of no control for consideration of whether 
various types of process substitution could establish a MACT floor. 233 
F. 3d at 634. There was no showing, however, that such means of control 
were unavailable (so that plant closure was the only alternative should 
standards based on process substitution be adopted). Nor was National 
Lime a situation where emission of one HAP resulted from application of 
control technology for other HAPs.
    Loading Racks. We have control device information for 52 loading 
racks. All of the best performing 12 percent of loading racks are 
controlled with a thermal oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F. 
Therefore, a thermal oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F is the 
basis for the MACT floor for loading racks at existing, new, and 
reconstructed affected sources.
    Coaters. We have control device information for 73 coaters. Of the 
nine best performing coaters (the best performing 12 percent of 
sources), four are controlled with a thermal oxidizer operating at or 
above 1200 deg.F, and five with a PM control device that is subject to 
the asphalt NSPS limits. The median, or fifth, source is controlled 
with a PM control device that is subject to the asphalt NSPS limits. 
Therefore, the floor level of control for coaters at existing affected 
sources is based on a PM control device that achieves the asphalt NSPS 
limits. The floor for coaters at new and reconstructed affected sources 
is based on a thermal oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F.
    Coating Mixers. We have data for 60 coating mixers. Of the eight 
coating mixers that represent the best performing 12 percent, three are 
controlled with a thermal oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F, 
three are controlled with a PM control device that is subject to the 
asphalt NSPS limits, and two are controlled with a PM control device 
that is not used to comply with the asphalt NSPS. The fourth and fifth 
coating mixers, representing the median, are controlled with a PM 
control device that is subject to the asphalt NSPS limits. Therefore, 
the MACT floor for coating mixers at existing affected sources is based 
on a PM control device that achieves the asphalt NSPS limits. The floor 
for coating mixers at new and reconstructed affected sources is based 
on a thermal oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F.
    Saturators and Wet Loopers. We have data for less than 30 
saturators and less than 30 wet loopers, therefore the floor for these 
types of equipment is based on the ``average'' emission limit achieved 
by the five best performing sources. Of the five best performing 
saturators, one is controlled with a thermal oxidizer operating at or 
above 1200 deg.F, one is controlled by a thermal oxidizer operating 
below 1200 deg.F, and the remaining saturators, including the median 
source, are controlled with a PM control device that is subject to the 
asphalt NSPS limits. A PM control device that achieves the asphalt NSPS 
limits is therefore the basis for the floor for saturators at existing 
affected sources. A thermal oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F 
is the basis for the floor

[[Page 58620]]

for saturators at new and reconstructed affected sources.
    All of the five best performing wet loopers are controlled with a 
PM control device that is subject to the asphalt NSPS limits. 
Therefore, the floor for wet loopers at existing, new, and 
reconstructed affected sources is based on a PM control device that 
achieves the asphalt NSPS limits.
    Asphalt Storage Tanks. As discussed previously, storage tanks may 
be associated with either asphalt processing or asphalt roofing 
manufacturing or shared between the two source categories at collocated 
facilities. To address the possibility that the floor for asphalt 
storage tanks would be different for asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing facilities, we performed the floor analysis for 
five different groupings of facilities: facilities that only process 
asphalt, facilities that only manufacture roofing products, facilities 
that both process asphalt and manufacture roofing products, facilities 
that process asphalt (including stand-alone and collocated asphalt 
processing facilities), and all facilities.
    In addition, storage tanks can vary in function based on the 
material stored. Large bulk storage tanks are used to store asphalt 
flux and oxidized asphalt; modified bitumen tanks are used to mix 
asphalt flux and plastic modifiers; and relatively small process tanks, 
such as sealant and adhesive tanks, supply asphalt directly to the 
roofing line. To address the possibility that the level of emission 
reduction is related to the function of a tank, we grouped the tanks by 
the type of material stored, as an indication of the tank's function. 
The material groupings included: asphalt flux, oxidized asphalt, 
modified bitumen, and sealant and adhesive.
    We found that, regardless of the facility or material grouping, a 
thermal oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F is the basis for the 
MACT floor for storage tanks at existing, new, and reconstructed 
affected sources.
    Through the MACT floor analysis, we determined, based on available 
data, that no sources are using a thermal oxidizer to control emissions 
from storage tanks with a capacity less than 1.93 megagrams (2.13 tons) 
of asphalt. Therefore, the MACT floor level of control does not include 
controlling tanks with capacities less than 1.93 megagrams.
    Sealant and Adhesive Applicators. There are 60 applicators for 
which we have data. Therefore, the eight best performing applicators 
represent the top 12 percent of sources. Of these, four applicators are 
controlled with a thermal oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F and 
four applicators are controlled with a PM control device subject to the 
asphalt NSPS limits. Because there are an even number of control 
devices in the top 12 percent, there is no clear median control. 
However, as stated previously, the database of applicators includes 
only those of companies that responded to the survey, which may be 
biased toward the better-controlled facilities (those with more 
available resources to respond). In light of this uncertainty, and the 
fact that there is no clear median source, we have assumed that some 
bias may exist toward reporting of better-controlled facilities. The 
lesser-controlled nonrespondents, if included in the floor 
determination, would then produce an identifiable median of PM control 
at the NSPS level. This would thus cause us to identify a more 
stringent MACT floor than if we have information on all applicators. 
Consequently, to allow for any bias that may exist in the database due 
to this marginal uncertainty, we have determined that the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent is more 
appropriately represented by the emission reduction achieved for the 
fifth-ranked applicator, which is controlled with a PM control device 
subject to the asphalt NSPS limits. The MACT floor of applicators at 
existing affected sources is based on a PM control device achieving the 
asphalt NSPS limits, and the MACT floor for applicators at new and 
reconstructed sources is based on a thermal oxidizer operating at or 
above 1200 deg.F.
    In summary, the MACT floor for the equipment at existing, new, and 
reconstructed asphalt processing facilities (blowing stills, loading 
racks, and storage tanks with capacity of 1.93 megagrams or greater) is 
based on a thermal oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F for 
control of organic HAP. With the exception of asphalt storage tanks, 
the MACT floor for equipment at existing asphalt roofing manufacturing 
lines (coaters, saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers and sealant and 
adhesive applicators) is based on a PM control device complying with 
the asphalt NSPS. Compliance with the asphalt NSPS includes limiting PM 
emissions to a process weight-based limit and complying with opacity 
and visible emission limits. For the coaters, saturators, wet loopers, 
coating mixers, and sealant and adhesive applicators at new and 
reconstructed affected sources, the MACT floor is based on a thermal 
oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F. For wet loopers at new and 
reconstructed affected sources, the MACT floor is based on a PM control 
device complying with the asphalt NSPS. For storage vessels with a 
capacity of 1.93 megagrams or greater at existing, new, and 
reconstructed asphalt roofing manufacturing lines, the MACT floor is 
based on a thermal oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F.
    How did we consider beyond-the-floor options? There are three 
groups of equipment for which we identified potential options for 
achieving emission reductions more stringent than the floor (beyond-
the-floor options): saturators, wet loopers, coaters, coating mixers, 
and sealant and adhesive applicators at existing sources; blowing 
stills that use a chlorinated catalyst at existing, new, and 
reconstructed sources; and wet loopers at new and reconstructed 
sources.
    For all other equipment (blowing stills, loading racks, and storage 
tanks at existing, new, and reconstructed sources; and for saturators, 
coaters, coating mixers, and sealant and adhesive applicators at new 
and reconstructed sources), the MACT floor is based on a thermal 
oxidizer operating with a minimum operating temperature of 1200 deg.F. 
There are no known technologies in use at asphalt processing or roofing 
manufacturing facilities or similar sources that would be capable of 
achieving a greater emission reduction than these thermal oxidizers 
and, thus, no beyond-the-floor options were considered.
    We also considered whether facilities could use ``cleaner'' or 
lower-emitting asphalt feedstocks when processing asphalt or 
manufacturing roofing products as a beyond-the-floor option for all 
equipment at existing, new, and reconstructed affected sources. We do 
not have data to determine the relationship between HAP emissions and 
various types of feedstocks. Additionally, we do not have sufficient 
data to determine definitively whether this is a viable option, 
although we believe that it is not feasible because a facility's choice 
of feedstocks is dictated primarily by its location. For example, it 
would be impractical for an asphalt processing facility on the East 
coast to obtain asphalt feedstock from a petroleum refinery on the West 
coast. Consequently, we have determined that restricting the type of 
feedstock used is not technically achievable for all sources, and, 
therefore, cannot be considered as a beyond-the-floor option.
    Saturators, Wet Loopers, Coaters, Coating Mixers, and Sealant and 
Adhesive Applicators at Existing Sources. For saturators, wet loopers, 
coating mixers, coaters, and sealant and

[[Page 58621]]

adhesive applicators at existing affected sources, the floor is based 
on a PM control device used to comply with the asphalt NSPS limits. The 
level of control achieved by a thermal oxidizer with a minimum 
operating temperature of 1200 deg.F was identified as the only beyond-
the-floor option. It is estimated that requiring a thermal oxidizer for 
these pieces of equipment would result in an total annualized cost 
(capital amortization plus operating costs) to industry of $3.3 
million. The additional emission reduction associated with this option 
is estimated to be 5.36 megagrams of HAP per year, resulting in a cost 
per megagram of HAP reduced of $616,000 per megagram ($559,000 per ton 
of HAP.) Additionally, the option would result in significant increases 
in emissions of criteria pollutants due to the combustion of the 
exhaust gas and supplemental fuel.
    Due to the cost per megagram of HAP reduction and the increase in 
criteria pollutant emissions, requiring the level of control achieved 
by a thermal oxidizer for saturators, wet loopers, coaters, coating 
mixers, and sealant and adhesive applicators at existing sources is not 
a justifiable option at this time without further evaluation of the 
associated risks. Therefore, the MACT for saturators, wet loopers, 
coating mixers, coaters, and sealant and adhesive applicators at 
existing sources is determined to be the floor level of control, which 
is based a PM control device meeting the asphalt NSPS limits.
    Blowing stills that use a chlorinated catalyst. Blowing stills that 
use a chlorinated catalyst produce a vent stream that contains 
chlorinated organic compounds. When this vent stream is sent to a 
thermal oxidizer, the chlorinated organic compounds are oxidized to HCl 
which is a HAP. Typical HCl emission from a blowing still using 
catalyst are 0.117 kilograms per megagram of asphalt processed.
    As discussed earlier, we considered prohibiting catalyst as a 
potential MACT floor option for existing, new, and reconstructed 
blowing stills but this option was rejected because it was determined 
not to be available because the substitute, high quality flux, is not 
consistently or reliably available to all sources. This option was also 
considered as a beyond-the-floor option but was rejected for the same 
reasons. Also, we considered the option of requiring the addition of a 
scrubber to control HCl emissions.
    Emissions of HCl can be reduced by a gas scrubber using caustic 
scrubbing media. Gas scrubbers typically achieve 95 percent reduction 
of HCl emissions in other applications in other industries. However, 
there are currently no asphalt processing facilities using gas 
scrubbers to control HCl emissions. Additionally, catalyst is not added 
continuously to the blowing still, but at the beginning of the blowing 
cycle, resulting in variable HCl emissions over the cycle. This 
variability makes it difficult to assess the expected reduction 
efficiency of a given scrubber.
    Based on the information collected by the ARMA survey, ten asphalt 
processing facilities in the roofing industry that are major sources 
use a chlorinated catalyst. The total capital cost for gas scrubbers 
for the six facilities is estimated to be $1,220,000; the total 
annualized cost (capital amortization plus operating costs) of the ten 
gas scrubbers is estimated to be $4,020,000. These costs are based on 
typical scrubbers used in other industries for similar flow rates and 
do not take into consideration the variable HCl emissions in asphalt 
processing, and thus may be understated. Using these costs and 
estimated HCl emission reductions of 168.1 Mg/yr (185.4 tpy) (this 
reduction is based on 95 percent reduction, but the actual overall 
reduction could be less due to the variability of HCl emissions over 
the blowing cycle) yields a cost per megagram of HAP removal value of 
$23,900 per megagram ($21,700 per ton) of HCl removed. The use of gas 
scrubbers would also result in increases in electricity usage (needed 
to run scrubber pumps) and generation of solid and liquid waste streams 
due to disposal of spent scrubber media.
    Because it is not available to sources using catalyst, prohibiting 
the use of catalyst is not considered a feasible beyond-the-floor 
option. Because scrubbing has not been demonstrated as an effective 
technology for controlling HCl emissions from asphalt processing and 
due to the potentially high cost per megagram of HCl reduced, we do not 
believe the additional cost of going beyond-the-floor is warranted at 
this time without a further evaluation of risk. Therefore, because 
there are no feasible pollution prevention practices or demonstrated 
add-on control devices options for controlling HCl from blowing stills, 
MACT for blowing stills using catalyst is based on no emission 
reduction.
    Wet Loopers at New and Reconstructed Sources. The floor for wet 
loopers at new and reconstructed affected sources is based on a PM 
control device that is achieving the asphalt NSPS limits. Therefore, 
controlling a wet looper to achieve the level of control of a thermal 
oxidizer operating at a minimum of 1200 deg.F was considered as a 
beyond-the-floor option.
    Because new affected sources will be required to control all 
blowing stills, storage tanks with a capacity of 1.93 megagrams (2.13 
tons) or greater, loading racks, saturators, coating mixers, coaters, 
and sealant and adhesive applicators to the level of control achieved 
by a thermal oxidizer, we expect a source to tie its wet looper exhaust 
stream into the other exhaust streams going to the thermal oxidizer. We 
anticipate that the addition of wet looper exhaust to the other exhaust 
streams that would have to be controlled will add little, if any, cost 
to the cost of a new thermal oxidizer. Additionally, because wet 
loopers are adjacent to or are part of an associated saturator, 
controlling the wet looper along with the saturator would not require 
additional costs for the emission capture system. Because of this, the 
cost of adding a separate thermal oxidizer to control a wet looper at a 
new source was not estimated.
    This option would result in negligible increases in emissions of 
criteria pollutants due to the combustion of the exhaust gas and 
supplemental fuel. Because controlling wet loopers at new affected 
sources is expected to add minimal if any cost to the total control 
cost, MACT for wet loopers at new or reconstructed affected sources is 
based on a thermal oxidizer operating at a minimum of 1200 deg.F.
    The MACT floor for blowing stills, loading racks, and storage tanks 
at existing, new, and reconstructed sources, and for saturators, wet 
loopers, coating mixers, coaters, and sealant and adhesive applicators 
at new and reconstructed sources is based on a thermal oxidizer 
operating with a minimum operating temperature of 1200 deg.F. There are 
no known technologies in use at asphalt processing or asphalt roofing 
manufacturing facilities or similar sources that would be capable of 
achieving a greater emission reduction, therefore, the MACT for these 
types of equipment is the same as the MACT floor.

E. How Did We Select the Format of the Standards?

    The EPA and ARMA conducted a joint test program to characterize the 
HAP emissions from the facilities using the MACT. Six facilities using 
the MACT were tested under the test program (four collocated processing 
and roofing facilities, one stand-alone roofing facility, and one 
modified bitumen facility). In general, the data collected from the 
test program were not

[[Page 58622]]

sufficient to develop performance standards based on HAP emissions per 
unit of production. First, different products were manufactured during 
the tests at the various facilities. Therefore, the emissions from the 
different facilities cannot be related on a common basis. Second, 
technical problems with the HAP data collected, due to calibration 
errors of the instrument, introduced a degree of uncertainty into the 
test results. However, based in part on the test program and on other 
information, we were able to select the format of the standard for 
process equipment using thermal oxidizers and PM control devices.
    Total Hydrocarbon Emissions. The basis for MACT for HAP emissions 
from blowing stills, loading racks and asphalt storage tanks (with a 
capacity of 1.93 megagrams (2.13 tons) or greater) at existing and new 
asphalt processing facilities and for equipment at new asphalt roofing 
manufacturing lines is use of a thermal oxidizer. Unfortunately, the 
majority of the speciated HAP data collected from the test program were 
not valid due to calibration errors during testing. However, emissions 
data for THC did not contain the calibration errors. Therefore, we were 
able to evaluate the performance of thermal oxidizers using THC data as 
a surrogate for total HAP. Total hydrocarbons are an appropriate 
surrogate for total HAP since all of the HAP that are present as 
gaseous and condensible PM are organic compounds.
    Because of the lack of a common product manufactured during the 
emission tests, we could not evaluate the performance of the thermal 
oxidizers based on emissions per unit of production. Therefore, we 
evaluated the thermal oxidizer performance on a THC percent reduction 
basis.
    Most facilities that would be subject to the proposed THC emission 
limit are expected to comply using a thermal oxidizer; in fact, we are 
not aware of any other type of control device used at asphalt 
processing facilities to control both gaseous and particulate THC. 
However, testing of the thermal oxidizer inlet, which is necessary to 
demonstrate compliance with a percent reduction standard, may not be 
feasible when the thermal oxidizer is used to control emissions from 
certain emission sources, such as blowing stills. Due to the nature of 
the organic compounds in the exhaust gas and the high concentrations at 
the thermal oxidizer inlet, fouling of the testing equipment can occur. 
To address this problem, we also evaluated the performance of thermal 
oxidizers on a combustion efficiency basis which only requires outlet 
testing. The combustion efficiency standard defines how well the 
organic compounds in the process vent streams and the supplemental fuel 
are converted to CO2 by the thermal oxidizer.
    Particulate Matter Emissions. The MACT for equipment at existing 
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines (except for asphalt storage tanks) 
is based on a PM control device installed to comply with the asphalt 
NSPS. However, we did not have sufficient data to evaluate the 
performance of PM control devices based on HAP or THC emissions per 
unit of production or based on percent reduction. Therefore, the format 
of the standard for PM control devices is expressed as the asphalt NSPS 
limits for PM, opacity, and visible emissions. The use of PM, opacity, 
and visible emissions as surrogates for HAP in this case is appropriate 
since a portion of the HAP is in the form of condensed PM.

F. How Did We Select the Emission Limits?

    As discussed in the previous section, the HAP data collected from 
the test program were not sufficient to develop emission limits based 
on HAP emissions per unit of production. However, for gaseous matter 
control devices, we were able to establish a THC percent reduction 
standard and a combustion efficiency based on thermal oxidizer test 
data. Particulate matter standards were established for PM control 
devices based on the limits specified in the asphalt NSPS.
    Total Hydrocarbon Limits. The thermal oxidizers tested represent 
the basis of MACT for blowing stills, loading racks, and storage tanks 
at existing, new, and reconstructed sources, and for saturators, wet 
loopers, coating mixers, coaters, and sealant and adhesive applicators 
at new and reconstructed sources. The inlet and outlet THC 
concentration data collected from the test program were used to 
calculate the THC percent reduction achieved by each of the thermal 
oxidizers tested. Although there were variations in the calculated THC 
percent reductions, there was not a consistent trend of increasing THC 
reduction with increasing operating temperature, as long as the 
operating temperature was 1200 deg.F or greater. We believe that this 
variability reflects normal operation of the control devices. 
Therefore, we averaged together the THC destruction efficiencies of the 
tested thermal oxidizers to determine the emission limits for gaseous 
matter control devices.
    Specifically, we calculated the average THC reduction efficiency 
achieved by each thermal oxidizer tested by averaging the THC 
destruction efficiency of the individual test runs performed. We then 
calculated an overall average THC destruction efficiency of 95.9 
percent reduction for all five of the thermal oxidizers tested. To 
account for variability in the performance of thermal oxidizers and 
ensure achievability, the standard deviation (0.99) of the individual 
thermal oxidizer averages was subtracted from the overall average. This 
resulted in an emission limit for reduction of THC emissions of 95 
percent.
    An alternative expression of the standard for thermal oxidizers is 
the combustion efficiency standard. To establish the combustion 
efficiency that represents MACT, we used the outlet THC, CO, and 
CO2 concentration data from the same thermal oxidizers that 
were used to develop the percent reduction emission limit and the same 
statistical approach (i.e., determined overall combustion efficiency 
average and added one standard deviation). Using this approach, we 
established an average combustion efficiency of 99.6 percent.
    Particulate Matter Limits. Since MACT for equipment at existing 
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines (with the exception of asphalt 
storage tanks) is based on a PM control device installed to comply with 
the asphalt NSPS, we selected the following current PM, opacity, and 
visible emission standards of the asphalt NSPS as the emission limits 
that represent MACT:
     Limit PM emissions to 0.04 kg/Mg of asphalt shingle or 
mineral-surfaced roll roofing produced, or 0.4 kg/Mg of saturated felt 
or smooth-surfaced roll roofing;
     Limit opacity emissions from the control device exhaust to 
less than 20 percent; and
     Limit visible emissions from the emission capture system 
to 20 percent. (It should be noted that this limit also applies when 
the saturator is controlled with a thermal oxidizer.)

No additional data were available to provide a basis for selecting more 
stringent limits.

G. How Did We Select the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?

    Under these proposed NESHAP, a performance test would be required 
to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits. With the 
exception of PM, opacity, and visible emissions, we selected the EPA 
reference test methods that were used in the EPA/ARMA test program to 
collect the original data. For PM, opacity, and visible emissions, we

[[Page 58623]]

selected the EPA reference test methods that are specified in the 
asphalt NSPS. However, you may use any alternative method that has been 
approved by the Administrator under Sec. 63.7(f) of the NESHAP general 
provisions.
    To demonstrate compliance with the THC percent reduction standard, 
you would measure the THC emissions at the inlet and outlet of the 
control device using EPA method 25A in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60. 
For the combustion efficiency compliance option, you would measure the 
CO, CO2, and THC concentrations at the thermal oxidizer 
outlet using EPA reference methods 10, 3A, and 25A in appendix A of 40 
CFR part 60, respectively. To determine compliance with the PM emission 
limit, you would measure the PM emissions at the control device outlet 
using EPA method 5A in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60. The production 
rate would also be determined during the performance test for PM. The 
EPA methods 9 and 22 in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 would be used to 
determine the opacity and visible emissions, respectively.

H. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

    We considered two options for monitoring compliance with the 
emission limits of this proposed rule: (1) The use of continuous 
emission monitoring systems (CEMS), and (2) continuous monitoring of 
control device operating parameters. Continuous emission monitoring 
systems provide a direct measurement of pollutant emissions. Parameter 
monitoring provides a measure of the control device's operation.
    If CEMS were used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the THC 
percent reduction standard, a CEMS and flow monitors would be needed at 
both the inlet and outlet of each control device to determine percent 
reduction. For the combustion efficiency option, a CEMS would be needed 
to monitor the concentrations of THC, CO and CO2 at the 
thermal oxidizer outlet. For the PM emission limits, a CEMS would be 
needed at the control device outlet, as well as a system for 
continuously monitoring production rates. A continuous opacity monitor 
system (COMS) at the control device outlet would be needed to 
demonstrate continuous compliance with the opacity limit.
    The capital cost of installing and calibrating a CEMS ranges from 
$29,000 to $118,000 with annualized costs of operating and maintaining 
the CEMS ranging from $11,000 to $42,000. The total capital and 
annualized costs for COMS are approximately $29,000 and $11,000, 
respectively. The capital cost estimates include the purchased 
equipment cost and other ancillary capital costs, such as planning, 
providing support facilities, installation, calibrating the CEMS, 
certification tests, and preparing a quality assurance/quality control 
(QA/QC) plan. The annualized cost estimates include operation and 
maintenance, indirect costs, and ancillary costs, such as annual 
relative accuracy test audits, quarterly cylinder gas audits, 
recordkeeping, reporting, and annual reviews and updates.
    Although we considered requiring the use of CEMS, we believe that 
compliance with the proposed THC, PM and combustion efficiency 
standards can be achieved by monitoring of control device parameters to 
determine continuous compliance with the operating limits. 
Consequently, CEMS are not justified and the additional costs of 
requiring the use of a CEMS would be unreasonable. Additionally, the 
test methods for determining opacity and visible emissions are based on 
visual observations and compliance can be determined at any time. Based 
on this, and the fact that the proposed rule contains an opacity limit 
for only one type of process equipment, we determined COMS to be 
unreasonable in this situation. However, we are specifically requesting 
comment on including a provision in the NESHAP to allow facilities to 
use CEMS and COMS as options to parametric monitoring.
    To demonstrate continuous compliance, the proposed NESHAP requires 
continuous monitoring of control device operating parameters. The 
monitoring parameter values would have to be established during the 
initial performance test. Additionally, you would have to be able to 
demonstrate compliance with the opacity and visible emission standards 
at any time. We believe that the monitoring requirements will provide 
sufficient information needed to determine continuous compliance with 
the operating limits. At the same time, the provisions are not labor 
intensive, do not require expensive or complex equipment, and do not 
require burdensome recordkeeping.
    For PM devices (e.g., HVAF, ESP) used to demonstrate compliance 
with the PM standard for existing asphalt roofing manufacturing line 
equipment, we selected inlet gas temperature and pressure drop across 
the device as the monitoring parameters. For ESP, no additional 
monitoring parameters (e.g., ESP voltage) were required since the ESP 
used in the asphalt processing and roofing industries are typically 
low-voltage, modular designs. The PM removal performance of these 
devices is adequately characterized by inlet gas temperature and 
pressure drop. For all PM control devices, the inlet gas temperature 
would have to be at or below the temperature at which the performance 
test was conducted to ensure that a sufficient amount of PM has 
condensed from the vent gas prior to entering the PM control device. 
The control device pressure drop would have to be at or below the value 
established during the performance test to ensure that the control 
device is providing sufficient removal of PM and that the removal 
mechanism (e.g., filter media) does not become plugged or fouled. 
Although monitoring of pressure drop is not required by the asphalt 
NSPS, monitoring of inlet gas temperature for PM control devices is the 
same as the monitoring requirements of the asphalt NSPS. This minimizes 
the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden on facilities.
    For thermal oxidizers used to achieve compliance with the THC or 
combustion efficiency standards, we selected combustion zone 
temperature for monitoring. The performance of thermal oxidizers is 
dictated by the turbulence and residence time of the gases in the 
combustion zone and by the combustion zone temperature. For a given 
flow rate, the turbulence and residence time are fixed properties. 
Therefore, the remaining parameter necessary for determining the 
operation of the thermal oxidizer is combustion zone temperature. 
Additionally, most thermal oxidizers are already equipped with systems 
for monitoring and recording operating temperature. The combustion zone 
temperature would have to be at or above the temperature at which the 
performance test was conducted. Monitoring of combustion zone 
temperature is also the same as the monitoring requirements of the 
asphalt NSPS. For each monitoring parameter, you would determine 3-hour 
average values. We selected this averaging period to reflect operating 
conditions during the performance test used to demonstrate initial 
compliance.

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

    We evaluated the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements of the NESHAP general provisions and selected those 
requirements determined to be the minimum necessary to determine 
continuous compliance with the proposed NESHAP. The requirements

[[Page 58624]]

for notification, recordkeeping and reporting that were selected have 
been used by previous NESHAP with similar emission limit formats.
    The NESHAP general provisions notification requirements (Sec. 63.9) 
include: Initial notifications, notification of performance test, 
notification of compliance status, and additional notifications 
required for affected sources with continuous monitoring systems. 
Semiannual compliance reports and reports of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction events that occur are also required.
    We also determined that the proposed requirement to prepare a 
written, site-specific monitoring plan is necessary to ensure that the 
continuous parameter monitoring systems are installed, operated, and 
maintained properly. Because the monitoring plan does not require 
Administrator approval, we do not believe that it imposes an undue 
burden on the industry.

J. What Is the Relationship of This Subpart to Other Standards?

    Existing standards may apply to facilities subject to these 
proposed NESHAP because they apply to facilities at which asphalt 
roofing manufacturing or asphalt processing facilities are located. In 
most cases, although other standards may apply at the same facility, 
the specific requirements of the standards are not likely to apply to 
the same pieces of equipment as these proposed NESHAP. The petroleum 
refineries NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC); the petroleum liquids 
and volatile organic liquid (VOL) storage vessel NSPS (40 CFR part 60, 
subparts K, Ka, and Kb); and the petroleum refineries NSPS (40 CFR part 
60, subpart J) apply to petroleum refineries, which may also have 
asphalt blowing stills, storage tanks, and loading racks. However, 
those standards apply to different pieces of equipment than these 
proposed NESHAP. Similarly, the wet-formed fiberglass mat manufacturing 
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) apply to fiberglass manufacturing 
facilities, some of which are collocated with asphalt roofing 
manufacturing facilities (fiberglass mat is used as a substrate in 
roofing manufacturing.) The wet-formed fiberglass mat manufacturing 
NESHAP do not apply to the same pieces of equipment as these proposed 
NESHAP. The asphalt NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart UU) apply to both the 
same facilities and some of the same equipment as these proposed 
NESHAP.
    Standards That Apply to Petroleum Refineries. These proposed NESHAP 
would apply to asphalt blowing stills, asphalt storage tanks, and 
asphalt loading racks. These pieces of equipment can also be located at 
petroleum refineries which are subject to the petroleum refineries 
NESHAP, the petroleum liquids and VOL storage vessel NSPS, and the 
petroleum refinery NSPS.
    The petroleum refineries NESHAP include requirements for process 
units, storage tanks, and loading racks. However, limited definitions 
and applicability cut-offs make it unlikely that the petroleum 
refineries NESHAP would apply to the same pieces of equipment subject 
to these proposed NESHAP. For the petroleum refineries NESHAP, 
``asphalt'' was intentionally not added to the list of products 
produced by petroleum refining process units because asphalt processing 
was listed as a separate source category. The asphalt storage tanks 
found at petroleum refineries store oxidized asphalt and asphalt flux. 
The petroleum refineries NESHAP control requirements do not apply to 
storage vessels storing liquids with a maximum true vapor pressure less 
than 10.4 kilopascals (kPa) at existing sources and 3.4 kPa at new 
sources. Based on limited vapor pressure data and average operating 
temperatures for asphalt tanks, it is unlikely that the vapor pressure 
of asphalt would trigger the petroleum refinery NESHAP control 
requirements. It is estimated that the vapor pressure of asphalt at 
typical storage temperatures is an order of magnitude (in the range of 
0.4 kPa) less than the lower applicability cutoff. Loading rack 
provisions of the petroleum refineries NESHAP are limited to gasoline 
loading racks. There are no requirements in the petroleum refineries 
NESHAP for asphalt loading racks.
    Similarly to the petroleum refineries NESHAP, the petroleum storage 
vessel NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subparts K, Ka, and Kb) apply to storage 
vessels at petroleum refineries, but control requirement applicability 
is limited based on the vapor pressure of the stored liquid. In the 
three NSPS, the lowest vapor pressure cutoff for recordkeeping 
requirement applicability is 3.5 kPa (subpart Kb), and the lowest vapor 
pressure cutoff for control applicability is 5.2 kPa (subpart Kb). As 
discussed previously, the vapor pressure of asphalt flux and oxidized 
asphalt would not be high enough to trigger control requirements.
    The petroleum refineries NSPS apply to fluid catalytic cracking 
unit catalyst regenerators, fuel gas combustion devices, and Claus 
sulfur recovery plants with a capacity greater than 20 long tons per 
day. None of these sources would be subject to requirements of these 
proposed NESHAP.
    Wet-formed Fiberglass Mat Manufacturing NESHAP. Wet-formed 
fiberglass mat is used as a substrate for roofing products. A small 
number of asphalt processing and roofing facilities also manufacture 
fiberglass mat. These proposed NESHAP and the wet-formed fiberglass mat 
manufacturing NESHAP would cover different pieces of equipment. 
Therefore, while some facilities may be subject to both rules, 
individual pieces of equipment will be subject to one or the other 
rule, but not both.
    Standards of Performance for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacture. Both the asphalt NSPS and these proposed NESHAP regulate 
emissions from the following process equipment: Asphalt storage and 
process tanks, blowing stills, saturators, coaters, and wet loopers. 
Mineral handling and storage facilities are covered by the asphalt NSPS 
but are not covered by these proposed NESHAP because these facilities 
are not sources of HAP emissions. Asphalt loading racks, coating 
mixers, sealant applicators, and adhesive applicators are covered by 
these proposed NESHAP but not by the asphalt NSPS.
    With one exception, these proposed NESHAP have different emission 
limits than the asphalt NSPS. For most equipment, these proposed NESHAP 
specify THC emission limits while the asphalt NSPS specify PM and 
opacity or visible emission limits. Therefore, the testing, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the two rules are 
different. The exception is for saturators, wet loopers, and coaters 
constructed after November 18, 1980 (the asphalt NSPS applicability 
date) but on or before November 21, 2001. These pieces of equipment 
would be considered a ``new'' source with respect to the asphalt NSPS 
but would be considered an ``existing'' source for these proposed 
NESHAP. The emission limits and, consequently, the procedures for 
testing and demonstrating continuous compliance are the same for the 
most part.
    Saturators, wet loopers, and coaters that are part of an affected 
source that was constructed or reconstructed after November 21, 2001 
would be subject to both the asphalt NSPS PM emission limits and the 
proposed NESHAP emission limits for THC. For these pieces of equipment, 
we are proposing that compliance with the NESHAP would constitute 
compliance with the asphalt NSPS. Support for this finding is provided 
by data collected for the Background Information Document

[[Page 58625]]

(BID) for the asphalt NSPS and information collected by the ARMA 
industry survey. The BID presents test data for PM emissions from 
saturators controlled by an ESP, thermal oxidizer (operating at 
1200 deg. F), and a HVAF. The data show that a thermal oxidizer can 
achieve a PM emission limit of 0.02 kg/Mg or less, which is below the 
asphalt NSPS emission limits. Further support for equating NESHAP 
compliance with asphalt NSPS compliance is provided by the fact that, 
according to the ARMA survey data, four facilities are complying with 
the asphalt NSPS emission limits for saturators using a thermal 
oxidizer.
    For blowing stills and asphalt storage and process tanks, 
compliance with these proposed NESHAP would also constitute compliance 
with the asphalt NSPS. This finding is based on the fact that the 
thermal oxidizers which provide the basis for the MACT floor are also 
controlling emissions from blowing stills and asphalt storage tanks 
that are subject to the asphalt NSPS.
    Both these proposed NESHAP and the asphalt NSPS require inlet gas 
and operating temperature monitoring for PM control devices and thermal 
oxidizers, respectively, and specify the same data reduction 
procedures. This proposed rule includes the additional requirement to 
monitor the PM control device pressure drop in addition to the inlet 
gas temperature.
    The notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the 
proposed NESHAP are more stringent than those required by the asphalt 
NSPS. For example, the asphalt NSPS does not require subject facilities 
to develop site-specific performance test plans or startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction plans. The notifications, recordkeeping, and reporting 
required by the proposed NESHAP can be used to satisfy the asphalt NSPS 
requirements, except for the requirements associated with mineral 
handling and storage.
    As discussed previously, mineral handling and storage facilities 
are covered by the asphalt NSPS but are not covered by these proposed 
NESHAP. Compliance with these proposed NESHAP would not constitute 
compliance with the asphalt NSPS provisions for mineral handling and 
storage facilities.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant,'' and 
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory 
action.''

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

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

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

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

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies 
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology 
performance and not on health and safety risks.

[[Page 58626]]

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

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it 
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, or tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year. In the Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) 
for this proposed rule, EPA estimates that the total nationwide capital 
cost for the proposed standard is $2.16 million. The total nationwide 
annual cost for the proposed standards is $1.01 million. In addition, 
EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such 
governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, this proposed 
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the 
UMRA.

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

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the Agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small business, small organizations, and small 
government jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business 
according to Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards by 
NAICS code (in this case, ranging from 100 to 500 employees or $5 
million in annual sales); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is 
a government of a city, county, town, school district or special 
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    In accordance with the RFA, EPA conducted an assessment of the 
proposed standards on small businesses within the asphalt roofing and 
processing industry. Based on SBA NAICS-based size definitions and 
reported sales and employment data, EPA identified 26 of the 40 
companies that own potentially affected asphalt roofing and processing 
facilities as small. For four of the small companies, sales and 
employment data were not available; therefore, they were assumed to be 
small businesses. Although small businesses represent 65 percent of the 
companies within the source category, they are expected to incur less 
than 40 percent of the total industry compliance costs of about $1.01 
million. There are no companies with compliance costs equal to or 
greater than 1 percent of their sales. No firms are expected to close 
rather than incur the costs of compliance with the proposed rule. 
Furthermore, firms are not projected to shut down their facilities due 
to these proposed NESHAP. For further information, consult the 
``Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Asphalt Roofing and 
Processing NESHAP,'' in docket A-95-32.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I hereby certify that this proposed rule, if 
promulgated, will not have a significant impact on a substantial number 
of small entities.
    Although this proposed rule will not have any significant economic 
impacts on a substantial number of small entities, we continue to be 
interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small 
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements of this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document 
has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 2029.01) and a copy may be obtained 
from Sandy Farmer by mail at Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA 
(2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001, by e-
mail at [email protected] or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may 
also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    The information would be used by the EPA to ensure that the asphalt 
processing and roofing NESHAP requirements are implemented properly and 
are complied with on a continuous basis. Records and reports are 
necessary to identify asphalt processing and asphalt roofing facilities 
that might not be in compliance with the NESHAP. Based on reported 
information, the implementing agency will decide which asphalt 
processing and asphalt roofing facilities should be inspected and what 
records or processes should be inspected. Records that owners and 
operators of asphalt processing and asphalt roofing facilities maintain 
indicate whether personnel are operating and maintaining control 
equipment properly.
    These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically 
authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information 
submitted to the

[[Page 58627]]

EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded 
according to EPA policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, Confidentiality 
of Business Information.
    We estimate the proposed NESHAP would affect a total of 18 existing 
facilities (10 asphalt processing and asphalt roofing facilities and 8 
petroleum refineries). We estimated the number of major sources by 
estimating emissions using emission factors and available production 
data and extrapolating potential emission from actual emissions. We 
identified major facilities for the purposes of estimating emissions, 
emission reductions, control costs, and monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting costs only. Facilities would not necessarily be major sources 
for the purposes of determining applicability of these proposed NESHAP 
because they were identified as major by our estimates. Likewise, 
facilities would not be relieved from complying with these proposed 
NESHAP because they were not identified as major sources in our 
estimates. We expect that existing facilities will begin complying 3 
years after promulgation of this proposed rule but will perform related 
activities (e.g., reading and understanding the rule, conducting 
performance tests) before they are in compliance. We project that one 
new asphalt processing and asphalt roofing facility will become subject 
to the proposed NESHAP during each of the first 3 years.
    The estimated average annual burden for industry for the first 3 
years after implementation of the final rule would be 1,894 person-
hours annually. There will be no capital costs for monitoring or 
recordkeeping during the first 3 years. The total average annual 
reporting and recordkeeping burden (including industry and EPA) for 
this collection is estimated at 2,678 labor hours per year at an 
average annual cost of $341,000.
    Burden means total time, effort, or financial resources expended by 
persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information 
to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review 
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and 
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying 
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and 
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any 
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to 
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; 
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or 
otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the 
Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822), 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; and to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk 
Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since 
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 
days after November 21, 2001, a comment to OMB is best assured of 
having its full effect if OMB receives it by December 21, 2001. The 
final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law No. 104-113, Sec. 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their 
regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by one or more voluntary 
consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through 
annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA 
proposes in this rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 
3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5A, 9, 10, 22, and 25A. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA 
conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in 
addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus 
standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 5A, 9, 
and 22.
    The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 16 
voluntary consensus standards potentially applicable to this proposed 
rule. Three of the voluntary consensus standards were not available at 
the time this review was conducted. For the remaining 13 standards 
identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to 
emission standards in this proposed rule, we determined that they were 
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this 
proposed rule. Therefore, the EPA does not intend to adopt these 
standards. The search and review results of the voluntary methods can 
be found in docket A-95-32 (see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    The EPA takes comment on the compliance demonstration requirements 
in this proposed rulemaking and specifically invites the public to 
identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards. 
Commenters should also explain why this regulation should adopt these 
voluntary consensus standards in lieu of or in addition to EPA's 
standards. Emission test methods submitted for evaluation should be 
accompanied by a basis for the recommendation, including method 
validation data and the procedure used to validate the candidate method 
(if a method other than Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A was 
used).
    Section 63.8687 of the proposed standards lists the EPA testing 
methods included in the proposed rule. Under Sec. 63.7(f) of subpart A 
of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for approval to 
use an alternative test method in place of any of the EPA testing 
methods.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: November 1, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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


[[Page 58628]]


    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart LLLLL to read as follows:
Sec.
Subpart LLLLL--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing

What This Subpart Covers

63.8680   What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.8681   Am I subject to this subpart?
63.8682   What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.8683   When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations

63.8684   What emission limitations must I meet?

General Compliance Requirements

63.8685   What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

63.8686   By what date must I conduct performance tests or other 
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.8687   What performance tests, design evaluations, and other 
procedures must I use?
63.8688   What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?
63.8689   How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitations?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.8690   How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?
63.8691   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
operating limits?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.8692   What notifications must I submit and when?
63.8693   What reports must I submit and when?
63.8694   What records must I keep?
63.8695   In what form and how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.8696   What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.8697   Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.8698   What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables

Table 1 to Subpart LLLLL--Emission Limitations
Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL--Operating Limits
Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL--Requirements for Performance Tests
Table 4 to Subpart LLLLL--Initial Compliance With Emission 
Limitations
Table 5 to Subpart LLLLL--Continuous Compliance with Operating 
Limits
Table 6 to Subpart LLLLL--Requirements for Reports
Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL--Applicability of General Provisions to 
Subpart LLLLL

Subpart LLLLL--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing

What This Subpart Covers


Sec. 63.8680  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants for existing and new asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing facilities. This subpart also establishes 
requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations.


Sec. 63.8681  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an 
asphalt processing facility or an asphalt roofing manufacturing 
facility that is, is located at, or is part of a major source of 
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions.
    (1) An asphalt processing facility includes any facility engaged in 
preparing asphalt at asphalt processing plants, petroleum refineries, 
or asphalt roofing plants. Asphalt preparation, called ``blowing,'' is 
the oxidation of asphalt flux by bubbling air through the heated 
asphalt. An asphalt processing facility includes the following 
processes: asphalt heating, blowing stills, asphalt flux storage tanks, 
oxidized asphalt storage tanks, and oxidized asphalt loading racks.
    (2) An asphalt roofing manufacturing facility includes any facility 
engaged in manufacturing asphalt roofing products such as asphalt-
saturated felt roll roofing, roll roofing with mineral granules on the 
surface, smooth roll roofing and fiberglass shingles. An asphalt 
roofing manufacturing facility includes the following processes: 
asphalt storage, felt saturation, coating, and sealant and adhesive 
application.
    (b) After [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER THE DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], blowing stills, storage tanks, and saturators 
that are also subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart UU, are required to 
comply only with provisions of this subpart.
    (c) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or 
group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common 
control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a 
rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of 
HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.


Sec. 63.8682  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or existing 
affected source at asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing 
facilities.
    (b) The affected source is:
    (1) Each asphalt processing facility as defined in Sec. 63.8698; 
and
    (2) Each asphalt roofing manufacturing line as defined in 
Sec. 63.8698.
    (i) If the asphalt roofing manufacturing line is collocated with an 
asphalt processing facility, the storage tanks that receive asphalt 
directly from the on-site blowing stills are part of the asphalt 
processing facility.
    (ii) If an asphalt storage tank is shared by two or more lines at 
an asphalt roofing manufacturing facility, the shared storage tank is 
considered part of the line to which the tank supplies the greatest 
amount of asphalt, on an annual basis.
    (iii) If a sealant or adhesive applicator is shared by two or more 
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines, the shared applicator is 
considered part of the line that provides the greatest throughput to 
the applicator, on an annual basis.
    (c) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced 
construction of the affected source after November 21, 2001 and you met 
the applicability criteria at the time you commenced construction.
    (d) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as 
defined in Sec. 63.2.
    (e) An affected source is existing if it is not new or 
reconstructed.


Sec. 63.8683  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must 
comply with the following:
    (1) If you startup your new or reconstructed affected source on or 
before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 
then you must comply with the requirements for new and reconstructed 
sources in this subpart no later than [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (2) If you startup your new or reconstructed affected source after 
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then 
you must comply with the requirements for new and reconstructed sources 
in this subpart upon startup.
    (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with 
the requirements for existing sources no

[[Page 58629]]

later than [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE 
FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its 
potential to emit such that it becomes a (or part of a) major source of 
HAP, then the following requirements apply:
    (1) Any portion of the existing facility that becomes a new or 
reconstructed affected source must be in compliance with this subpart 
upon startup or no later than [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is later.
    (2) All other parts of the source to which this subpart applies 
must be in compliance with this subpart by 3 years after the date the 
source becomes a major source.
    (d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.8692 
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.8692 and in Sec. 63.9. Some of the 
notifications must be submitted before you are required to comply with 
the emission limitations in this subpart.

Emission Limitations


Sec. 63.8684  What emission limitations must I meet?

    (a) You must meet each emission limitation in Table 1 of this 
subpart that applies to you.
    (b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 of this subpart 
that applies to you.

General Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.8685  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations 
(including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except 
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source, 
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to 
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
    (c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
    (d) You must develop and implement a written site-specific 
monitoring plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.8688.

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.8686  By what date must I conduct performance tests or other 
initial compliance demonstrations?

    (a) For existing affected sources, you must conduct performance 
tests no later than 60 days prior to the compliance date that is 
specified for your source in Sec. 63.8683 and according to the 
provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).
    (b) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between 
November 20, 2001 and [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], you must demonstrate initial compliance with either 
the proposed requirements or the promulgated requirements no later than 
180 calendar days after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register] or within 180 calendar days after startup of the 
source, whichever is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
    (c) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between 
November 21, 2001 and [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], and you chose to comply with the proposed 
requirements when demonstrating initial compliance, you must conduct a 
second compliance demonstration for the promulgated requirements within 
3 years and 180 calendar days after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register] or after startup of the source, whichever 
is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).


Sec. 63.8687  What performance tests, design evaluations, and other 
procedures must I use?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 3 of this 
subpart that applies to you.
    (b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the 
requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and under the conditions specified in 
Table 3 of this subpart.
    (c) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
    (d) Except for opacity and visible emission observations, you must 
conduct three separate test runs for each performance test required in 
this section, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last 
at least 1 hour.
    (e) You must use the following equations to determine compliance 
with the emission limitations.
    (1) To determine compliance with the particulate matter mass 
emission rate, you must use equations 1 and 2 of this section as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO01.000

Where:

E = Particulate matter emission rate, kilograms (pounds) of particulate 
matter per megagram (ton) of roofing product manufactured.
MPM = Particulate matter mass emission rate, kilograms 
(pounds) per hour, determined using Equation 2.
P = The asphalt roofing product manufacturing rate during the emissions 
sampling period, including any material trimmed from the final product, 
megagram (tons) per hour.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO01.001

Where:

MPM = Particulate matter mass emission rate, kilograms 
(pounds) per hour.
C = Concentration of particulate matter on a dry basis, grams per dry 
standard cubic meter (g/dscm), as measured by the test method specified 
in Table 3 of this subpart.
Q = Vent gas stream flow rate (dry standard cubic meters per minute) at 
a temperature of 20  deg.C as measured by the test method specified in 
Table 3 of this subpart.
K = Unit conversion constant (0.06 minute-kilogram/hour-gram.

    (2) To determine compliance with the total hydrocarbon percent 
reduction standard, you must use equations 3 and 4 of this section as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO01.002

Where:

RE = Emission reduction efficiency, percent.
MTHCi = Mass flow rate of total hydrocarbons entering the 
control device, kilograms (pounds) per hour, determined using Equation 
4.
MTHCo = Mass flow rate of total hydrocarbons exiting the 
control device, kilograms (pounds) per hour, determined using Equation 
4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO01.003

Where:

MTHC = Total hydrocarbon emission rate, kilograms (pounds) 
per hour.
C = Concentration of total hydrocarbons on a dry basis, parts per 
million by volume (ppmv), as measured by the test method specified in 
Table 3 of this subpart.

[[Page 58630]]

Q = Vent gas stream flow rate (dscmm) at a temperature of 20  deg.C as 
measured by the test method specified in Table 3 of this subpart.
K = Unit conversion constant (3.00E-05) (ppmv)-1 (gram-mole/
standard cubic meter) (kilogram/gram) (minutes/hour)), where standard 
temperature for gram-mole/standard cubic meter is 20  deg.C.

    (3) To determine compliance with the combustion efficiency 
standard, you must use equation 5 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO01.004

Where:

CE = Combustion efficiency, percent.
CO = Carbon monoxide concentration at the thermal oxidizer outlet, 
parts per million by volume (dry), as measured by the test method 
specified in Table 3 of this subpart.
CO2 = Carbon dioxide concentration at the thermal oxidizer 
outlet, parts per million by volume (dry), as measured by the test 
method specified in Table 3 of this subpart.
THC = Total hydrocarbon concentration at the thermal oxidizer outlet, 
parts per million by volume (dry), as measured by the test method 
specified in Table 3 of this subpart.


Sec. 63.8688  What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?

    (a) You must install, operate, and maintain each continuous 
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) according to the following:
    (1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for 
each successive 15-minute period. You must have a minimum of four 
successive cycles of operation to have a valid hour of data.
    (2) Have valid data from at least three of four equally spaced data 
values for that hour from a CPMS that is not out-of-control according 
to your site-specific monitoring plan.
    (3) Determine the 3-hour average of all recorded readings for each 
operating day, except as stated in Sec. 63.8690(c). You must have at 
least two of the three hourly averages for that period using only 
hourly average values that are based on valid data (i.e., not from out-
of-control periods).
    (4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 
validation check.
    (b) For each temperature monitoring device, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraph (a) of this section and the following:
    (1) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a 
representative temperature.
    (2) For a noncryogenic temperature range, use a temperature sensor 
with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2.2 deg. C or 0.75 percent of 
the temperature value, whichever is larger.
    (3) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic 
interference and chemical contaminants.
    (4) If a chart recorder is used, it must have a sensitivity in the 
minor division of at least 20 deg. F.
    (5) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually 
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's documentation. 
Following the electronic calibration, you must conduct a temperature 
sensor validation check in which a second or redundant temperature 
sensor placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a 
reading within 16.7 deg. C of the process temperature sensor's reading.
    (6) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor 
exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature 
range or install a new temperature sensor.
    (7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all 
electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic 
corrosion.
    (c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraph (a) of this section and the following:
    (1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in, or as close as possible to, a 
position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure.
    (2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and 
internal and external corrosion.
    (3) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch 
of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1 
percent of the pressure range.
    (4) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
    (5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and 
transducer calibration monthly.
    (6) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the 
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a 
new pressure sensor.
    (7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (d) For monitoring parameters other than temperature and pressure 
drop, you must install and operate a CPMS to provide representative 
measurements of the monitored parameters.
    (e) For each monitoring system required in this section, you must 
develop and make available for inspection by the permitting authority, 
upon request, a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses the 
following:
    (1) Installation of the CPMS sampling probe or other interface at a 
measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that 
the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions 
(e.g., on or downstream of the last control device);
    (2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample 
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, 
and the data collection and reduction system; and
    (3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria 
(e.g., calibrations).
    (f) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address 
the following:
    (1) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii), 
(c)(7), and (c)(8);
    (2) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d); and
    (3) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance 
with the general requirements of Sec. 63.10(c) and Sec. 63.10(e)(1) and 
(e)(2)(i).
    (g) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CPMS in 
accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
    (h) You must operate and maintain the CPMS in continuous operation 
according to the site-specific monitoring plan.


Sec. 63.8689  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitations?

    (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission 
limitation that applies to you according to Table 4 of this subpart.
    (b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table 
2 of

[[Page 58631]]

this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.8687 and Table 3 of this subpart.
    (c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status 
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration 
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8692(e).

Continuous Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.8690  How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

    (a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section.
    (b) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and 
required quality assurance or control activities (including, as 
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), 
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required 
intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating. This 
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction when the 
affected source is operating.
    (c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, 
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control 
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or 
operating levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling a minimum 
data availability requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data 
collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the 
control device and associated control system.


Sec. 63.8691  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
operating limits?

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating 
limit in Table 2 of this subpart that applies to you according to 
methods specified in Table 5 of this subpart.
    (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each 
operating limit in Table 5 of this subpart that applies to you. This 
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. These instances 
are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These 
deviations must be reported according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.8693.
    (c) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must 
operate in accordance with the SSMP.
    (d) Consistent with Secs. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that 
occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not 
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that 
you were operating in accordance with the SSMP. The Administrator will 
determine whether deviations that occur during a period of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in 
Sec. 63.6(e).

Notifications, Reports, and Records


Sec. 63.8692  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Secs. 63.6(h)(4) 
and (5), 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f), and 63.9(b) through (f) and (h) that 
apply to you by the dates specified.
    (b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you start up your affected 
source before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 
calendar days after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register].
    (c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new or 
reconstructed affected source on or after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must submit an Initial 
Notification not later than 120 calendar days after you become subject 
to this subpart.
    (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must 
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as 
required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
    (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design 
evaluation, opacity observation, visible emission observation, or other 
initial compliance demonstration as specified in Table 3 or 4 of this 
subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according 
to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii). You must submit the Notification of Compliance 
Status, including the performance test results, before the close of 
business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the 
performance test according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).


Sec. 63.8693  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit each report in Table 6 of this subpart that 
applies to you.
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for 
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report 
by the date in Table 6 of this subpart and according to the following 
dates:
    (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in 
Sec. 63.8683 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is 
the first date following the end of the first calendar half after the 
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.8683.
    (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the 
first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for 
your affected source in Sec. 63.8683.
    (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual 
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the 
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
    (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the 
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual 
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance 
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established 
instead of the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (c) The compliance report must contain the following information:
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness 
of the content of the report.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.
    (4) If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the 
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the 
compliance report must include the information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
    (5) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations 
(emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and visible emission 
limit) that apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations 
from the emission limitations during the reporting period.
    (6) If there were no periods during which the CPMS was out-of-
control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no 
periods during the which the CPMS was out-of-control during the 
reporting period.
    (d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit, 
operating limit, opacity limit, and visible emission limit), you must 
include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this 
section, and the

[[Page 58632]]

information in paragraphs (d)(1) through (12) of this section. This 
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (2) The date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for 
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (3) The date, time and duration that each CPMS was out-of-control, 
including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
    (4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction or during another period.
    (5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the 
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total 
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control 
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (7) A summary of the total duration of CPMS downtime during the 
reporting period and the total duration of CPMS downtime as a percent 
of the total source operating time during that reporting period.
    (8) An identification of each air pollutant that was monitored at 
the affected source.
    (9) A brief description of the process units.
    (10) A brief description of the CPMS.
    (11) The date of the latest CPMS certification or audit.
    (12) A description of any changes in CPMS, processes, or controls 
since the last reporting period.
    (e) Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating 
permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 must report all 
deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring 
report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected source submits a compliance report 
pursuant to Table 6 of this subpart along with, or as part of, the 
semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 
40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all 
required information concerning deviations from any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit), submission of the compliance report 
shall be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations 
in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a 
compliance report shall not otherwise affect any obligation the 
affected source may have to report deviations from permit requirements 
to the permit authority.
    (f) If acceptable to both the Administrator and you, you may submit 
reports and notifications electronically.


Sec. 63.8694  What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the following records:
    (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to 
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any 
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you 
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (3) Records of performance tests, performance evaluations, and 
opacity and visible emission observations as required in 
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (b) You must keep the records in Sec. 63.6(h)(6) for visible 
emission observations.
    (c) You must keep the records required in Table 5 of this subpart 
to show continuous compliance with each operating limit that applies to 
you.


Sec. 63.8695  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

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

Other Requirements and Information


Sec. 63.8696  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 7 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Secs. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.


Sec. 63.8697  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. 
EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal 
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your 
State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the 
U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You 
should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if 
implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the following authorities are retained by the Administrator 
of U.S. EPA:
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in Secs. 63.8681, 
63.8682, 63.8683, 63.8684(a) through (c), 63.8686, 63.8687, 63.8688, 
63.8689, 63.8690, and 63.8691.
    (2) Approval of major changes to test methods under 
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and 
as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under 
Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.


Sec. 63.8698  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 40 
CFR 63.2, the General Provisions of this part, and in this section as 
follows:
    Adhesive applicator means the equipment used to apply adhesive to 
single-ply roofing shingles for producing laminated or dimensional 
roofing shingles.
    Asphalt flux means the residual material from distillation of crude 
oil used to manufacture asphalt roofing products.
    Asphalt loading rack means the equipment used to transfer asphalt 
from a storage tank into a tank truck, rail car, or barge.
    Asphalt processing facility means any facility engaged in the 
preparation of asphalt at asphalt processing plants, petroleum 
refineries, and asphalt roofing plants. Asphalt preparation, called 
``blowing,'' is the oxidation of asphalt flux by bubbling air through 
the heated asphalt. An asphalt processing facility includes the 
following processes: asphalt heating, blowing stills, asphalt flux 
storage tanks, oxidized asphalt storage tanks, and oxidized asphalt 
loading racks.
    Asphalt roofing manufacturing line means the collection of 
equipment used to manufacture asphalt roofing products through a series 
of sequential process steps. An asphalt roofing manufacturing line 
includes the following equipment: a saturator (including wet looper and 
coater), a coating mixer, a sealant applicator, an adhesive applicator, 
and associated storage and process tanks. The number of asphalt roofing

[[Page 58633]]

manufacturing lines at a particular facility is determined by the 
number of saturators (or coaters) used. For example, an asphalt roofing 
manufacturing facility with two saturators would be considered to have 
two separate roofing manufacturing lines.
    Asphalt storage tank means any tank used to store asphalt, 
including asphalt flux, oxidized asphalt, and modified asphalt, at 
asphalt roofing manufacturing plants, petroleum refineries, and asphalt 
processing plants. Storage tanks containing cutback asphalts (asphalts 
diluted with solvents to reduce viscosity for low temperature 
applications) and emulsified asphalts (asphalts dispersed in water with 
an emulsifying agent are not subject to this subpart.
    Blowing still means the equipment in which air is blown through 
asphalt flux to change the softening point and penetration rate.
    Coating mixer means the equipment used to mix coating asphalt and a 
mineral stabilizer, prior to applying the stabilized coating asphalt to 
the substrate.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit), or work practice standard;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating 
limit) or work practice standard in this subpart during startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is 
permitted by this subpart.
    Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit, 
operating limit, or visible emission limit.
    Modified asphalt means asphalt that has been mixed with plastic 
modifiers.
    Oxidized asphalt means asphalt that has been prepared by passing 
air through liquid asphalt flux in a blowing still.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 
CFR 70.2.
    Saturator means the equipment in which asphalt is applied to a 
substrate to make asphalt roofing products. The term saturator includes 
the saturator, wet looper, and coater.
    Sealant applicator means the equipment used to apply a sealant 
strip to a roofing product. The sealant strip is used to seal 
overlapping pieces of roofing product after they have been applied.
    Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice, 
or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated 
pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.
    As stated in Sec. 63.8684(a), you must meet each emission 
limitation in the following table that applies to you:

             Table 1 to Subpart LLLLL--Emission Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             You must meet the following
                 For . . .                    emission limitation . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each blowing still, loading rack, and    a. Reduce total hydrocarbon
 asphalt storage tank with a capacity of     mass emissions by 95
 1.93 megagrams (2.13 tons) of asphalt or    percent; or
 greater at existing, new, and              b. Route the emissions to a
 reconstructed asphalt processing            thermal oxidizer achieving
 facilities                                  a combustion efficiency of
                                             99.6 percent.
2. Each coating mixer, saturator            a. Reduce total hydrocarbon
 (including wet looper and coater),          mass emissions by 95
 sealant applicator, and adhesive            percent or
 applicator at new and reconstructed        b. Route the emissions to a
 asphalt roofing manufacturing lines         thermal oxidizer achieving,
                                             a combustion efficiency of
                                             99.6 percent.
3. The total emmissions from the coating    a. Limit particulate matter
 mixer, saturator (including wet looper      emissions to 0.04 kilograms
 and coater), sealant applicator, and        per megagram (0.08 pounds
 adhesive applicator at each existing        per ton) of asphalt shingle
 asphalt roofing manufacturing line a        or mineral-surfaced roll
                                             roofing produced; or
                                            b. Limit particulate matter
                                             emmissions to 0.4 kilgrams
                                             per megagram (0.8. pounds
                                             per ton) of saturated felt
                                             or smooth-surfaced roll
                                             roofing produced.
4. Each saturator (including wet looper     a. Limit exhaust gases to 20
 and coater) at an existing or new asphalt   percent opacity; and
 roofing manufacturing line a                saturator (including wet
                                             looper and coater) at an
                                             existing or new asphalt
                                             roofing manufacturing
                                             line.a
                                            b. Limit visible emissions
                                             from the emission capture
                                             system to 20 percent of any
                                             period of consecutive valid
                                             observations totaling 60
                                             minutes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a As an option to meeting the particulate matter and opacity limits,
  these emission sources may comply with the total hydrocarbon (THC)
  percent reduction or combustion efficiency standards.

    As stated in Sec. 63.8684(b), you must meet each operating limit in 
the following table that applies to you:

[[Page 58634]]



               Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               For . . .                          You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thermal oxidizers...................  Maintain the 3-hour average
                                          combustion zone temperature at
                                          or above the operating limit
                                          established during the
                                          performance test.
2. Particulate matter control device...  a. Maintain the 3-hour average
                                          inlet gas temperature at or
                                          below the operating limit
                                          established during the matter
                                          perforance test; and
                                         b. Maintain the 3-hour average
                                          pressure drop across device at
                                          or below the operating limit
                                          established during the
                                          performance test.
3. Control devices other than thermal    Maintain the approved
 oxidizers or particulate matter          monitoring parameters within
 control devices.                         the operating limits
                                          established during the
                                          performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec. 63.8687(a), you must conduct each performance 
test in the following table that applies to you:

                          Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL--Requirements for Performance Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             According to the
              For . . .                     You must . . .            Using . . .         following requirements
                                                                                                  . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All particulate matter, total       a. Select sampling       i. Method 1 or 1A in     A. For demonstrating
 hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and      port's location and      appendix A to part 60    compliance with the
 carbon dioxide emission tests.         the number of traverse   of this chapter.         total hydrocarbon
                                        points.                                           percent reduction
                                                                                          standard, the sampling
                                                                                          sites must be located
                                                                                          at the inlet and
                                                                                          outlet of the control
                                                                                          device and prior to
                                                                                          any releases to the
                                                                                          atmosphere.
                                                                                         B. For demonstrating
                                                                                          compliance with the
                                                                                          particulate matter
                                                                                          mass emission rate or
                                                                                          combustion efficiency
                                                                                          standards, the
                                                                                          sampling sites must be
                                                                                          located at the outlet
                                                                                          of the control device
                                                                                          and prior to any
                                                                                          releases to the
                                                                                          atmosphere.
2. All particulate matter and total    Determine velocity and   Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,
 hydrocarbon tests.                     volumetric flow rate.    2F, OR 2G, as
                                                                 appropriate, in
                                                                 appendix A to part 60
                                                                 of this chapter.
3. All particulate matter and total    Determine the gas        Method 3, 3A, 3B, as
 hydrocarbon tests.                     molecular weight used    appropriate, in
                                        for flow rate            appendix A to part 60
                                        determination.           of this chapter.
4. All particulate matter, total       Measure moisture         Method 4 in appendix A
 hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and      content of the stack     to part 60 of this
 carbon dioxide emission tests.         gas.                     chapter.
5. All particulate matter, total       Measure the asphalt
 hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and      processing rate or the
 carbon dioxide emission tests.         asphalt roofing
                                        manufacturing rate and
                                        the asphalt content of
                                        the product
                                        manufactured, as
                                        appropriate
6. Each control device used to comply  a. Measure the           i. Method 5A in          A. If the final product
 with the particulate matter mass       concentration of         appendix A to part 60    is shingle or mineral-
 emission rate standard.                particulate matter.      of this chapter.         surfaced roll roofing,
                                                                                          tests must be
                                                                                          conducted while a
                                                                                          nominal 106.6 kg (235
                                                                                          lb) shingle is being
                                                                                          produced; or
                                                                                         B. If the final product
                                                                                          is saturated felt or
                                                                                          smooth-surfaced roll
                                                                                          roofing, the tests
                                                                                          must be conducted
                                                                                          while a nominal 6.8 kg
                                                                                          (15 lb) felt is being
                                                                                          produced; or
                                                                                         C. If the final product
                                                                                          is fiberglass shingle,
                                                                                          the test must be
                                                                                          conducted while a
                                                                                          nominal 100 kg (220
                                                                                          lb) shingle is being
                                                                                          produced.
7. Each saturated outlet at each       a. Conduct opacity       Method 9 in appendix A   For at least 3 hours
 existing asphalt roofing               observations of the      to part 60 of this       and obtain 30, 6-
 manufacturing line.                    saturator outlet.        chapter.                 minute averages.
                                       b. Conduct visible       Method 22 in appendix A  Modify Method 22 such
                                        emission observations    to part 60 of this       that readings are
                                        of the saturator         chapter.                 recorded every 15
                                        emissions capture                                 seconds for a period
                                        system.                                           of consecutive
                                                                                          observations totaling
                                                                                          60 minutes.

[[Page 58635]]

 
8. Each thermal oxidizer used to       a. Measure the           Method 3A in appendix A
 comply with the combustion             concentration of         to part 60 of this
 efficiency standard.                   carbon dioxide.          chapter.
                                       b. Measure the           Method 10 in appendix A
                                        concentration of         to part 60 of this
                                        carbon monoxide.         chapter.
                                       c. Measure the           Method 25A in appendix
                                        concentration of total   A to part 60 of this
                                        hydrocarbons.            chapter.
9. Each control device used to comply  Measure the              Method 25A in appendix
 with the THC reduction efficiency      concentration of total   A to part 60 of this
 standard.                              hydrocarbons.            chapter.
10. Each thermal oxidizer............  Establish a site-        Data from the CPMS and   You must collect
                                        specific combustion      the applicable           combustion zone
                                        zone temperature limit.  performance test         temperature data every
                                                                 method(s).               15 minutes during the
                                                                                          entire period of the
                                                                                          initial 3-hour
                                                                                          performance test, and
                                                                                          determine the average
                                                                                          combustion zone
                                                                                          temperature over the 3-
                                                                                          hour performance test
                                                                                          by computing the
                                                                                          average of all of the
                                                                                          15-minute readings.
11. Each particulate matter control    a. Establish a site-     Data from the CPMS and   You must collect the
 device.                                specific inlet gas       the applicable           inlet gas temperature
                                        temperature limit; and.  performance test         and pressure drop data
                                       b. Establish a site-      method(s).               every 15 minutes
                                        specific limit for the                            during the entire
                                        pressure drop across                              period of the initial
                                        the device.                                       3-hour performance
                                                                                          test, and determine
                                                                                          the average inlet gas
                                                                                          temperature and
                                                                                          pressure drop over the
                                                                                          3-hour performance
                                                                                          test by computing the
                                                                                          average of all of the
                                                                                          15-minute readings.
12. Each control device other than a   Establish site-specific  Process data and data    You must collect
 thermal oxidizer or particulate        monitoring parameters.   from the CPMS and the    monitoring parameter
 matter control device used to comply                            applicable performance   data every 15 minutes
 with the THC percent reduction or PM                            test method(s).          during the entire
 emission limits.                                                                         period of the initial
                                                                                          3-hour performance
                                                                                          test, and determine
                                                                                          the average monitoring
                                                                                          parameter values over
                                                                                          the 3-hour performance
                                                                                          test by computing the
                                                                                          average of all of the
                                                                                          15-minute readings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec. 63.8689(a), you must demonstrate initial 
compliance with each emission limitation in the following table that 
applies to you:

 Table 4 to Subpart LLLLL--Initial Compliance With Emission Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                For the following         You have
          For . . .            emission limitation  demonstrated initial
                                      . . .          compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each asphalt storage tank  a. Reduce total       i. The total
 with a capacity of 1.93       hydrocarbon mass      hydrocarbon
 megagrams (2.13 tons) of      emissions by 95       emissions,
 asphalt or greater, blowing   percent.              determined using
 still, and loading rack at                          the equations in
 existing, new, and                                  Sec.  63.8687 and
 reconstructed asphalt                               the test methods
 processing facilities; and.                         and procedures in
                                                     Table 3 of this
                                                     subpart, over the
                                                     period of the
                                                     performance test
                                                     are reduced by at
                                                     least 95 percent by
                                                     weight; and
2. Each coating mixer,        a. Reduce total       ii. You have a
 saturator (including wet      hydrocarbon mass      record of the
 looper and coater), sealant   emissions by 95       average control
 applicator, and adhesive      percent.              device operating
 applicator at new and                               parameters over the
 reconstructed asphalt                               performance test
 roofing manufacturing lines.                        during which
                                                     emissions were
                                                     reduced by at least
                                                     95 percent.
3. Each asphalt storage tank  a. Route the          See 1.a.i. and ii.
 with a capacity of 1.93       emissions to a        of this table.
 megagrams (2.13 tons) of      thermal oxidizer
 asphalt or greater, blowing   achieving a
 still, and loading rack at    combustion
 existing, new, and            efficiency of 99.6
 reconstructed asphalt         percent.
 processing facilities; and.

[[Page 58636]]

 
4. Each coating mixer,        a. Route the          i. The combustion
 saturator (including wet      emissions to a        efficiency of the
 looper and coater), sealant   thermal oxidizer      thermal oxidizer,
 applicator, and adhesive      achieving a           determined using
 applicator at new and         combustion            the equations in
 reconstructed asphalt         efficiency of 99.6    Sec.  63.8687 and
 roofing manufacturing lines.  percent.              the test methods
                                                     and procedures in
                                                     Table 3 of this
                                                     subpart, over the
                                                     period of the
                                                     performance test is
                                                     at least 99.6
                                                     percent; and
                                                    ii. You have a
                                                     record of the
                                                     average combustion
                                                     zone temperature
                                                     and carbon
                                                     monoxide, carbon
                                                     dioxide, and total
                                                     hydrocarbon outlet
                                                     concentrations over
                                                     the performance
                                                     test during which
                                                     the combustion
                                                     efficiency was at
                                                     least 99.6 percent.
                                                     See 3.a.i. and ii.
                                                     of this table.
5. The total emissions from   a. Limit particulate  i. The particulate
 the coating mixer,            matter emissions to   matter emissions,
 saturator (including wet      0.04 kilograms per    determined using
 looper and coater), sealant   megagram (0.08        the equations in
 applicator, and adhesive      pounds per ton) of    Sec.  63.8687 and
 applicator at each existing   asphalt shingle or    the test methods
 asphalt roofing               mineral-surfaced      and procedures in
 manufacturing line..          roll roofing          Table 3 of this
                               produced.             subpart, over the
                                                     period of the
                                                     performance test
                                                     are no greater than
                                                     the applicable
                                                     emission
                                                     limitation; and
                                                    ii. You have a
                                                     record of the
                                                     average control
                                                     device or process
                                                     parameters over the
                                                     performance test
                                                     during which the
                                                     particulate matter
                                                     emissions were no
                                                     greater than the
                                                     applicable emission
                                                     limitation.
                              b. Limit particulate  See 5.a.i. and ii.
                               matter emissions to   of this table.
                               0.4 kilograms per
                               megagram (0.8
                               pounds per ton) of
                               saturated felt or
                               smooth-surfaced
                               roll roofing
                               produced11.
6. Each saturator (including  Limit opacity         The opacity,
 wet looper and coater) at     emissions to 20       measured using
 an existing or new asphalt    percent.              Method 9, for each
 roofing manufacturing line.                         of the first 30 6-
                                                     minute averages
                                                     during the initial
                                                     compliance period
                                                     described in Sec.
                                                     63.8686(b) does not
                                                     exceed 20 percent.
7. Each saturator (including  Limit visible         The visible
 wet looper and center) at     emissions from the    emissions, measured
 an existing or new asphalt    emission capture      using Method 22,
 roofing manufacturing line.   system to 20          for any period of
                               percent of any        consecutive valid
                               period of             observations
                               consecutive valid     totaling 60 minutes
                               observations          during the initial
                               totaling 60 minutes.  compliance period
                                                     described in Sec.
                                                     63.8686(b) do not
                                                     exceed 20 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec. 63.8691(a), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance with each operating limit in the following table that 
applies to you:

  Table 5 to Subpart LLLLL--Continuous Compliance With Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    You must demonstrate
          For * * *             For the following        continuous
                               operating limit * *   compliance by * * *
----------------------------------------*-------------------------------
1. Each thermal oxidizer....  a. Maintain the 3-    i. Passing the
                               hour average          emissions through
                               combustion zone       the control device;
                               temperature at or     and
                               above the operating  ii. Collecting the
                               limit established     combustion zone
                               during the            temperature data
                               performance test.     according to Sec.
                                                     63.8688(b); and
                                                    iii. Reducing
                                                     combustion zone
                                                     temperature data to
                                                     3-hour averages
                                                     according to
                                                     calculations in
                                                     Table 3 of this
                                                     subpart; and
                                                    iv. Maintaining the
                                                     3-hour average
                                                     combustion zone
                                                     temperature within
                                                     the level
                                                     established during
                                                     the performance
                                                     test.
2. Particulate matter         a. Maintain the 3-    i. Passing the
 control devices.              hour average inlet    emissions through
                               gas temperature and   the control device;
                               pressure drop         and
                               across device at or  ii. collecting the
                               below the operating   inlet gas
                               limits established    temperature and
                               during the            pressure drop data
                               performance test.     according to Sec.
                                                     63.8688(b) and (c);
                                                     and
                                                    iii. reducing inlet
                                                     gas temperature and
                                                     pressure drop data
                                                     to 3-hour averages
                                                     according to
                                                     calculations in
                                                     Table 3 of this
                                                     subpart; and
                                                    iv. Maintaining the
                                                     3-hour average
                                                     inlet gas
                                                     temperature and
                                                     pressure drop
                                                     within the level
                                                     established during
                                                     the performance
                                                     test.

[[Page 58637]]

 
3. Control device other than  a. Maintain the       i. Passing the
 a thermal oxidizer or         monitoring            emissions through
 particulate matter control    parameters within     the control device;
 device.                       the operating         and
                               limits established   ii. Collecting the
                               during the            monitoring
                               performance test.     parameter data
                                                     according to Sec.
                                                     63,8688(dd); and
                                                    iii. Reducing the
                                                     monitoring
                                                     parameter data to 3-
                                                     hour averages
                                                     according to
                                                     calculations in
                                                     Table 3 of this
                                                     subpart; and
                                                    iv. Maintaining the
                                                     monitoring
                                                     parameters within
                                                     the level
                                                     established during
                                                     the performance
                                                     test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec. 63.8693(a), you must submit each report that 
applies to you according to the following table:

           Table 6 to Subpart LLLLL--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 The report must     You must submit the
    You must submit a(n)          contain . . .         report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A compliance report......  a. A statement that   Semiannually
                               there were no         according to the
                               deviations from the   requirements in
                               emission              Sec.  63.8693(b).
                               limitations during
                               the reporting
                               period, if there
                               are no deviations
                               from any emission
                               limitations
                               (emission limit,
                               operating limit,
                               opacity limit, and
                               visible emission
                               limit) that apply
                               to you.
                              b. If there were no   Semiannually
                               periods during        according to the
                               which the CPMS was    requirements in
                               out-of-control as     Sec.  63.8693(b).
                               specified in Sec.
                               63.8(c)(7), a
                               statement that
                               there were no
                               periods during
                               which the CPMS was
                               out-of-control
                               during the
                               reporting period.
                              c. If you have a      Semiannually
                               deviation from any    according to the
                               emission limitation   requirements in
                               (emission limit,      Sec.  63.8693(b).
                               operating limit,
                               opacity limit, and
                               visible emission
                               limit), the report
                               must contain the
                               information in Sec.
                                63.8693(c). If
                               there were periods
                               during which the
                               CPMS was out-of-
                               control, as
                               specified in Sec.
                               63.8(c)(7), the
                               report must contain
                               the information in
                               Sec.  63.8693(d).
                              d. If you had a       Semiannually
                               startup, shutdown     according to the
                               or malfunction        requirements in
                               during the            Sec.  63.8693(b).
                               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
                               ).
2. An immediate startup,      The information in    By fax or telephone
 shutdown, and malfunction     Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i   within 2 working
 report if you have a          i).                   days after starting
 startup, shutdown, or                               actions
 malfunction during the                              inconsistent with
 reporting period and                                the plan followed
 actions taken were not                              by a letter within
 consistent with your                                7 working days
 startup, shutdown, and                              after the end of
 malfunction plan.                                   the event unless
                                                     you have made
                                                     alternative
                                                     arrangements with
                                                     the permitting
                                                     authority.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec. 63.8696(a), you must comply with the General 
Provisions (GP) in Secs. 63.1 through 63.13 that apply to you according 
to the following table:

                 Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart LLLLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Applies to subpart
              Citation                        Subject              Brief description               LLLLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.1..........................  Applicability.........  Initial Applicability        Yes.
                                                               Determination;
                                                               Applicability After
                                                               Standard Established;
                                                               Permit Requirements;
                                                               Extensions, Notifications.
Sec.  63.2..........................  Definitions...........  Definitions for part 63      Yes.
                                                               standards.
Sec.  63.3..........................  Units and               Units and abbreviations for  Yes.
                                       Abbreviations.          part 63 standards.
Sec.  63.4..........................  Prohibited Activities.  Prohibited Activities;       Yes.
                                                               Compliance date;
                                                               Circumvention,
                                                               Severability.
Sec.  63.5..........................  Construction/           Applicability;               Yes.
                                       Reconstruction.         Applications; Approvals.
Sec.  63.6(a).......................  Applicability.........  GP apply unless compliance   Yes.
                                                               extension GP apply to area
                                                               sources that become major.
Sec.  63.6(b) (1)-(4)...............  Compliance Dates for    Standards apply at           Yes.
                                       New and Reconstructed   effective date; 3 years
                                       sources.                after effective date; upon
                                                               startup; 10 years after
                                                               construction or
                                                               reconstruction commences
                                                               for section 112(f).

[[Page 58638]]

 
Sec.  63.6(b)(5)....................  Notification..........  You must notify if           Yes.
                                                               commenced construction or
                                                               reconstruction after
                                                               proposal.
Sec.  63.6(b)(6)....................  [Reserved]
Sec.  63.6(b)(7)....................  Compliance Dates for    Area sources that become     Yes.
                                       New and Reconstructed   major must comply with
                                       Area Sources That       major source standards
                                       Become Major.           immediately upon becoming
                                                               major, regardless of
                                                               whether required to comply
                                                               when they were an area
                                                               source.
Sec.  63.6(c) (1)-(2)...............  Compliance Dates for    1. Comply according to date  Yes.
                                       Existing Sources.       in subpart, which must be
                                                               no later than 3 years
                                                               after effective date.
                                                              2. For section 112(f)        Yes.
                                                               standards, comply within
                                                               90 days of effective date
                                                               unless compliance
                                                               extension has been granted.
Sec.  63.6(c) (3)-(4)...............  [Reserved]
Sec.  63.6(c)(5)....................  Compliance Dates for    Area sources that become     Yes.
                                       Existing Area Sources   major must comply with
                                       That Become Major.      major source standards by
                                                               date indicated in subpart
                                                               or by equivalent time
                                                               period (for example, 3
                                                               years).
Sec.  63.6(d).......................  [Reserved]
Sec.  63.6(e) (1)-(2)...............  Operation &             1. Operate to minimize       Yes.
                                       Maintenance.            emissions at all times.
                                                              2. Correct malfunctions as   Yes.
                                                               soon as practicable.
                                                              3. Operation and             Yes.
                                                               maintenance requirements
                                                               independently enforceable;
                                                               information Administrator
                                                               will use to determine if
                                                               operation and maintenance
                                                               requirements were met.
Sec.  63.6(e)(3)....................  Startup, Shutdown, and  1. Requirement for SSM and   Yes.
                                       Malfunction (SSM)       startup, shutdown,
                                       Plan (SSMP).            malfunction plan.
                                                              2. Content of SSMP.........  Yes.
Sec.  63.6(f)(1)....................  Compliance Except       You must comply with         Yes.
                                       During SSM.             emission standards at all
                                                               times except during SSM.
Sec.  63.6(f) (2)-(3)...............  Methods for             Compliance based on          Yes.
                                       Determining             performance test,
                                       Compliance.             operation and maintenance
                                                               plans, records, inspection.
Sec.  63.6(g) (1)-(3)...............  Alternative Nonopacity  Procedures for getting an    Yes.
                                       Standard.               alternative nonopacity
                                                               standard.
Sec.  63.6(h).......................  Opacity/Visible         Requirements for opacity     Yes.
                                       Emission (VE)           and VE limits.
                                       Standards.
Sec.  63.6(h)(1)....................  Compliance with         You must comply with         Yes.
                                       Opacity/VE Standards.   opacity/VE emission
                                                               limitations at all times
                                                               except during SSM.
Sec.  63.6(h)(2)(i).................  Determining Compliance  If standard does not state   No. The test methods
                                       with Opacity/VE         test method, use Method 9    for opacity and
                                       Standards.              for opacity and Method 22    visible emissions
                                                               for VE.                      are specified in
                                                                                            Sec.  63.8686.
Sec.  63.6(h)(2)(ii)................  [Reserved]
Sec.  63.6(h)(2)(iii)...............  Using Previous Tests    Criteria for when previous   Yes.
                                       to Demonstrate          opacity/VE testing can be
                                       Compliance with         used to show compliance
                                       Opacity/VE Standards.   with this rule.
Sec.  63.6(h)(3)....................  [Reserved]
Sec.  63.6(h)(4)....................  Notification of         You must notify              Yes.
                                       Opacity/VE              Administrator of
                                       Observation Date.       anticipated date of
                                                               observation.
Sec.  63.6(h)(5)(i), (iii)-(v)......  Conducting Opacity/VE   Dates and schedule for       Yes.
                                       Observations.           conducting opacity/VE
                                                               observations.
Sec.  63.6(h)(5)(ii)................  Opacity Test Duration   You must have at least 3     Yes.
                                       and Averaging Times.    hours of observation with
                                                               thirty 6-minute averages.
Sec.  63.6(h)(6)....................  Records of Conditions   You must keep records        Yes.
                                       During Opacity/VE       available and allow
                                       Observations.           Administrator to inspect.
Sec.  63.6(h)(7)(i).................  Report Continuous       You must submit COMS data    No. Subpart LLLLL
                                       Opacity Monitoring      with other performance       does not require
                                       System (COMS) Data      test data.                   COMS.
                                       from Performance Test.
Sec.  63.6(h)(7)(ii)................  Using COMS instead of   Can submit COMS data         No. Subpart LLLLL
                                       Method 9.               instead of Method 9          does not require
                                                               results even if rule         COMS.
                                                               requires Method 9, but
                                                               must notify Administrator
                                                               before performance test.
Sec.  63.6(h)(7)(iii)...............  Averaging time for      To determine compliance,     No. Subpart LLLLL
                                       COMS during             must reduce COMS data to 6-  does not require
                                       performance test.       minute averages.             COMS.
Sec.  63.6(h)(7)(iv)................  COMS requirements.....  Owner/operator must          No. Subpart LLLLL
                                                               demonstrate that COMS        does not require
                                                               performance evaluations      COMS.
                                                               are conducted according to
                                                               Sec.  63.8(e), COMS are
                                                               properly maintained and
                                                               operated according to Sec.
                                                                63.8(c) and data quality
                                                               as Sec.  63.8(d)..

[[Page 58639]]

 
Sec.  63.6(h)(7)(v).................  Determining Compliance  COMS is probative but not    No. Subpart LLLLL
                                       with Opacity/VE         conclusive evidence of       does not require
                                       Standards.              compliance with opacity      COMS.
                                                               standard, even if Method 9
                                                               observation shows
                                                               otherwise. Requirements
                                                               for COMS to be probative
                                                               evidence, proper
                                                               maintenance, meeting PS 1,
                                                               and data have not been
                                                               altered.
Sec.  63.6(h)(8)....................  Determining Compliance  Administrator will use all   Yes.
                                       with Opacity/VE         COMS, Method 9, and Method
                                       Standards.              22 results, as well as
                                                               information about
                                                               operation and maintenance
                                                               to determine compliance.
Sec.  63.6(h)(9)....................  Adjusted Opacity        Procedures for               Yes.
                                       Standard.               Administrator to adjust an
                                                               opacity standard.
Sec.  63.6(i).......................  Compliance Extension..  Procedures and criteria for  Yes.
                                                               Administrator to grant
                                                               compliance extension.
Sec.  63.6(j).......................  Presidential            President may exempt source  Yes.
                                       Compliance Exemption.   category from requirement
                                                               to comply with rule.
Sec.  63.7(a)(1)-(2)................  Performance Test Dates  Dates for conducting         No. Section 63.8686
                                                               initial performance          specifies the
                                                               testing and other            performance test
                                                               compliance demonstrations.   dates.
                                                               You must conduct 180 days
                                                               after first subject to
                                                               rule.
Sec.  63.7(a)(3)....................  Section 114 Authority.  Administrator may require a  Yes.
                                                               performance test under CAA
                                                               section 114 at any time.
Sec.  63.7(b)(1)....................  Notification of         You must notify              Yes.
                                       Performance Test.       Administrator 60 days
                                                               before the test..
Sec.  63.7(b)(2)....................  Notification of         If rescheduling a            Yes.
                                       Rescheduling.           performance test is
                                                               necessary, must notify
                                                               Administrator 5 days
                                                               before scheduled date of
                                                               rescheduled date.
Sec.  63.7(c).......................  Quality Assurance/Test  1. Requirement to submit     Yes.
                                       Plan.                   site-specific test plan 60
                                                               days before the test or on
                                                               date Administrator agrees
                                                               with.
                                                              2. Test plan approval        Yes.
                                                               procedures.
                                                              3. Performance audit         Yes.
                                                               requirements.
                                                              4. Internal and External QA  Yes.
                                                               procedures for testing.
Sec.  63.7(d).......................  Testing Facilities....  Requirements for testing     Yes.
                                                               facilities.
Sec.  63.7(e)(1)....................  Conditions for          1. Performance tests must    Yes.
                                       Conducting              be conducted under
                                       Performance Tests.      representative conditions.
                                                               Cannot conduct performance
                                                               tests during SSM.
                                                              2. Not a violation to        Yes.
                                                               exceed standard during SSM.
Sec.  63.7(e)(2)....................  Conditions for          You must conduct according   Yes.
                                       Conducting              to rule and EPA test
                                       Performance Tests.      methods unless
                                                               Administrator approves
                                                               alternative.
Sec.  63.7(e)(3)....................  Test Run Duration.....  1. You must have three test  Yes.
                                                               runs of at least 1 hour
                                                               each.
                                                              2. Compliance is based on    Yes.
                                                               arithmetic mean of three
                                                               runs.
                                                              3. Conditions when data      Yes.
                                                               from an additional test
                                                               run can be used.
Sec.  63.7(f).......................  Alternative Test        Procedures by which          Yes.
                                       Method.                 Administrator can grant
                                                               approval to use an
                                                               alternative test method.
Sec.  63.7(g).......................  Performance Test Data   1. Include raw data in       Yes.
                                       Analysis.               performance test report.
                                                              2. Submit performance test   Yes.
                                                               data 60 days after end of
                                                               test with the Notification
                                                               of Compliance Status.
                                                              3. Keep data for 5 years...  Yes.
Sec.  63.7(h).......................  Waiver of Tests.......  Procedures for               Yes.
                                                               Administrator to waive
                                                               performance test.
Sec.  63.8(a)(1)....................  Applicability of        Subject to all monitoring    Yes.
                                       Monitoring              requirements in standard.
                                       Requirements.
Sec.  63.8(a)(2)....................  Performance             Performance Specifications   No. Subpart LLLLL
                                       Specifications.         in appendix B of 40 CFR      does not require the
                                                               part 60 apply.               use of continuous
                                                                                            emission monitoring
                                                                                            systems (CEMS).
Sec.  63.8(a)(3)....................  [Reserved]............
Sec.  63.8(a)(4)....................  Monitoring with Flares  Unless rule says otherwise,  Yes.
                                                               the requirements for
                                                               flares in Sec.  63.11
                                                               apply.
Sec.  63.8(b)(1)....................  Monitoring............  You must conduct monitoring  Yes.
                                                               according to standard
                                                               unless Administrator
                                                               approves alternative.
Sec.  63.8(b)(2)-(3)................  Multiple Effluents and  1. Specific requirements     Yes.
                                       Multiple Monitoring     for installing monitoring
                                       Systems.                systems.
                                                              2. Install on each effluent  Yes.
                                                               before it is combined and
                                                               before it is released to
                                                               the atmosphere unless
                                                               Administrator approves
                                                               otherwise.
                                                              3. If more than one          Yes.
                                                               monitoring system on an
                                                               emission point, must
                                                               report all monitoring
                                                               system results, unless one
                                                               monitoring system is a
                                                               backup.
Sec.  63.8(c)(1)....................  Monitoring System       Maintain monitoring system   Yes.
                                       Operation and           in a manner consistent
                                       Maintenance (O&M).      with good air pollution
                                                               control practices.

[[Page 58640]]

 
Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(i).................  Routine and             1. Follow the SSM plan for   Yes.
                                       Predictable SSM.        routine repairs.
                                                              2. Keep parts for routine    Yes.
                                                               repairs readily available.
                                                              3. Reporting requirements    Yes.
                                                               for SSM when action is
                                                               described in SSM plan.
Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(ii)................  SSM not in SSP plan...  Reporting requirements for   Yes.
                                                               SSM when action is not
                                                               described in SSM plan.
Sec.  63.8 (c)(1)(iii)..............  Compliance with         1. How Administrator         Yes.
                                       Operation and           determines if source
                                       Maintenance             complying with operation
                                       Requirements.           and Maintenance
                                                               requirements.
                                                              2. Review of source O&M      Yes.
                                                               procedures, records,
                                                               manufacturer's
                                                               instructions,
                                                               recommendations, and
                                                               inspection of monitoring
                                                               system.
Sec.  63.8(c)(2)-(3)................  Monitoring System       1. You must install to get   Yes.
                                       Installation.           representative emission
                                                               and parameter measurements.
                                                              2. You must verify           Yes.
                                                               operational status before
                                                               or at performance test.
Sec.  63.8(c)(4)....................  Continuous Monitoring   CMS must be operating        No. Section 63.8690
                                       System (CMS)            except during breakdown,     specifies the CMS
                                       Requirements.           out-of-control, repair,      requirements.
                                                               maintenance, and high-
                                                               level calibration drifts.
Sec.  63.8(c)(4)(i)-(ii)............  CMS Requirements......  1. COMS must have a minimum  No. Subpart LLLLL
                                                               of one cycle of sampling     does not require the
                                                               and analysis for each        use of COMS.
                                                               successive 10-second
                                                               period and one cycle of
                                                               data recording for each
                                                               successive 6-minute period.
                                                              2. CEMS must have a minimum  No. Subpart LLLLL
                                                               of one cycle of operation    does not require the
                                                               for each successive 15-      use of CEMS.
                                                               minute period.
Sec.  63.8(c)(5)....................  COMS Minimum            COMS minimum procedures....  No. Subpart LLLLL
                                       Procedures.                                          does not require the
                                                                                            use of COMS.
Sec.  63.8(c)(6)....................  CMS Requirements......  Zero and High level          No. Section 63.8690
                                                               calibration check            specifies the CMS
                                                               requirements.                requirements.
Sec.  63.8(c)(7)-(8)................  CMS Requirements......  Out-of-control periods,      Yes.
                                                               including reporting.
Sec.  63.8(d).......................  CMS Quality Control...  1. Requirements for CMS      No. Section 63.8690
                                                               quality control, including   specifies the CMS
                                                               calibration, etc.            requirements.
                                                              2. Must keep quality         No. Section 63.8690
                                                               control plan on record for   specifies the CMS
                                                               the life of the affected     requirements.
                                                               source.
                                                              3. Keep old versions for 5   No. Section 63.8690
                                                               years after revisions.       specifies the CMS
                                                                                            requirements.
Sec.  63.8(e).......................  CMS Performance         Notification, performance    No. Section 63.8690
                                       Evaluation.             evaluation test plan,        specifies the CMS
                                                               reports.                     requirements.
Sec.  63.8(f)(1)-(5)................  Alternative Monitoring  Procedures for               Yes.
                                       Method.                 Administrator to approve
                                                               alternative monitoring.
Sec.  63.8(f)(6)....................  Alternative to          Procedures for               No. Subpart LLLLL
                                       Relative Accuracy       Administrator to approve     does not require the
                                       Test.                   alternative relative         use of CEMS.
                                                               accuracy tests for CEMS.
Sec.  63.8(g) (1)-(4)...............  Data Reduction........  1. COMS 6-minute averages    No. Subpart LLLLL
                                                               calculated over at least     does not require the
                                                               36 evenly spaced data        use of COMS
                                                               points.
                                                              2. CEMS 1-hour averages      No. Subpart LLLLL
                                                               computed over at least 4     does not require the
                                                               equally spaced data points.  use of CEMS.
Sec.  63.8(g).......................  Data Reduction........  Data that cannot be used in  No. Section 63.8690
                                                               computing averages for       specifies the CMS
                                                               CEMS and COMS..              requirements.
Sec.  63.9(a).......................  Notification            Applicability and State      Yes.
                                       Requirements.           Delegation.
Sec.  63.9(b) (1)-(5)...............  Initial Notifications.  1. Submit notification 120   Yes.
                                                               days after effective date.
                                                              2. Notification of intent    Yes.
                                                               to construct/reconstruct;
                                                               notification of
                                                               commencement of construct/
                                                               reconstruct; notification
                                                               of startup.
                                                              3. Contents of each........  Yes.
Sec.  63.9(c).......................  Request for Compliance  Can request if cannot        Yes.
                                       Extension.              comply by date or if
                                                               installed Best Available
                                                               Control Technology/Lowest
                                                               Achievable Emission Rate.
Sec.  63.9(d).......................  Notification of         For sources that commence    Yes.
                                       Special Compliance      construction between
                                       Requirements for New    proposal and promulgation
                                       Source.                 and want to comply 3 years
                                                               after effective date.

[[Page 58641]]

 
Sec.  63.9(e).......................  Notification of         Notify Administrator 60      Yes.
                                       Performance Test.       days prior.
Sec.  63.9(f).......................  Notification of VE/     Notify Administrator 30      Yes.
                                       Opacity Test.           days prior.
Sec.  63.9(g).......................  Additional              1. Notification of           No. Section 63.8690
                                       Notifications When      performance evaluation.      specifies the CMS
                                       Using CMS.                                           requirements.
                                                              2. Notification using COMS   No. Section 63.8690
                                                               data.                        specifies the CMS
                                                                                            requirements.
                                                              3. Notification that the     No. Section 63.8690
                                                               criterion for use of         specifies the CMS
                                                               alternative to relative      requirements.
                                                               accuracy testing was
                                                               exceeded.
Sec.  63.9(h) (1)-(6)...............  Notification of         1. Contents................  Yes.
                                       Compliance Status.
                                                              2. Due 60 days after end of  Yes.
                                                               performance test or other
                                                               compliance demonstration,
                                                               except for opacity/VE,
                                                               which are due 30 days
                                                               after.
                                                              3. When to submit to         Yes.
                                                               Federal vs. State
                                                               authority.
Sec.  63.9(i).......................  Adjustment of            Procedures for              Yes.
                                       Submittal Deadlines.    Administrator to approve
                                                               change in dates when
                                                               notifications must be
                                                               submitted.
Sec.  63.9(j).......................  Change in Previous      You must submit within 15    Yes.
                                       Information.            days after the change.
Sec.  63.10(a)......................  Recordkeeping/          1. Applies to all, unless    Yes.
                                       Reporting.              compliance extension.
                                                              2. When to submit to         Yes.
                                                               Federal vs. State
                                                               authority.
                                                              3. Procedures for owners of  Yes.
                                                               more than one source.
Sec.  63.10(b)(1)...................  Recordkeeping/          1. General requirements....  Yes.
                                       Reporting.
                                                              2. Keep all records readily  Yes.
                                                               available.
                                                              3. Keep for 5 years........  Yes.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(i)-(v)............  Records related to      1. Occurrence of each        Yes.
                                       Startup, Shutdown,      malfunction of operation
                                       and Malfunction.        (process equipment).
                                                              2. Occurrence of each        Yes.
                                                               malfunction of air
                                                               pollution equipment.
                                                              3. Maintenance on air        Yes.
                                                               pollution control
                                                               equipment.
                                                              4. Actions during startup,   Yes.
                                                               shutdown, and malfunction.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(vi) and (x)-(xi)..  CMS Records...........  1. Malfunctions,             Yes.
                                                               inoperative, out-of-
                                                               control.
                                                              2. Calibration checks......  Yes.
                                                              3. Adjustments, maintenance  Yes.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix).........  Records...............  1. Measurements to           Yes.
                                                               demonstrate compliance
                                                               with emission limitations.
                                                              2. Performance test,         Yes.
                                                               performance evaluation,
                                                               and visible emission
                                                               observation results.
                                                              3. Measurements to           Yes.
                                                               determine conditions of
                                                               performance tests and
                                                               performance evaluations.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xii)..............  Records...............  Records when under waiver..  Yes.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiii).............  Records...............  Records when using           No. Subpart LLLLL
                                                               alternative to relative      does not require the
                                                               accuracy test.               use of CEMS.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv)..............  Records...............  All documentation            Yes.
                                                               supporting Initial
                                                               Notification and
                                                               Notification of Compliance
                                                               Status.
Sec.  63.10(b)(3)...................  Records...............  Applicability                Yes.
                                                               Determinations.
Sec.  63.10(c) (1)-(6), (9)-(15)....  Records...............  Additional Records for CMS.  No. Section 63.8694
                                                                                            specifies the CMS
                                                                                            recordkeeping
                                                                                            requirements.
Sec.  63.10(c) (7)-(8)..............  Records...............  Records of excess emissions  No. Section 63.8694
                                                               and parameter monitoring     specifies the CMS
                                                               exceedances for CMS.         recordkeeping
                                                                                            requirements
Sec.  63.10(d)(1)...................  General Reporting       Requirement to report......  Yes.
                                       Requirements.
Sec.  63.10(d)(2)...................  Report of Performance   When to submit to Federal    Yes.
                                       Test Results.           or State authority.
Sec.  63.10(d)(3)...................  Reporting Opacity or    What to report and when....  Yes.
                                       VE Observations.
Sec.  63.10(d)(4)...................  Progress Reports......  You must submit progress     Yes.
                                                               reports on schedule if
                                                               under compliance
                                                               extension..
Sec.  63.10(d)(5)...................  Startup, Shutdown, and  Contents and submission....  Yes.
                                       Malfunction Reports.
Sec.  63.10(e)(1)(2)................  Additional CMS Reports  1. Must report results for   No. Subpart LLLLL
                                                               each CEM on a unit.          does not require the
                                                                                            use of CEMS or COMS.

[[Page 58642]]

 
                                                              2. Written copy of           No. Subpart LLLLL
                                                               performance evaluation.      does not require the
                                                                                            use of CEMS or COMS.
                                                              3. 3 copies of COMS          No. Subpart LLLLL
                                                               performance evaluation.      does not require the
                                                                                            use of CEMS or COMS.
Sec.  63.10(e)(3)...................  Reports...............  Excess Emission Reports....  No. Section 63.8693
                                                                                            specifies the
                                                                                            reporting
                                                                                            requirements.
Sec.  63.10(e)(3)(1)-(iii)..........  Reports...............  Schedule for reporting       No. Section 63.8693
                                                               excess emissions and         specifies the
                                                               parameter monitor            reporting
                                                               exceedances (not defined     requirements.
                                                               as deviations).
Sec.  63.10(e)(3)(iv)-(v)...........  Excess Emissions        1. Requirement to revert to  No. Section 63.8693
                                       Reports.                quarterly submission if      specifies the
                                                               there is an excess           reporting
                                                               emissions and parameter      requirements.
                                                               monitor exceedances (now
                                                               defined as deviations).
                                                              2. Provision to request      No. Section 63.8693
                                                               semiannual reporting after   specifies the
                                                               compliance for 1 year.       reporting
                                                                                            requirements.
                                                              3. Submit report by 30th     No. Section 63.8693
                                                               day following end of         specifies the
                                                               quarter or calendar half.    reporting
                                                                                            requirements.
                                                              4. If there has not been an  No. Section 63.8693
                                                               exceedance or excess         specifies the
                                                               emission (now defined as     reporting
                                                               deviations), report          requirements.
                                                               content is a statement
                                                               that there have been no
                                                               deviations.
Sec.  63.10(e)(3)(iv)-(v)...........  Excess Emissions        You must submit report       No. Section 63.8693
                                       Reports.                containing all of the        specifies the
                                                               information in No. Section   reporting
                                                               all of the information in    requirements.
                                                               Secs.  63.10(c)(5)-(13)
                                                               and 63.8(c)(7)-(8).
Sec.  63.10(e)(3)(vi)-(viii)........  Excess Emissions        1. Requirements for          No. Section 63.8693
                                       Report and Summary      reporting excess emissions   specifies the
                                       Report.                 for CMS (not called          reporting
                                                               deviations).                 requirements.
                                                              2. Requires all of the
                                                               information in Secs.
                                                               63.10(c)(5)-(13) and
                                                               63.8(c)(7)-(8).
Sec.  63.10(e)(4)...................  Reporting COMS data...  You must submit COMS data    No. Subpart LLLLL
                                                               with performance test        does not require
                                                               data..                       that use of COMS.
Sec.  63.10(f)......................  Waiver for              Procedures for               Yes.
                                       Recordkeeping/          Administrator to waive.
                                       Reporting.
Sec.  63.11.........................  Flares................  Requirements for flares....  Yes.
Sec.  63.12.........................  Delegation............  State authority to enforce   Yes.
                                                               standards.
Sec.  63.13.........................  Addresses.............  Addresses where reports,     Yes.
                                                               notifications, and
                                                               requests are sent.
Sec.  63.14.........................  Incorporation by        Test methods incorporated    Yes.
                                       Reference.              by reference.
Sec.  63.15.........................  Availability of         Public and confidential      Yes.
                                       Information.            information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 01-28192 Filed 11-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P