[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 2, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63236-63266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-27946]



[[Page 63235]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area 
Sources: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing; Final 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 2, 2009 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 63236]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0027; FRL-8983-6]
RIN 2060-AO94


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating national emissions standards for the 
control of emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from the asphalt 
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category. 
These final emissions standards for new and existing sources are based 
upon EPA's final determination as to what constitutes the generally 
available control technology or management practices (GACT) for the 
source category.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 2, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0027. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov. 
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available, e.g., confidential business information or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Public Reading Room 
under the heading ``Area Source National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt 
Roofing Manufacturing.'' The Public Reading Room is located at EPA/DC, 
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC and is 
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Warren Johnson, Outreach and 
Information Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MC-
C404-05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5124; fax number: 
(919) 541-0242; e-mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
    B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information for This Final Rule
III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
IV. Summary of Final Standards
    A. Do the Final Standards Apply to My Source?
    B. When Must I Comply With the Final Standards?
    C. What Are the Final Standards?
    D. What Are the Initial and Continuous Compliance Requirements?
    E. What are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?
    F. What Are the Title V Permit Requirements?
    V. Summary of Comments and Responses
    A. Source Category Listing
    B. GACT Limits
    C. Initial Compliance Requirements
    D. Continuous Compliance Requirements
    E. Title V Permitting
    F. Definitions
    G. Cost Impacts
    H. Miscellaneous
VI. Summary of Impacts of the Final Standards
    A. What Are the Air Impacts?
    B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
    C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
    D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy 
Impacts?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by the 
final standards include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
            Category             NAICS code \1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refineries...........          324110  Area source facilities
                                                  that refine asphalt.
Asphalt Shingle and Coating              324122  Area source facilities
 Materials Manufacturing.                         that manufacture
                                                  asphalt roofing
                                                  materials.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this 
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 
63.11559 of subpart AAAAAAA (NESHAP for Area Sources: Asphalt 
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing). If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your 
EPA Regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A 
(General Provisions).

B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly final or promulgated rules at the following 
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information 
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

[[Page 63237]]

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review 
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
by February 1, 2010. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 
enforce these requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the 
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose 
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for 
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the 
outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration 
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the 
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation 
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background Information for This Final Rule

    Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to establish 
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 
both major and area sources of HAP that are listed for regulation under 
CAA section 112(c). A major source emits or has the potential to emit 
10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more of 
any combination of HAP. An area source is a stationary source that is 
not a major source.
    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least 
30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the 
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. 
The EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air 
Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in the 
Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health 
threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``30 urban 
HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or 
subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing 
90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to 
regulation. A primary goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent 
reduction in cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted from 
stationary sources.
    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards 
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of 
generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT) 
by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' 
Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate report on the 
legislation (Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which 
describes GACT as:

    * * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the 
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities 
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.

Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and 
economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important 
when developing regulations for source categories, like this one, that 
have a number of small businesses. Determining what constitutes GACT 
initially involves considering the control technologies and management 
practices that are generally available to the area sources in the 
source category. We also consider the standards applicable to major 
sources in the same industrial sector to determine if the control 
technologies and management practices employed by those sources are 
transferable and generally available to area sources. In appropriate 
circumstances, we may also consider technologies and practices at area 
and major sources in similar categories to determine whether such 
technologies and practices could be considered generally available for 
the area source category at issue. Finally, as noted above, in 
determining GACT for a particular area source category, we consider the 
costs and economic impacts of available control technologies and 
management practices on that category.
    We are promulgating these national emission standards in response 
to a court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for 
certain source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) 
by November 16, 2009 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01-1537, D.D.C., 
March 2006). An additional rulemaking will be published in a separate 
Federal Register notice for the remaining source category due in 
November 2009.

III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

    The final rule contains several revisions and clarifications to the 
proposed rule made in response to public comments. We explain the 
reasons for the following changes in detail in the summary of comments 
and responses (section V of this preamble):
     Revised the emission limits for asphalt roofing 
manufacturing lines using emissions data supplied by the industry;
     Revised the initial compliance requirements to specify 
that compliance tests must be conducted while manufacturing the product 
with the greatest polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and 
particulate matter (PM) emissions and to allow facilities to use 
process knowledge to demonstrate initial compliance for saturator-only 
lines;
     Revised the initial compliance requirements to clarify 
procedures for using previously-conducted emission tests to demonstrate 
compliance;
     Revised the equations for calculating asphalt charging 
rate and clarified the procedures for determining production rate;
     Revised the continuous compliance requirements to allow 
for monitoring of parameter ranges (instead of maintaining the 
parameter below a maximum value) and use of equipment manufacturer 
specifications when establishing parameter values, and to remove the 
option to use a continuous emissions monitor (CEMS);
     Revised the continuous compliance requirements to allow 
facilities to monitor the indicator light of electrostatic 
precipitators (ESPs) as an option to monitoring voltage;
     Defined PM as the material collected using EPA Method 5A; 
and
     Added definitions for ``built-up roof operation'' and 
``hot-mix asphalt operation'' and clarified the definition of 
``saturator'' with regard to impregnation vats.

IV. Summary of Final Standards

A. Do the Final Standards Apply to My Source?

    The final subpart AAAAAAA standards apply to each existing and

[[Page 63238]]

new area source facility that processes asphalt and/or manufactures 
roofing products using saturation and/or coating processes that apply 
asphalt to a substrate. The standards do not apply to research or 
laboratory facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA.

B. When Must I Comply With the Final Standards?

    All existing area source facilities subject to this final rule are 
required to comply with the rule requirements no later than December 2, 
2010. New sources are required to comply with the rule requirements by 
December 2, 2009 or upon startup of the facility, whichever is later.
    Because the majority of existing sources in this category are 
already well-controlled, we believe that one year is a reasonable 
amount of time to allow existing sources to conduct compliance testing 
and prepare compliance demonstrations showing compliance with the final 
rule.

C. What Are the Final Standards?

    As discussed in section II.C of this preamble, the two production 
operations for which this category was listed are: (1) Asphalt 
processing (refining) operations; and (2) roofing product manufacturing 
operations.
    For asphalt processing, the final standards require the owner or 
operator to limit PAH emissions to 0.003 lb/ton of asphalt charged to 
the asphalt refining (blowing still) operation. Alternatively, owners 
or operators may comply with a PM emissions limit of 1.2 lb/ton of 
asphalt charged to the asphalt refining operation. The alternative PM 
limit ensures reductions in emissions of PAH that are at least 
equivalent to those achieved through compliance with the PAH emission 
limit. The final standards for new refining operations are the same as 
for existing sources.
    For asphalt roofing product manufacturing operations, we examined 
the process operations and other factors and determined that it was 
appropriate to establish subcategories that reflect the unique emission 
characteristic profiles of the different process types (equipment 
configurations). We developed three subcategories based upon the 
various process types used in the industry: (1) Production lines that 
use a coater only, (2) production lines that use a saturator only, and 
(3) production lines that use both saturators and coaters.
    For existing coater-only production lines, the final standards 
require the owner or operator to limit PAH emissions from all coating 
mixers and coaters to 0.0002 lb/ton of product manufactured. 
Alternatively, owners or operators may choose to comply with a PM 
emission limit of 0.06 lb/ton of product manufactured. The alternative 
PM limit ensures reductions in emissions of PAH that are at least 
equivalent to those achieved through compliance with the GACT-based PAH 
emission limit.
    For existing saturator-only production lines, the final standards 
require the owner or operator to limit PAH emissions from all 
saturators (and wet loopers) to 0.0007 lb/ton of product manufactured. 
Alternatively, for saturator-only production lines, owners or operators 
can comply with a PM emissions limit of 0.30 lb/ton of product 
manufactured. The alternative PM limit ensures reductions in emissions 
of PAH that are at least equivalent to those achieved through 
compliance with the GACT-based PAH emission limit.
    For existing combined saturator and coater production lines, the 
final standards require the owner or operator to limit PAH emissions 
from all saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, and coaters to 0.0009 
lb/ton of product manufactured. The final standards for combined 
saturator and coater production lines alternatively allow owners or 
operators to comply with a PM emissions limit of 0.36 lb/ton of product 
manufactured. The alternative PM limit ensures reductions in emissions 
of PAH that are at least equivalent to those achieved through 
compliance with the GACT-based PAH emission limit.
    The final standards for new roofing product manufacturing 
operations for all subcategories are the same as those for existing 
sources.

D. What Are the Initial and Continuous Compliance Requirements?

    The final standards require an initial compliance assessment of the 
process emissions or control device outlet concentration to demonstrate 
initial compliance with the applicable standard, and to establish 
monitoring parameter values (e.g., temperature, pressure drop) for the 
process or control device that will be monitored to demonstrate 
continuous compliance. For PM control devices used on asphalt roofing 
lines, the final rule allows owners or operators to establish 
monitoring parameter operating ranges based upon equipment manufacturer 
guarantees.
    For existing sources, the final standards require owners or 
operators to conduct the initial compliance assessment by May 31, 2011. 
Owners or operators of new sources are required to conduct the initial 
compliance assessment by June 1, 2010 or within 180 days after startup, 
whichever is later.
    For existing and new blowing stills and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing lines, the final standards require owners or operators to 
demonstrate initial compliance by conducting emission tests or by using 
the results from an emission test conducted in the past five years that 
meets the specified criteria in the final rule. Specifically, owners or 
operators can use the results of the previously-conducted test only if 
the emission measurements were made using the test methods specified in 
Table 3 of the final rule. See 40 CFR 63.11562(d). Additionally, the 
owner or operator must be able to demonstrate that no process changes 
have been made since the date of the previous test, or that the results 
of the emissions test reliably demonstrate compliance despite any 
process changes. Id. For existing and new asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines that do not require a control 
device to comply with the emission limits, the final rule allows owners 
or operators to use process knowledge and engineering calculations, 
instead of compliance test results, to demonstrate initial compliance. 
For example, an owner or operator could use a mass-balance approach 
(e.g., based upon asphalt throughput, asphalt content of the product 
manufactured) to demonstrate that the emission limits would not be 
exceeded.
    Continuous compliance with the final emission limits is 
demonstrated by monitoring parameters and process conditions 
established during the initial compliance assessment. The final 
standards require owners and operators to demonstrate continuous 
compliance based upon a 3-hour averaging period. If a thermal oxidizer 
is used to comply with the emission limits, the final standards require 
that the 3-hour average combustion zone temperature of each affected 
thermal oxidizer be maintained at or above the operating limit 
established during the initial compliance assessment. For PM control 
devices, the final standards require that the average 3-hour pressure 
drop and inlet gas temperature values be maintained within the range of 
established values. As an alternative to monitoring temperature and 
pressure drop, the final rule allows owners or operators to use a leak 
detection system for a filtration-based PM control device. If an ESP is 
used as the PM control device, the final standards require that the 3-
hour average ESP voltage be maintained at or above the operating value 
established during the initial

[[Page 63239]]

compliance test. As an alternative to monitoring the ESP voltage, the 
final rule allows owners or operators to monitor the device's indicator 
and warning lights on the device that signify when the ESP must be 
cleaned. For other types of control devices, the final standards allow 
the owner or operator to establish approved monitoring parameters and 
to maintain the value of those parameters within the operating values 
established during the initial compliance assessment. In cases where 
add-on control devices are not needed to comply with the final 
standards, owners or operators are required to establish a range of 
operating values for process parameters based upon written equipment 
manufacturer specifications, verify that the equipment is operating 
within that range during the initial compliance assessment, and 
maintain the 3-hour average of those parameters within the established 
values. During periods of startup and shutdown, the final standards 
require owners and operators to demonstrate compliance over a 24-hour 
averaging period. As is explained below, the final rule does not 
establish separate standards for malfunctions and the 3-hour averaging 
period applies during such events. Thus, consistent with Sierra Club v. 
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), the emission standards of this rule 
apply at all times.

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

    Affected new and existing sources are required to comply with 
certain requirements set forth in the General Provisions (40 CFR part 
63, subpart A), as identified in Table 5 of this final rule. The 
General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, 
recordkeeping, and reporting. Among other requirements, each facility 
is required to submit an initial notification that complies with the 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.9(b) of the General Provisions within 120 
days of the effective date of the final rule and a notification of 
compliance status that complies with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9(h) 
within 60 days after completion of the compliance assessment. 
Facilities are also required to submit semi-annual compliance summary 
reports.

F. What Are the Title V Permitting Requirements?

    This final rule exempts the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area source category from title V permitting requirements 
unless the affected source is otherwise required by law to obtain a 
title V permit. For example, sources that have title V permits because 
they are major sources under the criteria pollutant program would 
maintain those permits.

V. Summary of Comments and Responses

    We received a total of six comment letters from industry trade 
associations, an environmental advocacy group, State/local regulatory 
agency groups, and a control device equipment vendor on the proposed 
rule during the comment period. One commenter, an industry trade 
association, expressed support for the following provisions in the 
proposal package:
     The roofing line subcategory designations;
     The definition of the affected source for asphalt 
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing operations;
     The PAH and PM GACT emission standards for new and 
existing sources;
     The definitions of ``asphalt flux,'' ``asphalt processing 
operation,'' and ``blowing still;''
     The use of PM emissions as a surrogate for PAH emissions;
     The use of certain previously-conducted emission tests to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations; and
     The exemption from title V permitting requirements.
    We acknowledge the commenter's support for these provisions. 
Sections V.A. through V.H. contain summaries of the remaining comments 
that we received and our responses to those comments.

A. Source Category Listing

    Comment. One commenter asserted that the Agency used inaccurate PAH 
emissions data for 1990 to list asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area sources under CAA section 112(c)(3). The commenter 
asserted that urban area source PAH emissions in the industry in that 
baseline year were significantly lower than EPA's estimates and 
provided a copy of a report previously submitted to the Agency that the 
commenter contended supports that assertion. The commenter's report 
concludes that, by combining asphalt roofing manufacturing and asphalt 
processing into a single source category and using the outdated data, 
the EPA's PAH emissions estimate for the two categories is overstated 
by nearly two orders of magnitude. Based upon this information, the 
commenter stated that EPA should not be issuing GACT standards for 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area sources under 
CAA section 112(c)(3).
    Response. We listed the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing source category under CAA section 112(c)(3) in one of a 
series of amendments (November 22, 2002, 67 FR 70427) to the original 
source category list included in the 1999 Integrated Urban Air Toxics 
Strategy. As explained in more detail below, we included this source 
category on the section 112(c)(3) area source category list based upon 
emissions data for the 1990 baseline year. The asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing source category was listed for its 
contributions toward meeting the requirement that we list sufficient 
categories and subcategories of area sources to ensure that area 
sources representing 90 percent of area source emissions of PAH are 
subject to regulation under CAA section 112.
    While Congress required EPA to list sufficient categories or 
subcategories of area sources to ensure that areas sources representing 
90 percent of the area source emissions of the 30 Urban HAP are subject 
to regulation under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, it left it to 
EPA's discretion to determine which categories and subcategories of 
sources to include on the list. As explained in the Integrated Urban 
Air Toxics Strategy, EPA based its listing decisions on the baseline 
National Toxics Inventory (NTI) that the Agency compiled for purposes 
of implementing its air toxics program after the 1990 CAA Amendments 
(64 FR 38706, 38711, n.10). The baseline NTI reflected HAP emissions 
from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area sources 
in 1990. EPA listed the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing area 
source category on the basis of that emissions data. EPA continues to 
believe that it was reasonable to rely on that data and that it acted 
appropriately in including the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
area source category on the list on the basis of that data.
    There is nothing in the comments that persuades EPA that the 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source 
category should not be included in the source category list. The report 
submitted along with the comments clearly reflects the Commenter's 
preference that a different source category, asphalt concrete 
manufacturing, be included on the list instead of asphalt processing 
and asphalt roofing manufacturing and that the inclusion of that source 
category would have also resulted in a cumulative percentage 
contribution in excess of 90 percent. This, however, misses the point. 
As stated above, Congress left it to EPA's discretion to

[[Page 63240]]

determine which categories and subcategories to include on the list. 
Congress did not require EPA to establish a rank order of such 
categories and subcategories and then move from the highest ranking 
source category or subcategory to lower ranking categories or 
subcategories until a cumulative total of 90 percent was reached. Thus, 
as long as EPA had some basis for including a particular category or 
subcategory of area sources on the list, which is the case here, it can 
choose to include that category or subcategory even if there are other 
potential source categories or subcategories that arguably may 
contribute more to cumulative emissions.
    In this particular instance, EPA questions the accuracy of the 
emission factors used in the report submitted by the commenter. 
Specifically, the emissions factors in the commenter's report are based 
primarily on emissions data from 1998 and 1999 (with some reliance on 
1994 data). The report takes these emission factors that are based on 
post-1990 data and applies them to 1990 production rates. As the 
commenter points out in its comments, PAH emissions in the asphalt 
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing industry have declined 
since 1990. As a result, emission factors developed using emissions 
data from years after 1990 are likely to underestimate actual emissions 
in 1990.
    Moreover, even if EPA were to accept, for argument's sake, the 
revised emissions estimates set forth in the report submitted by the 
commenter, it would, for the reasons described below, continue to 
believe that the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing 
category belongs on the 112(c)(3) source category list. First, EPA 
believes that it is most appropriate to consider asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing as a single source category rather than 
two separate source categories, as the commenter contends, because a 
single facility often includes both types of operations. Indeed, 90 
percent of the facilities affected by the final rule conduct both 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing operations at the 
same site. We also believe that asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing operations are closely linked, regardless of co-location, 
because the purpose of blow stills at asphalt processing operations is 
to prepare asphalt flux, obtained from refineries, for use in 
manufacturing roofing products (e.g., shingles, roll roofing). Second, 
while the commenter contends that asphalt concrete manufacturing should 
be included on the list instead of asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing, the fact is that, on a per facility basis, the 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing sources are larger 
PAH emissions sources than the asphalt concrete industry sources. As a 
result, EPA's regulation of the 75 sources in the asphalt processing 
and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category is far more cost 
efficient and far more feasible from an implementation perspective than 
regulating the 3600 facilities engaged in asphalt concrete 
manufacturing. Finally, as explained above, Congress afforded EPA 
discretion in selecting the source categories to regulate to meet the 
90 percent requirement in section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B). Without the 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing source category, 
we will not meet this requirement. In conclusion, Congress required EPA 
to list sufficient categories and subcategories of sources of area 
sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the area 
source emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to regulation under 
CAA section 112. EPA has discretion to identify the categories and 
subcategories on the list and properly included asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing on the list. Nothing in the comments 
contradicts this.

B. GACT Limits

    Comment. One commenter noted that EPA stated in the proposal notice 
that ``[w]e believe that all asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing facilities will be able to meet the proposed standards 
using existing controls * * *'' and that ``* * * no additional air 
pollution control devices would be required.'' The commenter was 
concerned that such proposals are merely paperwork exercises and are 
not responsive to Congress' intent in establishing the area source 
program under the Clean Air Act which the commenter believed should 
result in reductions in emissions from area sources of hazardous air 
pollution. Moreover, the commenter recommended that, ``* * * in this 
rule and in future area source proposals, EPA incorporate provisions 
that will provide additional public health protection from the adverse 
effects of emissions of hazardous air pollutants from area sources.''
    Response. The commenter does not challenge any aspect of EPA's 
proposed GACT determination for this area source category. Instead, the 
commenter makes a blanket assertion that EPA is not acting consistently 
with the purposes of the area source provisions in the CAA (i.e., 
sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B)), because it is not requiring 
emission reductions beyond the level that is currently being achieved 
from this well-controlled source category. In support of this 
assertion, the commenter compares the requirements in the proposed rule 
to the area source category's current emission and control status. Such 
a comparison is flawed.
    Congress promulgated the relevant CAA area source provisions in 
1990 in light of the level of area source HAP emissions at that time. 
Congress directed EPA to identify not less than 30 HAP which, as a 
result of emissions from area sources, present the greatest threat to 
public health in the largest number of urban areas, and to list 
sufficient area source categories to ensure that sources representing 
90 percent of the 30 HAP listed are subject to regulation. As explained 
in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, EPA based its listing 
decisions on the baseline National Toxics Inventory (NTI) that the 
Agency compiled for purposes of implementing its air toxics program 
after the 1990 CAA Amendments (64 FR 38706, 38711, n.10). The baseline 
NTI reflected HAP emissions from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area sources in 1990. Thus, contrary to the commenter's 
suggestion, the relevant emission level for comparison is the emission 
level reflected in our baseline NTI, not the current emission level.
    Furthermore, in promulgating the area source provisions in the CAA, 
Congress did not require EPA to issue area source standards that must 
achieve a specific level of emission reduction. Rather, Congress 
authorized EPA to issue standards under section 112(d)(5) for area 
sources that reflect GACT for the source category. As Congress itself 
recognized, to qualify as being generally available, a GACT-based 
standard would most likely be based upon an existing control technology 
or management practice: ``[A]n equipment standard would require 
neighborhood dry cleaning establishments to employ the commercially 
available systems associated with the lowest measured emissions * * * 
S. Rep. 101-128, at 171-172 (emphasis added). Thus, it is both 
reasonable and consistent with Congressional intent that the GACT-based 
standards being finalized today codify the use of the existing 
effective PAH control approach being used by sources in the category. 
For all of these reasons, this final rule is consistent with sections 
112(c)(3), 112(k)(3)(B), and 112(d)(5).
    Comment. One commenter asserted that, although section 112(d)(5) 
does

[[Page 63241]]

authorize EPA to issue GACT standards in lieu of MACT standards, the 
Agency's decision to do so is subject to familiar administrative law 
requirements. The commenter maintained that to be non-arbitrary, the 
decision must--at a minimum--be supported by a rational explanation. 
The commenter stated that EPA has provided no explanation whatsoever 
for its apparent decision to issue GACT standards pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT standards pursuant to section 
112(d)(2) and (3) and, for this reason alone, its decision is arbitrary 
and capricious.
    The commenter also claimed that the proposed standards are based 
solely on cost and are thus unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter 
asserted that CAA section 112(d)(5) does not direct EPA to set 
standards based on what is cost effective; rather, according to the 
commenter EPA must establish GACT based on the ``methods, practices and 
techniques which are commercially available and appropriate for 
application by the sources in the category considering economic 
impacts.'' The commenter stated that because cost effectiveness is not 
relevant under CAA section 112(d)(5), the reliance on cost 
effectiveness as the sole determining factor in establishing GACT 
renders the proposed standards unlawful.
    Response. As the commenter acknowledged, in section 112(d)(5), 
Congress gave EPA explicit authority to issue alternative emission 
standards for area sources. Specifically, section 112(d)(5), which is 
titled ``Alternative standard for area sources,'' provides:

    With respect only to categories and subcategories of area 
sources listed pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, the 
Administrator may, in lieu of the authorities provided in paragraph 
(2) and subsection (f) of this section, elect to promulgate 
standards or requirements applicable to sources in such categories 
or subcategories which provide for the use of generally available 
control technologies or management practices by such sources to 
reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants. See CAA section 
112(d)(5).

    There are two critical aspects to section 112(d)(5). First, section 
112(d)(5) applies only to those categories and subcategories of area 
sources listed pursuant to section 112(c). The commenter does not 
dispute that EPA listed the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area source category pursuant to section 112(c). Second, 
section 112(d)(5) provides that for area sources listed pursuant to 
section 112(c)(3), EPA ``may, in lieu of'' the authorities provided in 
section 112(d)(2) and 112(f), elect to promulgate standards pursuant to 
section 112(d)(5).
    Section 112(d)(2) provides that emission standards established 
under that provision ``require the maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions'' of HAP (also known as maximum available control technology 
(MACT)). Section 112(d)(3), in turn, defines what constitutes the 
``maximum degree of reduction in emissions'' for new and existing 
sources. See section 112(d)(3). Webster's dictionary defines the phrase 
``in lieu of'' to mean ``in the place of'' or ``instead of.'' See 
Webster's II New Riverside University (1994). Thus, section 112(d)(5) 
authorizes EPA to promulgate standards under section 112(d)(5) that 
provide for the use of GACT, instead of issuing MACT standards pursuant 
to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). The statute does not set any condition 
precedent for issuing standards under section 112(d)(5) other than that 
the area source category or subcategory at issue must be one that EPA 
listed pursuant to section 112(c), which is the case here.
    The commenter argues that EPA must provide a rationale for issuing 
GACT standards under section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT standards. The 
commenter is incorrect. Had Congress intended that EPA first conduct a 
MACT analysis for each area source category, Congress would have stated 
so expressly in section 112(d)(5). Congress did not require EPA to 
conduct any MACT analysis, floor analysis or beyond-the-floor analysis 
before the Agency could issue a section 112(d)(5) standard. Rather, 
Congress authorized EPA to issue GACT standards for area source 
categories listed under section 112(c), and that is precisely what EPA 
has done in this rulemaking.
    Although EPA need not justify its exercise of discretion in 
choosing to issue a GACT standard for an area source listed pursuant to 
section 112(c)(3), EPA still must have a reasoned basis for the GACT 
determination for the particular area source category. The legislative 
history supporting section 112(d)(5) provides that GACT is to 
encompass:

    * * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the 
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities 
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.

See Senate Report on the 1990 Amendments to the Act (S. Rep. No. 101-
228, 101st Cong. 1st session. 171-172). The discussion in the Senate 
report clearly provides that EPA may consider costs in determining what 
constitutes GACT for the area source category.
    Congress plainly recognized that area sources differ from major 
sources, which is why Congress allowed EPA to consider costs in setting 
GACT standards for area sources under section 112(d)(5), but did not 
allow that consideration in setting MACT floors for major sources 
pursuant to section 112(d)(3). This important dichotomy between section 
112(d)(3) and section 112(d)(5) provides further evidence that Congress 
sought to do precisely what the title of section 112(d)(5) states--
provide EPA the authority to issue ``[a]lternative standards for area 
sources.''
    Notwithstanding the commenter's claim, EPA properly issued 
standards for the area source category at issue here under section 
112(d)(5) and in doing so provided a reasoned basis for its selection 
of GACT for this area source category. As explained in the proposed 
rule and below, EPA evaluated the control technologies and management 
practices that reduce PAH emissions at asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing facilities. In its evaluation, EPA used 
information from an industry survey, discussed options for controlling 
PAH emissions with the industry trade associations, and reviewed 
operating permits to identify the emission controls and management 
practices that are currently used to control PM and PAH emissions.
    In our evaluation, we determined that all blow stills used to 
process asphalt are currently controlled using thermal oxidation. We 
also found that the majority of roofing manufacturing lines were 
controlled using some type of PM control device (e.g., fiber-bed 
filters). Additionally, we determined that, due to market-driven 
process changes, the majority of roofing manufacturing facilities no 
longer use organic felt as the substrate for roofing materials. This 
process change significantly reduced the amount of asphalt used to 
manufacture a given quantity of roofing products.
    EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertions that EPA based its 
GACT determination solely on its estimate of cost effectiveness and 
that cost effectiveness is not relevant in determining what constitutes 
GACT. The Agency's consideration of cost effectiveness in establishing 
GACT and the Agency's views on what is a cost-effective requirement 
under section 112(d)(5) are relevant. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
DC Circuit has stated that cost effectiveness is a reasonable measure 
of cost as long as the statute does not mandate a specific method of 
determining cost. See Husqvarna AB v.

[[Page 63242]]

EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 201 (DC Cir. 2001) (finding EPA's decision to 
consider costs on a per-ton-of-emissions removed basis is reasonable 
because CAA section 213 did not mandate a specific method of cost 
analysis). Further, we did not base our GACT determination solely on 
our estimate of cost effectiveness. Rather, we first carefully 
evaluated the methods, practices and techniques that are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by sources in the asphalt 
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category. Only 
then did we consider costs and economic impacts to determine what 
constitutes GACT for the source category. In doing so, we determined 
that, because sources in the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area source category currently have relatively low 
emissions of PAH based upon the use of existing controls, requiring 
additional controls would result in very high costs for only a modest 
incremental improvement in control. Finally, we believe the 
consideration of costs and economic impacts is especially important for 
determining GACT for the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area source category because of the number of existing 
sources that would need to retrofit controls on asphalt roofing 
manufacturing operations if the existing controls on those operations 
were determined inadequate.
    Even though we are not required to provide a specific rationale for 
why we chose to establish GACT-based standards, rather than MACT-based 
standards, EPA did in fact provide a rationale for doing so in the 
proposed rule. In the proposal, we explained that the facilities in the 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source 
category are already well controlled for PAH, the urban HAP for which 
the source category was listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3). See 74 FR 
32826-32828. Consideration of costs and economic impacts is especially 
important when an area source category is comprised of sources that are 
already well-controlled. In such circumstances, a MACT floor 
determination, where costs cannot be considered, could result in very 
high costs for only a modest incremental improvement in control 
efficiency for sources in the area source category. EPA concluded that 
this would be the case were it to establish MACT-based emission 
standards for the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing 
area source category.
    Comment. One commenter stated that EPA did not provide an 
explanation for its decision to narrowly focus the proposed rule on 
just PAH emissions. The commenter went on to make the following points. 
The commenter noted that in the 2003 NESHAP for the asphalt processing 
and asphalt roofing manufacturing major source category, the EPA stated 
that the major source category emits a variety of HAP. The commenter 
added that the preamble to the 2003 major source NESHAP (68 FR 22976, 
22976 (Apr. 29, 2003)) stated that approximately 98 percent of 
emissions from the processing of asphalt and the manufacture of asphalt 
roofing consist of formaldehyde, hexane, hydrochloric acid (HCl), 
phenol and toluene. A combination of several different organic HAP 
comprise the remaining two percent of the total HAP emissions. The 
commenter said that in 2003, the EPA found that exposure to these HAP 
could result in 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).'' Id. The commenter also noted 
that EPA classified two of the HAP (formaldehyde and polycyclic organic 
matter (POM)) as probable human carcinogens.
    The commenter stated that Section 112(d) requires that emission 
standards be developed for each HAP listed in section 112(b). Assuming 
arguendo that the Agency does not have to set separate standards for 
each HAP when issuing standards under section 112(d)(5), the commenter 
stated that the Agency still has an obligation to address all the HAP 
that a category emits when it sets GACT standards. Thus, the commenter 
asserted that EPA had an obligation to address the HAP emitted by 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing sources beyond 
PAH, especially in light of the fact that PAH is such a limited 
component of the HAP emitted by the source category. Further, the 
commenter added that the Agency's failure to even consider non-PAH HAP 
and to explain its failure to address these HAP is arbitrary and 
capricious.
    The commenter also noted that EPA failed to address all sources of 
HAP emissions in the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing source category. The commenter pointed out that EPA noted 
in the 2003 major source NESHAP that, in addition to the blowing stills 
and roofing manufacturing operations addressed in the proposed rule, 
asphalt storage and process tanks, asphalt loading racks, sealant 
applicators, and adhesive applicators are also sources of HAP 
emissions. The commenter stated that the Agency's failure to 
acknowledge these emission sources and consider commercially available 
technology for reducing emissions from these sources was unlawful.
    Response. Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify 
at least 30 HAP emitted from area sources that pose the greatest threat 
to public health in the largest number of urban areas (the ``Urban 
HAP'') and identify the area source categories emitting such pollutants 
that are or will be listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3). Section 
112(c)(3), in relevant part, provides:

    The Administrator shall * * *, pursuant to subsection (k)(3)(B) 
of this section, list, based on actual or estimated aggregate 
emissions of a listed pollutant or pollutants, sufficient categories 
or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources 
representing 90 percent of the area source emissions of the 30 
hazardous air pollutants that present the greatest threat to public 
health in the largest number of urban areas are subject to 
regulation under this section.

Thus, section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or 
subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing 
90 percent of the area source emissions of the 30 Urban HAP are subject 
to regulation. Section 112(d)(1) requires the Administrator to 
promulgate regulations establishing emissions standards for each area 
source category of HAP listed for regulation pursuant to section 
112(c).
    EPA identified the 30 Urban HAP that posed the greatest threat to 
public health in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (Strategy). 
In the Strategy and subsequent Federal Register notices, EPA listed the 
area source categories necessary to meet the 90 percent requirement in 
section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), and one of those categories was the 
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing area source 
category.
    We have interpreted sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B) together to 
require EPA to regulate only those Urban HAP emissions for which an 
area source category is listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3), not all 
urban HAP or all section 112(b) HAP emitted from a listed area source 
category. As stated above, section 112(k)(3)(B) addresses the strategy 
to control HAP from area sources in urban areas and the focus of the 
strategy as it relates to control of area sources is on the 30 HAP that 
pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of 
urban areas. Section 112(c)(3) specifically references section 
112(k)(3)(B) as the basis for selecting area sources for listing to 
satisfy the Agency's responsibility for regulating urban HAP emissions 
from area sources.

[[Page 63243]]

Under these provisions, area sources categories are listed because they 
emit one or more of the 30 listed Urban HAP and the Agency has 
identified the category as one that is necessary to satisfy the 
requirement to subject area sources representing 90 percent of the area 
source emissions of the 30 Urban HAP to regulation.
    EPA listed the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 
area source category pursuant to sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B), 
based on the category's emissions of PAH, which is an urban HAP. Thus, 
consistent with the requirements of sections 112(c)(3) and 
112(k)(3)(B), we must regulate the PAH emissions from the Asphalt 
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing area source category, as 
these are the urban HAP emissions for which the category was listed to 
meet the 90 percent requirement in sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B). 
See 112(c)(3) (EPA must ``ensure that area sources representing 90 
percent of the area source emissions of the 30 hazardous air pollutants 
* * * are subject to regulation.''). We recognize that the source 
category emits other section 112(b) HAP, including other urban HAP; 
however, as stated above, sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B) do not 
require the Agency to regulate the area source category for any HAP 
other than those for which the category was listed. As to the other 
urban HAP emitted from this category, we have identified other area 
source categories that emit these urban HAP and subjecting those area 
source categories to regulation will satisfy the requirement to subject 
to regulation area sources that account for 90 percent of the area 
source emissions of those urban HAP.
    While the Agency is not required to regulate all section 112(b) HAP 
from area sources listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and 
112(k)(3)(B), section 112 of the CAA does not preclude EPA from 
regulating other HAP from these area sources at our discretion and in 
appropriate circumstances. Section 112(d)(5) states that for area 
sources listed pursuant to section 112(c), the Administrator may, in 
lieu of section 112(d)(2) ``MACT'' standards, promulgate standards or 
requirements ``applicable to sources'' which provide for the use of 
GACT or management practices ``to reduce emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants.'' This provision does not limit EPA's authority to regulate 
only those urban HAP emissions for which the category is needed to 
achieve the 90 percent requirement in sections 112(k)(3)(B) and 
112(c)(3). In fact, in two other area source rules, in addition to 
regulating the urban HAP that were necessary to satisfy the 90 percent 
requirement in sections 112(k)(3)(B) and 112(c)(3), we regulated 
additional section 112(b) HAP. Specifically, in the chemical 
manufacturing area source rule and the paint and allied products area 
source rule, although not required, we exercised our discretion to 
regulate other section 112(b) HAP beyond the urban HAP for which the 
categories were listed under section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), including 
non-urban section 112(b) HAP. The chemical manufacturing area source 
rule and the paints and allied products area source rule both involve 
specific circumstances which EPA believes justify regulating organic 
and metal section 112(b) HAP in addition to the specific urban HAP 
needed to meet the 90 percent requirement in section 112(c)(3) and 
(k)(3)(B), which served as the basis for the listing of the categories. 
In the chemical manufacturing area source rule, which establishes 
standards for 9 area source categories, we regulated such HAP because 
the emission standards designed to control the urban HAP for which the 
categories were listed were equally effective at removing other urban 
and non-urban metal and organic HAP, and demonstrating compliance for 
total HAP was less burdensome than demonstrating compliance for 
speciated HAP for those sources required to install add-on controls. In 
the paint and allied products area source rule, we included emission 
standards for HAP beyond the urban HAP for which the category was 
listed because the emission standards designed to control those urban 
HAP would also control other urban and non-urban metal and organic HAP.
    As noted above, the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area source category was listed solely due to emissions 
of PAH. By contrast, both the chemical manufacturing and the paint and 
allied products area source categories were listed for multiple urban 
HAP (i.e., 1,3-butadiene; methylene chloride; 1,3-dichloropropene; 
hexachlorobenzene; acetaldehyde; hydrazine; chloroform; quinoline; 
ethylene dichloride; and HAP metal compounds (arsenic, cadmium, 
chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel) for chemical manufacturing, and 
benzene, methylene chloride, and compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, 
and nickel for paint and allied products). For sources in these area 
source categories, it was reasonable to develop emission limits for 
non-urban HAP in part because the cost of estimating compliance for 
each urban HAP for which the categories were listed was overly 
burdensome. However, this same rationale is not appropriate in this 
rule because EPA listed the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing source category based on the emissions of a single HAP 
(PAH). The co-control scenario also plays out differently in the 
context of the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing 
area source category. Specifically, where an add-on control device like 
those used by facilities complying with the major source NESHAP (e.g., 
a thermal oxidizer or a fiber-bed filter) is needed to comply with the 
final standards for the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area source category, the control device will achieve co-
control of certain HAP other than PAH. For example, a thermal oxidizer 
will effectively control total HAP, total hydrocarbon (THC) and PM 
emissions and a fiber-bed filter will effectively control PM emissions. 
An emission limit based on the use of a thermal oxidizer (e.g., a limit 
on total HAP or total THC) would, however, necessitate all emissions 
from regulated operations being routed to a thermal oxidizer or similar 
control device. At present, based on the available information, 
facilities only use thermal oxidizers to control emissions from asphalt 
processing operations. Thermal oxidizers are not currently used to 
control emissions from asphalt roofing manufacturing operations. As a 
result, such limits would require facilities to retrofit to route 
emissions from asphalt roofing manufacturing operations to a thermal 
oxidizer or similar control device. Such retrofits would increase the 
cost of complying with the standards to a level that is unacceptable 
for a GACT-based standard. We estimate that 29 existing facilities 
currently have a thermal oxidizer and the remaining 46 would need to 
install new controls. Even when assuming a best case scenario, whereby 
facilities would only need to install new ductwork to route emissions 
to an existing thermal oxidizer, we estimate that such facilities would 
have an estimated initial capital cost of $58,000 and annual 
maintenance costs adding up to $11,000. We believe that these estimates 
are unrealistically low, however, because the existing thermal 
oxidizers would also require supplemental fuel, and, in many cases, an 
upgrade of the control unit, in order to handle the increased emissions 
loading. We estimate that it would cost an average facility in excess 
of $1 million to install new thermal oxidation controls, with annual 
costs of just over

[[Page 63244]]

$910,000 per year per facility for fuel and maintenance. In actuality, 
though, the costs could be much greater depending on the configuration 
of the facility.
    These cost concerns are further exacerbated by the fact that the 
benefits arising from co-control will be realized without EPA 
establishing specific emission limits for the co-controlled HAP. We 
therefore believe that we have appropriately exercised our discretion 
in regulating only the PAH emissions from the asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category.
    The commenter further asserts that we failed to regulate all 
sources of HAP emissions. For the reasons described above, this rule 
establishes emissions standards for PAH only. To the extent the 
commenter is asserting that we failed to address all sources of PAH 
emissions, we disagree. We are required to regulate only those sources 
of PAH emissions that formed the basis of our listing decision. EPA 
based the listing of the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area source category solely on emissions from asphalt 
blowing (processing) and saturation of felt (using saturators, wet 
loopers, and coaters). Based on our review of the record supporting the 
listing decision, the record does not include emissions from asphalt 
loading racks, asphalt storage tanks, adhesive storage tanks, adhesive 
applicators, sealant storage tanks or sealant applicators. As a result, 
we did not establish PAH emission limits for those sources, as these 
emission sources were not part of the listed source category.
    Comment. One commenter stated that a significant problem with the 
proposal is that it would establish GACT standards that are actually 
more stringent--and significantly so--than the MACT standards for the 
industry. The commenter stated that they know of no other GACT 
standards that are more stringent than the corresponding MACT standards 
for the same industry. The commenter asserted that it makes no sense to 
have smaller area sources subject to more stringent standards than 
larger major sources. The commenter added that the very term ``maximum 
achievable control technology'' on its face indicates that the CAA 
section 112(d)(2) standards should be more stringent--they are the 
``maximum achievable'' standards in contrast to the CAA section 
112(d)(5) standards that are merely ``generally available.''
    The commenter stated that for MACT, CAA section 112(d)(3) provides 
minimum levels of stringency, also known as the MACT ``floor'' levels. 
Thus, according to the commenter, the MACT standard for existing 
sources must be at least as stringent as the performance achieved by 
the average of the best performing 12 percent of sources in the 
category. The commenter stated that for new sources, the standard must 
be at least as stringent as that achieved by the best controlled 
similar source. In the subpart LLLLL asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing MACT rulemaking, the commenter noted that EPA 
concluded only six years ago that the average of the best performing 12 
percent (i.e., the 94th percentile of performance) was equivalent to 
the subpart UU NSPS limits. 66 FR 58617-20 (Nov. 21, 2001) (subpart 
LLLLL MACT proposal). The commenter stated that there have not been 
changes in the industry since publication of the final MACT standards 
in 2003 that would be expected to have rendered the assumptions for the 
MACT standards invalid. Thus, the commenter asserted that there is no 
basis for determining that any standards more stringent than the NSPS 
or MACT standards are ``generally available.''
    The commenter stated that ``The legislative history is replete with 
support for the proposition that GACT standards are to be less 
stringent than MACT standards. The Senate Report for the 1990 CAA 
Amendments states that ``[t]he Administrator may require area sources 
to install MACT, but also has the option to impose less stringent 
emissions limitations reflecting generally available control 
technology.'' Senate Report 101-228, in Congressional Research Service, 
A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (``A 
Legislative History'') 8338, 8490 (emphasis added). See also floor 
statement of Sen. Moynahan (``Clearly, this [GACT] requirement is less 
demanding than the maximum achievable control technology required for 
major point sources'') (April 3, 1990 Senate floor debate on S. 1630, 
in A Legislative History 6946, 7083); House Energy and Commerce 
Committee Markup of H.R. 3030 (The Waxman amendment requires EPA to 
regulate 90 percent of the area source emissions of each hazardous air 
pollutant. EPA may elect to establish controls based on ``generally 
available control technology'' in lieu of the more stringent controls 
based on ``maximum achievable control technology'' that would apply to 
major sources.'' (Apr. 12, 1990 Clean Air Facts description of 
committee markup, in A Legislative History 2446, 2561).
    Another commenter added that the preamble did not contain any 
explanation for EPA's decision to impose more stringent requirements on 
smaller, lower-emitting facilities than on major sources. The commenter 
also cited rationale in Senate Report 101-228 that indicates the 
Congress intended GACT standards for area sources to be less stringent 
than MACT standards for major sources. The commenter also noted that 
EPA has taken the position that GACT is a less stringent standard in 
the preamble to the area source rulemaking for perchloroethylene dry 
cleaning facilities (58 FR 49354, 49356).
    Response. As described in detail below, we disagree with the 
commenters' basic premise that a GACT-based standard will always be 
less stringent than a previously-promulgated MACT-based standard, 
particularly in circumstances such as those here where the relevant 
MACT-based standard is more than 6 years old. Further, in this 
particular instance, the major source MACT-based NESHAP and the area 
source GACT-based standards are not directly comparable because they 
regulate different pollutants and different collections of process 
equipment. The MACT standards regulate total HAP with no speciation. 
The MACT also covers additional process equipment (i.e., asphalt, 
adhesive, and sealant storage tanks, and adhesive and sealant 
applicators) that are not covered under the GACT-based standards.
    In assessing what constitutes GACT for the asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category, we evaluated the 
control technologies and management practices that reduce PAH emissions 
at the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities 
that compose the source category. In our evaluation, we used 
information from an industry survey, discussed options for controlling 
PAH emissions with the industry trade association, and reviewed 
operating permits to identify the emission controls and management 
practices that are currently used to control PM and PAH emissions. In 
our evaluation, we determined that all of the blow stills used by 
facilities in the source category to process asphalt are currently 
controlled using thermal oxidation. We also found that the majority of 
roofing manufacturing lines was controlled using some type of PM 
control devices (e.g., fiber-bed filters). Additionally, we determined 
that due to market-driven process changes, the majority of roofing 
manufacturing facilities no longer use organic felt as the substrate 
for roofing materials. The process change of no longer using organic 
felt as a substrate has significantly reduced the amount of

[[Page 63245]]

asphalt used to manufacture a given quantity of roofing products. For 
all of these reasons, it is understandable that the GACT standard for 
this category is different than the MACT standard. After considering 
all of this information, we then considered costs and economic impacts 
in order to determine what actually constitutes GACT for the asphalt 
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category.
    While MACT-based standards for a given source category would most 
likely be more stringent than GACT-based standards for the same sources 
if the standards were developed at the same point in time, that is not 
the case here. Here, the GACT standards are based upon more recent 
process equipment, control device, and emissions data that were 
analyzed to support development of these standards, specifically. In 
contrast, the MACT standards were based upon data collected in 1995. 
Additionally, the GACT-based standards focus on the HAP (PAH) and 
processes (blowing stills and saturators, wet loopers, coaters, and 
coating mixers) for which this area source category was listed. The 
MACT-based standards were developed using a floor analysis for total 
HAP over a wider span of process equipment. Under such circumstances, 
the previously established MACT standard cannot reasonably be 
considered dispositive of the question of what constitutes GACT. 
Rather, as with any GACT determination, in determining what constitutes 
GACT for the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area 
source category, we first carefully evaluated the methods, practices 
and techniques that are commercially available and appropriate for 
application by sources in the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area source category. We then considered costs and 
economic impacts to determine what constitutes GACT. The GACT-based 
standards in this final rule reflect the Agency's determination, based 
on this evaluation, of GACT for the asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing area source category.
    Comment. One commenter did not believe that the proposed standards 
represent a GACT level of control because EPA used unrepresentative 
data, did not account for variability in establishing the emission 
limits, and determined the emission limits using the average.
    In developing the proposed GACT standards, the commenter noted that 
EPA used data from only one source in each source category. The 
commenter also stated that not only is the data too sparse, but it is 
not representative of GACT because the data were collected to support a 
MACT rulemaking (i.e., the data were collected at the best-controlled 
sources in the industry). The commenter submitted PM emissions data 
from member companies for coater-only lines, saturator-only lines, and 
lines containing coaters and saturators. The commenter noted that there 
are numerous subpart UU NSPS compliance tests available documenting PM 
emissions from industry sources. The commenter added that, because the 
PM data have been collected to demonstrate compliance with air permits 
and the subpart UU NSPS, the data would meet the quality assurance and 
quality control standards required by State air pollution control 
agencies.
    The commenter stated that the standards should consider the 
variability in emissions due to: operational distinctions between 
different facilities or units (i.e., roofing lines); between-test 
variability (i.e., variability in measurements made at the same 
facility or unit at different times); and within-test variability 
(i.e., measurement variations in individual test runs).
    The commenter stated that EPA and the courts have recognized the 
importance of using representative data and accounting for such 
variability between facilities, processes, and test results. In Sierra 
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 665 (DC Cir. 1999), the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the DC Circuit stated in a MACT case (under CAA section 
129): ``It is reasonable to suppose that if an emissions standard is as 
stringent as `the emissions control that is achieved in practice' by a 
particular unit, then that particular unit will not violate the 
standard. This only results if `achieved in practice' is interpreted to 
mean `achieved under the worst foreseeable circumstances.' ''
    The commenter stated that, in approving EPA's decision to account 
for variability in a CAA section 112 case by not setting the standards 
based upon the lowest emission limits, the court correctly pointed out 
that ``even the best performing sources occasionally have spikes.'' 
Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 372 F.3d 1232, 1242 (DC Cir. 
2004). Similarly, the commenter noted that, under the technology-based 
NSPS, the DC Circuit's decisions ``evince a concern that variables be 
accounted for, that the representativeness of test conditions by [sic] 
ascertained, that the validity of tests be assured and the statistical 
significance of results determined.'' National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 627 
F.2d 416, 452-53 (DC Cir. 1980). See also Portland Cement Ass'n v. 
Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 396 (DC Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 
921 (1974) (remanding NSPS in part due to ``the lack of any indication 
of statistical reliability'' in test results used to set standards).
    Moreover, the commenter asserted that a single test almost by 
definition cannot be representative of conditions found throughout an 
industry. The commenter said that the DC Circuit has held under CAA 
section 111, ``a uniform standard must be capable of being met under 
most adverse conditions which can reasonably be expected to recur * * 
*'' National Lime Ass'n, 627 F.2d at 431 n.46. See also Portland Cement 
Ass'n, 486 F.2d at 396 (noting industry point that ``a single test 
offered a weak basis'' for inferring that plants could meet the 
standards). Without accounting for variation among different emissions 
tests, the commenter stated that it cannot be determined with a 
significant degree of statistical confidence that even a single unit 
will not be able to meet the standard over a reasonable period of time, 
when one can expect adverse conditions to be present.
    The commenter noted that the courts have recognized this same basic 
principle in reviewing technology-based effluent standards under the 
Clean Water Act. As the Fifth Circuit stressed in reviewing ``best 
practicable technology'' or ``BPT'' standards under Clean Water Act 
section 304(b)(1):

    The same plant using the same treatment method to remove the 
same toxic does not always achieve the same result. Tests conducted 
one day may show a different concentration of the same toxic than 
are shown by the same test on the next day. This variability may be 
due to the inherent inaccuracy of analytical testing, i.e., 
``analytical variability,'' or to routine fluctuations in a plant's 
treatment performance.

    Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 228 (5th Cir. 
1989). The commenter said that the Fifth Circuit upheld the standards 
because EPA expressly stated that they should be achievable ``at all 
times apart from instances of upsets,'' and because the Clean Water Act 
contains an ``upset defense.'' Id. at 230. See also American Petroleum 
Institute v. EPA, 540 F.2d 1023, 1035-36 (10th Cir. 1976) (``Even in 
the best treatment systems, changes occur in ability to treat wastes * 
* * [V]ariability factors present[] a practical effort to accommodate 
for variations in plant operations''); FMC Corp. v. Train, 539 F.2d 
973, 985 (4th Cir. 1976) (variability factors account for ``the fact 
that even in the best treatment systems changes continually occur in 
the treatability of wastes''). See also 47 FR 24534, 24546 (1982) (in 
setting general

[[Page 63246]]

pH effluent limitation under the Clean Water Act, EPA pointed out that 
it ``traditionally has recognized that it must take variability into 
account in establishing effluent limitations, and in recognition that 
100 percent compliance is theoretically impossible, the Agency has 
generally set daily effluent limitations which would be met 
approximately 99 percent of the time'').
    The commenter noted that EPA pointed out in its brief in the Sierra 
Club v. EPA MACT case under CAA section 129 (discussed above), that 
simply trying to set a technology-based emission standard by 
considering a very limited dataset ``ignores the critical distinction 
between an emission level that is `observed' on a particular occasion 
versus an emission level the Administrator determines is `achieved in 
practice' through performance because it is capable of being met 
continuously under the range of operating conditions that can 
reasonably be expected.'' EPA brief at 35. Limited test results--the 
``observed'' emissions levels--bear no relationship at all to what a 
variety of differently configured plants (or even a single unit) can 
achieve on a continuous basis. This is because each test produces a 
very limited sample of data. It does not provide a full enumeration of 
the available data for the unit's performance over a long period of 
time. See Natrella, Environmental Statistics, supra, chapter 1.
    The commenter stated that EPA inappropriately ignored basic 
statistical principles for environmental standard-setting. The 
commenter said that in any normally distributed set of data, 50 percent 
of the data points will be higher than the mean. Even assuming that the 
data were representative, a standard that 50 percent of sources do not 
meet would lead to a level of control more stringent than that 
generally available.
    The commenter stated that the use of the average uncontrolled 
emissions derived from a single test at a saturator/wet looper and a 
single test at a coater/coating mixer at one facility (the Tamko 
Frederick, MD facility) is inappropriate for setting standards. The 
commenter further stated that even assuming this is actually a median 
data point, 50 percent of the emission sources will have emissions 
higher than this source.
    The commenter noted that a paper published in a peer-reviewed 
journal showed that the emissions from uncontrolled coaters are 
variable (the standard deviation was 169 percent of the mean). The 
commenter stated that if the assumption is made that the data are 
distributed according to the t-Density function, this means that more 
than 33 percent of sources would be expected to have uncontrolled 
emissions of greater than 0.83 pounds/ton of product. To meet the 0.03 
pound PM/ton of product standard, the commenter said that the cleanest 
of these sources (at 0.83 lbs/ton) would have to have unvarying 
emissions, and continuous control efficiencies of greater than 96 
percent efficiency.
    The commenter also stated that EPA has inappropriately used average 
values in converting the emissions data to pounds of PM emitted per ton 
of product manufactured and in assessing the removal performance of 
high-efficiency air filter (HEAF) in calculating the proposed 
standards.
    The commenter suggested that a valid and reasonable approach to 
calculate representative emissions for such a small data set is to add 
two standard deviations to the mean (x) of the 3 stack testing runs. 
Assuming data are normally distributed, the commenter said that 
approximately 97.8 percent of sources in a normally distributed 
population would fall below this x + 2 standard deviations envelope.
    The commenter stated that because of EPA's flawed analysis, the 
proposed PAH and PM GACT emission standards for asphalt roofing 
manufacturing are too stringent and that EPA's assertion that the GACT 
standards can be met is incorrect.
    Response. We agree with the commenter that, as a general matter, it 
is desirable to have as robust a data set as possible when establishing 
emission limits. We also note, however, that EPA must often work with 
the data it has even though we might prefer to have additional data. We 
had a reasonable set of data upon which to base the proposed rule and 
it is within our discretion to determine whether it is appropriate to 
seek additional data before proposing to take a particular action. See, 
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 
2008) (Recognizing that it is within EPA's discretion to determine when 
it is appropriate to rely on existing data rather than exercising its 
authority under section 114 of the Clean Air Act to obtain additional 
or new data.) In addition to actually having sufficient data upon which 
to base the proposed rule, we faced time constraints that precluded 
obtaining even more data due to the fact that we were trying to meet a 
court-ordered deadline for issuing the proposed rule. Finally, the 
rulemaking process itself is one of the primary ways in which EPA 
obtains relevant information.
    We agree with the commenter that additional roofing line emissions 
data would be helpful in establishing the GACT-based limits for this 
area source category. We also agree that variability in emissions is 
one of several important factors that need to be considered in 
establishing the GACT limits and that we had a less than desirable 
amount of data with which to consider statistical variability at 
proposal. The additional data provided with the industry comments, in 
combination with the data EPA relied on in developing the proposed 
rule, provides a robust data set for use in assessing both the actual 
performance of sources and the variability in that performance with the 
result that the final emission limits will be more statistically sound 
than those contained in the proposed rule. Consequently, the final 
GACT-based limits have been revised to take into account the additional 
data submitted by the commenter for asphalt roofing lines. 
Additionally, we considered the standard deviation of the data in 
establishing the revised emission limits. We are adding one standard 
deviation to the average of the data to account for variability. We 
considered adding two standard deviations to the average but we did not 
believe this approach was representative of GACT because the resulting 
emission limits were above the limits that most facilities already 
achieve. For the combined coater/saturator roofing lines, we are 
establishing the emission limits as the sum of the emissions limits for 
the coater-only and saturator-only lines. We used this approach for the 
combined coater/saturator roofing lines because the emissions are 
additive (i.e., the process units are in series).
    The revised GACT limits for new and existing coater-only production 
lines are 0.0002 lb PAH/ton of product manufactured (or 0.06 lb PM/ton 
of product manufactured). For new and existing saturator-only 
production lines, the revised GACT limit is 0.0007 lb PAH/ton of 
product manufactured (or 0.30 lb PM/ton of product manufactured). For 
new and existing combined saturator and coater production lines, the 
revised GACT limit is 0.0009 lb PAH/ton of product manufactured (or 
0.36 lb PM/ton of product manufactured).

C. Initial Compliance Requirements

    Comment. One commenter contended that EPA proposed a very short 
compliance deadline for existing sources--only one year from issuance 
of the final rule. See section 63.11560(a). The commenter noted that 
the proposed one-year compliance deadline is premised upon EPA's 
assumption that sources will not have to install or modify air 
pollution control equipment

[[Page 63247]]

to meet the standards. The commenter stated that this assertion is not 
true; however, as shown by the subpart UU NSPS test data in a report 
submitted by the commenter, a number of facilities have been operating 
above the proposed PM standards in the GACT proposal. Thus, according 
to the commenter, contrary to the proposal's justification, if the 
final standards are anywhere near the level of the proposed standards, 
the commenter stated that a number of facilities will need to make 
significant improvements to and/or reconstruct existing PM control 
equipment or install new equipment altogether to meet the proposed GACT 
limits.
    The commenter stated that NSPS subpart UU and MACT Method 5A 
testing data show that 20--50 percent of the potential GACT regulated 
sources surveyed by EME Solutions would be in non-compliance with the 
proposed GACT limits. Given that these sources will have to perform 
engineering testing(s) to assess compliance status, analyze results, 
design/develop solutions to the reason(s) for potential noncompliance, 
fabricate and install the solutions, and then perform compliance 
testing; eighteen months is much too short a time period.
    The commenter noted that the proposal also recognizes that there 
are uncontrolled sources in the industry. For example, many coating 
mixers are not currently controlled. Even if a facility has existing PM 
control equipment, the commenter contended that it will be necessary to 
install ducting to vent the currently-uncontrolled affected sources to 
the controls.
    The commenter also noted that many States require a construction 
permit to make modification to emissions control technology already in 
place. The permitting alone can take 9 months or longer.
    In addition, the commenter stated that the subpart LLLLL MACT 
standards provided a 3-year compliance date for existing sources, even 
though they were less stringent than the proposed GACT standards. The 
commenter said that there is no logical rationale for having a three-
year compliance date for the MACT standards yet only a one-year 
compliance date for more stringent GACT standards. The commenter stated 
that for all these reasons, the final rule should provide that a 
facility has three years from the date of issuance of that rule to 
comply with the GACT standards.
    For all these reasons, the commenter believed that a three-year 
compliance deadline is appropriate, and that the proposed section 
63.11560(a) should be amended by substituting the term ``three years'' 
where ``one year'' is currently found in the bracketed language.
    Response. We disagree with both the commenter's basic premise that 
existing sources will need three years to comply with the final 
standards and the assumptions underlying that premise. The commenter 
assumes that either new control devices will need to be installed, or 
existing controls upgraded, to comply with the PAH or PM emission 
limits. We believe that this assumption is incorrect. In this final 
rule, we revised the emission limits based on our assessment of 
additional data and to account for variability. As a result, we believe 
that no new add-on controls will be needed to comply with the final 
GACT standards. Consequently, we believe that the proposed compliance 
deadline of one year is adequate. If an owner or operator believes that 
additional time beyond the one year compliance period is needed to 
install controls, the owner or operator can request a compliance 
extension from the Administrator (or a State with an approved title V 
permit program), as authorized by CAA section 112(i)(3)(B) and 
specified in section 63.6(i)(4)(i)of the NESHAP General Provisions.
    Comment. One commenter noted that the deadline for conducting 
performance tests for existing sources stated in the proposal preamble 
was incorrect because it said that the performance test must be 
conducted within 180 days after publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register, rather than 180 days after the compliance date as 
specified in the regulatory text. The commenter said that the preamble 
to the final rule should clarify that the preamble to the proposal was 
in error because the rule language specifies that existing facilities 
must demonstrate initial compliance within 180 calendar days after the 
compliance date.
    The commenter also noted that EPA uses multiple terms for the same 
requirement (i.e., ``performance testing,'' ``compliance testing''). 
The commenter asserted that the use of multiple terms for the same 
requirement can cause confusion when interpreting the regulatory 
requirements. The commenter recommended that EPA refer to this testing 
as ``compliance testing'' throughout the final GACT rule.
    Response. We agree with the commenter and have corrected the 
inconsistencies in the final rule.
    Comment. One commenter stated that either one or both of the 
asphalt density calculations have been improperly derived. The 
commenter said that either the calculations in English units or in 
metric units are inaccurate; as they do not give the same answer after 
the unit conversions are made. The commenter requested that EPA revise 
these equations as appropriate.
    Response. We agree with the commenter and we have corrected the 
English-unit values for the constants K1 and K2 
in the asphalt density equations of the final rule.
    Comment. One commenter believed that the requirement in the 
proposed rule (section 63.11562(h)(1)) to conduct the compliance tests 
under conditions that represent normal operation and not during periods 
of startup, shutdown, or malfunction is overly broad. The commenter 
stated that there can be a significant range of ``normal operation,'' 
and the requirement as stated can lead to confusion among regulators 
and the regulated community.
    The commenter added that some asphalt roofing manufacturing 
facilities would find it impossible to meet the proposed requirement to 
manufacture a certain product during compliance testing because they do 
not manufacture such products. The commenter noted that the proposal 
also differs from the approach taken in the subpart LLLLL MACT rule. 
The commenter suggested that the final rule require that the test be 
performed while manufacturing the roofing product that is expected to 
result in the greatest amount of HAP emissions.
    Response. We agree with the commenter's suggestion that compliance 
tests be performed while manufacturing the roofing product that is 
expected to result in the greatest amount of PAH emissions. As a 
result, the final rule specifies that initial and subsequent compliance 
tests must be conducted while manufacturing the product that has the 
highest PAH and PM emissions. We have also eliminated the requirement 
that compliance tests be conducted under conditions that represent 
normal operation and not during periods of startup, shutdown or 
malfunction. We believe that this change addresses both aspects of the 
comment. Requiring that the compliance test be conducted while 
manufacturing the product that has the highest PAH and PM emissions 
eliminates the need to specifically reference normal operating 
conditions. We are appropriately requiring compliance testing during 
those periods when the facility is manufacturing the product that has 
the highest PAH and PM emissions.
    Comment. One commenter stated that it would be helpful if EPA 
explained how the production rate is determined. The commenter 
questioned if the production rate was based on actual

[[Page 63248]]

daily production, monthly production, the daily average of monthly 
production or some other calculation. The commenter also questioned how 
the production rate would be determined in plants that run 
continuously, so that production spans more than one calendar day.
    Response. The production rate to be used in determining compliance 
with the asphalt roofing manufacturing emission limits is the 
production rate at which the roofing line was operating during the 
compliance test. If a facility is demonstrating initial compliance with 
the emission limits using the average of three 1-hour emission tests, 
the production rate used for the compliance demonstration would be the 
average rate over the 3-hour period (in terms of pounds of product 
manufactured). The final rule clarifies that the production rate used 
for determining compliance must be the average production rate utilized 
during the compliance test.
    Comment. One commenter supported EPA's decision to set the PM 
standards based upon filterable PM emissions, as is clear from the 
choice of Method 5A to measure PM emissions. The commenter noted that 
the data upon which the standards were based were of filterable PM 
emissions, so it would be inappropriate to include condensable 
particulate for compliance purposes. The commenter asserted that doing 
so would be inconsistent with the basis of the standards.
    The commenter believed that the preamble to the final rule should 
make it clear that in measuring PM emissions, the rule contemplates 
only filterable PM (the ``front half''), and that it would be 
inappropriate to also require measurement of condensable PM (the ``back 
half''). The commenter also recommended adding a definition for PM to 
section 63.11566. The commenter said that the definition should state 
that ``Particulate matter (PM) means the filterable particulate matter 
as measured using the front half of Method 5A.'' Should States require 
that the front half and back half meet these stringent standards, this 
would result in a regulation far stricter than that mandated by the 
CAA. The commenter stated that facilities might be required to install 
thermal oxidizers to comply, a decision that would result in increased 
emissions of greenhouse gases to reduce already low emissions of PAH.
    Response. The data upon which the alternative PM emission limits 
are based were collected using EPA Method 5A of Appendix A of 40 CFR 60 
(Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions from the Asphalt 
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Industry). Using Method 5A, PM in vent 
gas samples taken from the source is collected on a glass fiber filter 
maintained at a temperature of 42  10 [deg]C (108  18 [deg]F). The PM mass, which includes any material that 
condenses at or above the filtration temperature, is determined 
gravimetrically after the removal of uncombined water. Consequently, we 
agree with the commenter that it would be inappropriate to establish 
emission limits that include contributions from PM that is captured in 
the sampling train downstream of the Method 5A filter since we do not 
have data that reflect those contributions. Therefore, for purposes of 
this final rule, we are defining PM to include any material determined 
gravimetrically using EPA Method 5A--Determination of Particulate 
Matter Emissions From the Asphalt Processing And Asphalt Roofing 
Industry (40 CFR 60, Appendix A).
    Comment. One commenter noted that the proposal allows the use of 
the results of performance testing conducted during the past five years 
to show compliance and indicates that a source must be able to 
demonstrate that ``the results of the performance test, with or without 
adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite any process 
changes.'' The commenter requested further explanation of this 
provision, because it is likely that most process adjustments would 
trigger a re-test.
    Another commenter stated that the rule should specify that only 
emission increases resulting from a process change that is above a de 
minimis level would prevent a previous test from being used.
    Response. We clarified the final rule preamble by removing the term 
``with or without adjustment'' because that language was unclear. While 
we agree that there are many types of process changes that could 
increase PAH and PM emissions such that the previously-conducted test 
would not be valid, we believe that some changes would not invalidate 
the results of the previously-conducted test.
    We included the option to use existing tests to provide flexibility 
to the affected facilities. We intend that it is the responsibility of 
the owner or operator to demonstrate that the process adjustment or 
change did not invalidate the results of the previously-conducted test. 
Consequently, we are not including de minimis emissions levels in the 
final rule.
    Comment. One commenter noted that some facilities have conducted 
required PM compliance testing under various state-managed air permit 
programs. The commenter said that, in some cases, the methodologies 
used in these tests are somewhat different than Method 5A. However, the 
commenter noted that in all cases the methods are approved by a State 
agency prior to use and typically are carefully evaluated by state 
experts. The commenter asserted that preventing a facility from using a 
legitimate, accepted test previously used to establish compliance will 
result in unnecessary costs and potential conflicts with existing, 
state-issued, air permit terms and conditions. The commenter asserted 
that in this scenario requiring the prior test to conform exactly to 
Method 5A does not provide any additional benefit to the environment, 
and it merely adds cost, uncertainty and confusion.
    Response. We disagree with the commenter that the final rule should 
provide a blanket allowance for the use of state-approved test methods 
in lieu of EPA Method 5A. The final rule, through reference to the 
NESHAP General Provisions, allows owners or operators to petition the 
Administrator to use alternative test methods and procedures. The EPA 
retains the authority to approve alternative test methods based on 
site-specific information. This mechanism can be used to obtain 
approval to use the results of a previously conducted test, as well as 
to obtain approval to use an alternative test method in the future.
    Comment. One commenter supported EPA's decision to allow facilities 
to use ``process knowledge and engineering calculations'' in lieu of a 
performance test to demonstrate initial compliance at a roofing line 
that does not include a saturator. The commenter noted that companies 
often have the necessary information and data to show that they will be 
in compliance with the emission standards if they operate their plants 
in such a way as to meet specified parameters. However, the commenter 
questioned why the option was limited to roofing lines that do not 
include a saturator. The commenter noted that the proposal offers no 
explanation for this limitation. The commenter asserted that the same 
principles apply to roofing lines with saturators and asphalt 
processing operations.
    Response. In the proposal, we limited the option to use process 
knowledge and engineering calculations because we believed that a 
coater-only line was the only equipment configuration that could 
potentially demonstrate compliance without using an add-on control 
device. However, we agree with the commenter that the technical basis 
for allowing the option does not

[[Page 63249]]

preclude application of the option to lines containing saturators. 
Therefore, the final rule does not limit to coater-only lines the use 
of process knowledge and engineering calculations, in lieu of an 
emissions test, to demonstrate initial compliance. However, we are 
clarifying that the option is applicable only to roofing lines that do 
not need a control device to comply with the GACT limits.

D. Continuous Compliance Requirements

    Comment. Two commenters stated that the pressure drop monitoring 
requirement for control devices in the final rule should specify that 
the pressure drop must be maintained in the range established during 
the initial compliance test, rather than below a maximum limit. The 
commenters noted that if the filter develops a tear or it is removed 
after the initial test, the pressure drop would decrease. In this 
scenario, the commenters said that the filter removal or tear would not 
cause a violation of the operating limit but the air pollution control 
device would not be operating properly. A third commenter noted that 
filters become more efficient and remove more particulates as their 
differential pressure increases.
    Another commenter stated that as long as the ability of the blower 
to move air is not impeded (i.e., as long as the operating limit of the 
technology is not exceeded), increased pressure drop actually improves 
PM removal efficiency. The commenter said that the key to PM filtration 
technology is not the pressure drop but the velocity of air moving 
through the capture and control system. The commenter said that 
pressure drop is actually a surrogate for air flow measurement. The 
commenter stated that the design maximum pressure drop is based on the 
ability of the blower providing air flow for capture of the emissions 
at the source (the air flow captures the PM emissions and transports 
the PM to the filtration). The commenter noted that the proposed 
approach of maintaining the pressure drop below a maximum level is 
contrary to the way filtration-based PM control technology used in 
asphalt roofing lines works.
    Response. We agree with the commenters that requiring that the 
pressure drop be maintained within a predetermined range and monitored 
to ensure that this is the case is a better indicator of control system 
performance than requiring the pressure drop be maintained below a 
maximum level. The final rule, therefore, specifies that the pressure 
drop and temperature must be maintained within the range established by 
the initial compliance assessment.
    Comment. One commenter recommended that the pressure drop 
temperature compliance parameters be based upon the specifications of 
the manufacturer of the filtration technology. The commenter said that 
many years of Method 5A compliance testing has demonstrated that as 
long as the inlet emissions stream does not exceed the manufacturer's 
temperature and pressure drop limits, and the control technology is 
operated as specified by the manufacturer, the technology will remove 
the PM from the stream as guaranteed. The commenter stated that many 
States have recognized the validity of this approach to deliver 
compliance with PM emissions limits by requiring that, in both 
construction and operating permits, emissions sources operate control 
technologies as per manufacturing requirements. The commenter said that 
language in the permit either incorporates or references the 
manufacturer's written operating requirements as compliance parameters.
    The commenter stated that limiting the allowable pressure drop to 
levels below manufacturer's guaranteed performance limits will force 
facilities to replace and dispose of expensive filtration media well 
before the end of its guaranteed performance which would result in the 
increased generation and disposal of solid wastes, with no net increase 
in reduction of PM and PAH emissions. Also, the commenter said that if 
the compliance test did not occur late in the expected life of the 
filter media, the pressure drop measured will be low because the 
pressure drop is lower for new filtration media than for old filtration 
media.
    The commenter added that the inlet temperature to the filtration 
technology is dominated by ambient conditions (e.g., when outside 
temperatures are high, the inlet temperatures of emissions stream to 
the filtration technology will be high). Thus, the commenter said that 
if a facility cannot time the compliance test to occur during the 
hottest time of the year, the source will surely experience higher 
inlet temperatures during high temperature time periods. The commenter 
stated that member companies have already experienced this problem in 
operating under the subpart LLLLL asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing MACT. The commenter noted that facilities in the 
industry have received notices of violations for inlet temperatures 
that exceeded those measured during the performance test, then re-
tested at the elevated temperature. The commenter said that these re-
tests showed that they still did not exceed the MACT PM emission 
limits. The commenter also provided a graphical figure that shows a 
consistent correlation between temperature and emissions does not 
exist.
    The commenter recommended that facilities be allowed two options 
for establishing and monitoring pressure drop and temperature in the 
final rule. Under the commenter's first option, the parameters would be 
based upon manufacturer's specifications. The source would conduct an 
initial compliance test. The PM emissions from the control device would 
need to be shown to be below the final GACT limits. As long as the 
pressure drop was below the manufacturer's requirements, the source 
would be considered to be in compliance with the pressure drop 
compliance parameter. Under the commenter's second option, the 
parameter values would be established as under the proposal, but a 
measurement that did not exceed that value by a certain percent would 
not be considered to be a deviation (the commenter suggested 30 percent 
for pressure drop and 10 percent for temperature). The commenter stated 
that EPA has allowed a similar buffer over parameters measured during 
the performance test in existing MACT standards, including Subpart N 
for Chromium Electroplating, at section 63.343, allowing a buffer on 
differential pressure, and Subpart NNN for Wool Fiberglass, at section 
63.1382, allowing production rate to exceed 20 percent above the tested 
rate for up to 10 percent of the operating time in a semiannual period.
    Another commenter, a control device equipment vendor, asserted that 
filters will perform adequately when operated within the design and 
pressure limits imposed by the manufacturer. The commenter added that 
filtration equipment will operate adequately at temperatures within the 
limits specified by the equipment manufacturer.
    Response. We agree with the commenters that equipment manufacturer 
specifications for filter media performance are appropriate for use in 
establishing monitoring parameter ranges, particularly considering the 
difficulty in conducting emission tests that capture the performance of 
the control device at the high and low end of its operating range. 
Consequently, we are adopting the commenter's first option in that the 
final rule allows owners or operators to use equipment manufacturer 
performance specifications for filter media in establishing monitoring 
parameters.

[[Page 63250]]

    Comment. One commenter was very concerned about the way the 
proposal would have facilities set their compliance parameter limits 
for pressure drop and temperature through an initial compliance test. 
The commenter believed that EPA's proposed approaches lack a technical 
basis and would result in numerous potential violations of the 
operating limits even when PM and PAH emissions are well below the 
emission standards. The commenter suggested alternative methodologies 
that are more appropriate for establishing parameter limits.
    The commenter noted that the proposal would treat all 
``deviations'' from the operating parameter limits (i.e., all 
exceedances of parameter limits) as potential violations of the 
emission standards. The commenter thought that this approach was 
excessively harsh, particularly because several factors make it almost 
certain that established operating parameter limits will be exceeded at 
times even when a facility is not exceeding the GACT emission 
standards, and is operating its processes and control equipment well.
    For example, the commenter stated that an exceedance of a 
temperature parameter limit does not mean that a facility is exceeding 
the emission standard; the ambient temperature has a significant effect 
on the temperature monitored and the amount of emissions is actually 
controlled by the temperature of the asphalt in the coating mixer, 
coater, and/or saturator. For that reason, the commenter noted that the 
preamble to the Subpart UU (NSPS for asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing) states that ``periods of temperature excursions 
* * * would not, of themselves, constitute a violation of the numerical 
emission limits. The commenter noted that even if the temperature is 
measured at the coater or saturator, an exceedance of the temperature 
parameter limit does not mean that the source is exceeding the 
standards.
    The commenter asserts that the same is true for deviations from a 
set pressure drop parameter limit. As discussed above, it would not be 
at all surprising for a roofing line to exceed its pressure drop limit 
but still emit fewer PM or PAH emissions than the actual emission 
standard allows.
    Consequently, the commenter stated that EPA should follow an 
approach similar in some ways to one that EPA established in its 
subpart NNN fiberglass MACT standards. The subpart NNN wool fiberglass 
standards consider whether an affected source is operating outside of 
its parameter limits for more than 5 percent of the time during a 6-
month block reporting period. The commenter believes that EPA should 
borrow from this approach, and require that the facility conduct a new 
compliance test if a roofing line has operated outside of the 
established parametric limits, as we have proposed them, for more than 
5 percent of the time in any semiannual reporting period. The commenter 
said that this would essentially be a combination of the approaches 
taken by the wool fiberglass MACT standards and the subpart UU NSPS for 
asphalt roofing manufacturing. If the re-test shows the line to be 
emitting more PAH or PM than the standard allows, commenter said that 
the facility could be judged to be in violation of the GACT standard. 
If the re-test shows that emissions do not exceed the standard, 
commenter said that there would be no violation.
    Response. We acknowledge the difficulty in establishing appropriate 
monitoring parameter ranges for filtration-based PM control devices. As 
noted in earlier responses to comments above, the final rule allows 
owners or operators to establish a range of parameter values for 
monitoring using manufacturer performance specifications. The EPA 
believes that allowing the use of manufacturer specifications provides 
owners or operators sufficient flexibility in establishing appropriate 
parameter ranges. Consequently, we are not including a re-test 
provision in the final rule. The parameter ranges established by the 
facility and approved by the delegated authority are not-to-exceed 
values. A parameter exceedance would be a violation of the monitoring 
requirements but not necessarily a violation of the emission limits. 
Additionally, we are not including the re-test provision because we do 
not believe it is possible in all cases to replicate the conditions 
that caused the exceedance during a re-test.
    Comment. One commenter noted that some of the ESP units currently 
in operation in the industry are not provided with voltage meters, nor 
are they easily modified to add meters for the voltage reading. The 
commenter said that such ESPs are typically provided with a green 
indicating light. The commenter said that this light is used to assess 
the operation of the unit and determine when cleaning is needed. The 
commenter added that the light burns a solid green during normal 
operation and the light flashes as the cells gradually become dirty; 
the dirty cells are then replaced with clean spares.
    The commenter stated that contractors have been contacted to 
provide proposals to modify the existing units to add the required 
voltage indicators. The commenter said that current estimates are 
around $50,000 to modify the exiting units to add voltage meters and 
another $25,000 to $50,000 to add controls to automatically provide the 
3-hour average voltage (cost varies depending upon the current 
automation capability of a facility). The commenter said that the high 
cost of these modifications is not reasonable, given that the use of 
the indicating light ensures that the ESP will operate properly. The 
commenter therefore believed that routine monitoring and logging of the 
ESP monitoring light is the only reasonable method to verify the 
operation of an ESP that does not have voltage meters and that EPA 
should allow this method of compliance.
    Response. We agree with the commenter that requiring retrofits for 
voltage monitors is not cost efficient. We also believe that monitoring 
the ESP instrumentation (e.g., indicator light) provides sufficient 
monitoring of the ESP performance. Therefore, the final rule allows 
owners or operators to monitor the ESP instrumentation as an option to 
monitoring voltage. Additionally, the final rule specifies that failure 
to service the ESP within one hour of the potential problem is an 
exceedance of the monitoring standards, which is consistent with 
previously promulgated area source rules (e.g., area source NESHAP for 
iron and steel foundries, and area source NESHAP for aluminum, copper 
and other nonferrous foundries).
    Comment. One commenter stated that CEMs are not suitable for 
asphalt fumes for continuous sampling of PM. The commenter noted that 
EPA Method 5A is used for stack PM sampling of asphalt fumes and Method 
5A requires that the emission stream be cooled to allow the fume 
aerosols to condense and this PM portion is then recovered from the 
sample train with an after test solvent wash. The commenter stated that 
a continuous analyzer does not exist that will perform this PM 
sampling.
    Response. We agree with the commenter and the CEMS option has been 
removed from the final rule.
    Comment. One commenter supported the proposed provision that, for 
periods of startup and shutdown, would allow owners and operators to 
demonstrate compliance with the emission standard over a 24-hour 
averaging period. The commenter advocated, however, that EPA adopt a 
similar 24 hour averaging approach for determining compliance with the 
temperature requirements of the rule. Another commenter expressed 
concerns with the proposed provision

[[Page 63251]]

that, for periods of startup and shutdown, allows owners and operators 
to demonstrate compliance with the emission standard over a 24-hour 
averaging period. Specifically, the commenter expressed concern 
regarding the public health impacts of excess emissions during SSM 
episodes.
    Response. We appreciate the one commenter's support of the 
provision that, for periods of startup and shutdown, allows owners and 
operators to demonstrate compliance with the emission standard over a 
24-hour averaging period. However, we reject the commenter's suggestion 
that the 24-hour averaging period be extended to temperature. As stated 
elsewhere in this preamble, we have modified the rule to require that 
the owner/operator establish a temperature range for the inlet gas 
temperature to the PM control device during the initial compliance 
assessment and to then maintain the 3-hour average inlet gas 
temperature within that range during operations. We believe that these 
changes, which allow the owner/operator to establish a temperature 
range, obviate any need for a longer averaging time for temperature.
    We proposed the use of a 24-hour averaging period for determining 
compliance with the emission standards to account for emissions 
generated during periods of startup and shutdown based on the format we 
chose for the emission standards, i.e., lbs of emissions per ton of 
product produced. During periods of startup and shutdown, the process 
will continue to produce emissions. Even though emissions during such 
periods will be less than those that occur during normal operations 
when measured on an hourly basis, i.e., pounds of emissions per hour of 
operation, production during such periods will be very limited. As a 
result, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate 
compliance with a standard stated in terms of pounds of emissions per 
ton of product produced if a 3-hour averaging period is used. 
Specifically, emissions generated during periods of startup and 
shutdown will be less on an hourly basis than those generated during 
normal operations for a number of reasons. First, during periods of 
startup, the temperature of the asphalt is raised until it reaches the 
optimal temperature for use when producing product. Similarly, during 
periods of shutdown, the temperature of the asphalt is being reduced 
from the temperature which is optimal for production. As the 
temperature of the asphalt increases, the rate of volatilization also 
increases, resulting in increased PAH emissions as measured on a pounds 
per hour basis. As a result, during startup, PAH emissions, as measured 
on a pounds per hour basis, increase until the temperature of the 
asphalt reaches the optimal temperature for production after which the 
temperature is maintained at a steady state. During shutdown, the 
reverse process occurs, i.e., as the process is shut down, the asphalt 
cools, the rate of volatilization decreases and hourly PAH emissions 
decrease. Second, during startup and shutdown, the asphalt usage rate, 
and hence the hourly PAH emission rate, fluctuates. During startup, the 
asphalt usage rate gradually increases until it reaches the rate 
present during normal production. As a result, during startup, the 
hourly PAH emission rate gradually increases until it reaches the rate 
that exists during periods of normal production. During shutdown, the 
reverse occurs, i.e., the hourly asphalt usage rate gradually decreases 
from the rate present during normal production. Thus, except for the 
very start of the shut-down period, the hourly PAH emission rate is 
lower than during periods of normal production. The rate of production, 
i.e., the amount of product produced on an hourly basis, also 
fluctuates during periods of startup and shutdown. At the commencement 
of startup, no product is being produced as the asphalt is being 
brought up to the proper temperature for normal production. The rate of 
production then gradually increases until the process reaches, and is 
maintained at, the rate of normal production. During shutdown, the rate 
of production is gradually reduced from its normal rate to zero. Thus, 
in light of the production-based format of the standard and the 
emission characteristics described above that occur during startup and 
shutdown at asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing 
facilities, we concluded that it was appropriate to provide a longer 
averaging period for determining compliance during periods of startup 
and shutdown. We chose a 24-hour averaging period because, based on the 
exercise of our best engineering judgment, we determined that this was 
an appropriate period since the record indicates that the startup and 
shutdown processes can take up to 9 hours to complete. We also 
considered establishing a 16-hour averaging period as this represents 
two normal 8-hour shifts, but concluded that this would not provide 
adequate time for conditions to normalize. The final rule, therefore, 
allows sources to determine compliance with the emission standard based 
on a 24-hour averaging period, as opposed to a 3 hour period.
    We acknowledge the one comment regarding the health concerns 
associated with emissions that are generated during start-up and shut-
down events; however, the GACT standards are technology-based standards 
as opposed to health- or risk-based standards. For the reasons 
described above, we think a 24-hour averaging period during periods of 
startup and shutdown is reasonable and the commenter has provided no 
evidence to the contrary.
    In the proposed rule, we proposed to also apply the 24-hour period 
for measuring compliance to malfunction events. We are not adopting 
this approach in the final rule. Rather, the final rule requires 
compliance with the standard based on a 3-hour average at all times, 
except as explained above, for periods of startup and shutdown, in 
which case the rule provides that owners and operators demonstrate 
compliance with the standard over a 24-hour averaging period. In re-
examining the record for this rulemaking, we recognized that the data 
in the record supporting a longer averaging period related solely to 
startup and shutdown events. Moreover, in contrast to startup and 
shutdown events which are routine and distinct operating modes, a 
malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably 
preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 
process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner * 
* *'' 40 CFR 63.2. As discussed above, EPA has properly accounted for 
different periods of operation, including periods of startup and 
shutdown, in establishing the standards in this rule. Since a 
malfunction is not a distinct operating mode, malfunction emissions do 
not need to be factored into the development of CAA section 112(d) 
standards, which, once promulgated, apply at all times. Sierra Club v. 
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008). Thus, the final rule does not 
establish a different averaging period for use in measuring compliance 
during malfunction events. Further, even if malfunctions were 
considered a distinct operating mode, we believe it would be 
impracticable to take into account malfunctions in setting CAA section 
112(d) standards. Because, by definition, malfunctions are sudden and 
unexpected events, it would be difficult to set a standard that would 
account for the myriad of different emissions that could occur during 
malfunctions. In addition, the type, frequency, and duration of the 
malfunctions may differ significantly between sources. Finally, setting 
an emissions standard that accounts for all

[[Page 63252]]

different potential types of malfunctions would allow a source to emit 
excessive quantities of uncontrolled pollution and would not provide an 
incentive for sources to minimize the occurrence of malfunctions.

E. Title V Permitting

    Comment. One commenter argued that the Agency's proposal to exempt 
the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source 
category from title V requirements is unlawful and arbitrary. The 
commenter stated that section 502(a) of the CAA authorizes EPA to 
exempt area source categories from title V permitting requirements if 
the Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is 
``impracticable, infeasible or unnecessarily burdensome.'' 42 U.S.C. 
section 7661a(a). The commenter noted that EPA did not claim that title 
V requirements are impracticable or infeasible for any of the source 
categories it proposes to exempt, but that EPA instead relied entirely 
on its claim that title V would be ``unnecessarily burdensome.''
    Response. Section 502(a) of the CAA states, in relevant part, that:

    * * * [t]he Administrator may, in the Administrator's discretion 
and consistent with the applicable provisions of this chapter, 
promulgate regulations to exempt one or more source categories (in 
whole or in part) from the requirements of this subsection if the 
Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is 
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on such 
categories, except that the Administrator may not exempt any major 
source from such regulations. See 42 U.S.C. section 7661a(a).

    The statute plainly vests the Administrator with discretion to 
determine when it is appropriate to exempt non-major (i.e., area) 
sources of air pollution from the requirements of title V. The 
commenter correctly noted that EPA based the proposed exemptions solely 
on a determination that title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' and 
did not rely on whether the requirements of title V are 
``impracticable'' or ``infeasible'', which are alternative bases for 
exempting area sources from title V.
    To the extent the commenter is asserting that EPA must determine 
that all three criteria in CAA section 502 are met before an area 
source category can be exempted from title V, the commenter misreads 
the statute. The statute expressly provides that EPA may exempt an area 
source category from title V requirements if EPA determines that the 
requirements are ``impracticable, infeasible or unnecessarily 
burdensome.'' See CAA section 502 (emphasis added). If Congress had 
wanted to require that all three criteria be met before a category 
could be exempted from title V, it would have stated so by using the 
word ``and,'' in place of ``or.'' For the reasons explained in the 
preamble to the proposed rule, we believe that it is appropriate to 
exempt sources in the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area source category, which are not otherwise required to 
have a title V permit, from title V permitting and, on that basis, have 
retained the exemption in the final rule.
    Comment. One commenter stated that in order to demonstrate that 
compliance with title V would be ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' EPA must 
show, among other things, that the ``burden'' of compliance is 
unnecessary. According to the commenter, by promulgating title V, 
Congress indicated that it viewed the burden imposed by its 
requirements as necessary as a general rule. The commenter maintained 
that the title V requirements provide many benefits that Congress 
viewed as necessary. Thus, in the commenter's view, EPA must show why, 
for any given category, special circumstances make compliance 
unnecessary. The commenter believed that EPA has not made that showing 
for any of the categories it proposes to exempt.
    Response. The EPA does not agree with the commenter's 
characterization of the demonstration required for determining that 
title V is unnecessarily burdensome for an area source category. As 
stated above, the CAA provides the Administrator discretion to exempt 
an area source category from title V if he determines that compliance 
with title V requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or 
unnecessarily burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section 
502(a). In December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the 
term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and developed a 
four-factor balancing test for determining whether title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category, such 
that an exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, 
December 19, 2005 (``Exemption Rule''). In addition to interpreting the 
term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' and developing the four-factor 
balancing test in the Exemption Rule, EPA applied the test to certain 
area source categories.
    The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for 
determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome on a particular 
area source category include: (1) Whether title V would result in 
significant improvements to the compliance requirements, including 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area 
source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V permitting would 
impose significant burdens on the area source category and whether the 
burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the sources may have in 
obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 FR 75324); (3) 
whether the costs of title V permitting for the area source category 
would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in 
compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); and (4) 
whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that 
are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP for the area source 
category, without relying on title V permits (70 FR 75326).
    In discussing the above factors in the Exemption Rule, we explained 
that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to which one or 
more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for a given 
source category, and then we assessed whether considered together those 
factors demonstrated that compliance with title V requirements would be 
`unnecessarily burdensome' on the category, consistent with section 
502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, we concluded that not all 
of the four factors must weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to 
determine that title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a particular 
area source category. Instead, the factors are to be considered in 
combination and EPA determines whether the factors, taken together, 
rather than on an individual basis, support an exemption from title V 
for a particular source category.
    The commenter asserts that ``EPA must show * * * that the 
``burden'' of compliance is unnecessary.'' This is not, however, one of 
the four factors that we developed in the Exemption Rule in 
interpreting the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502, 
but rather a new test that the commenter maintains EPA ``must'' meet in 
determining what is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' under CAA section 502. 
The EPA did not re-open its interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily 
burdensome'' in CAA section 502 in the July 9, 2009 proposed rule for 
the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source 
category. Rather, we applied the four-factor balancing test articulated 
in the Exemption Rule to the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area source category and, on that basis, proposed to 
exempt the

[[Page 63253]]

category from title V. Had we sought to re-open our interpretation of 
the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and modify it 
from what was articulated in the Exemption Rule, we would have stated 
so in the July 9, 2009 proposed rule and solicited comments on a 
revised interpretation, which we did not do. Accordingly, we reject the 
commenter's attempt to create a new test for determining what 
constitutes ``unnecessarily burdensome'' under CAA section 502, as that 
issue falls outside the purview of this rulemaking. (See 74 FR 30386).
    Moreover, if the comment was framed as a request to reopen our 
interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 
502, which it is not, we would deny such request because we have a 
court-ordered deadline to complete this rulemaking by November 16, 
2009. In any event, although the commenter espouses a new 
interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 
502 and attempts to create a new test for determining whether the 
requirements of title V are ``unnecessarily burdensome'' for an area 
source category, the commenter does not explain why EPA's 
interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is arbitrary, 
capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law. We maintain that 
our interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in section 
502, as set forth in the Exemption Rule, is reasonable.
    Comment. One commenter stated that exempting a source category from 
title V permitting requirements deprives both the public generally and 
individual members of the public who would obtain and use permitting 
information from the benefit of citizen oversight and enforcement that 
Congress plainly viewed as necessary. According to the commenter, the 
text and legislative history of the CAA provide that Congress intended 
ordinary citizens to be able to get emissions and compliance 
information about air toxics sources and to be able to use that 
information in enforcement actions and in public policy decisions on a 
State and local level.
    The commenter stated that Congress did not think that enforcement 
by States or other government entities was enough; if it had, Congress 
would not have enacted the citizen suit provisions, and the legislative 
history of the CAA would not show that Congress viewed citizens' access 
to information and ability to enforce CAA requirements as highly 
important both as an individual right and as a crucial means to 
ensuring compliance. According to the commenter, if a source does not 
have a title V permit, it is difficult or impossible--depending on the 
laws, regulations and practices of the State in which the source 
operates--for a member of the public to obtain relevant information 
about its emissions and compliance status. The commenter stated that 
likewise, it is difficult or impossible for citizens to bring 
enforcement actions.
    The commenter continued that EPA does not claim--far less 
demonstrate with substantial evidence, as would be required--that 
citizens would have the same ability to obtain compliance and emissions 
information about sources in the categories it proposes to exempt 
without title V permits. The commenter also added that likewise, EPA 
does not claim--far less demonstrate with substantial evidence--that 
citizens would have the same enforcement ability. Thus, according to 
the commenter, the exemptions EPA proposes plainly eliminate benefits 
that Congress thought necessary. The commenter claimed that to justify 
its exemptions, EPA would have to show that the informational and 
enforcement benefits that Congress intended title V to confer--benefits 
which the commenter argues are eliminated by the exemptions--are for 
some reason unnecessary with respect to the categories it proposes to 
exempt.
    The commenter concluded that EPA does not even acknowledge these 
benefits of title V, far less explain why they are unnecessary, and 
that for this reason alone, EPA's proposed exemptions are unlawful and 
arbitrary.
    Response. Once again, the commenter attempts to create a new test 
for determining whether the requirements of title V are ``unnecessarily 
burdensome'' on an area source category. Specifically, the commenter 
argues that EPA does not claim or demonstrate with substantial evidence 
that citizens would have the same access to information and the same 
ability to enforce under the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area source rule, absent title V. The commenter's 
position represents a significant revision of the fourth factor that 
EPA developed in the Exemption Rule in interpreting the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502. For all of the reasons 
explained above, the commenter's attempt to create a new test for EPA 
to meet in determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' 
on an area source category cannot be sustained. This rulemaking did not 
re-open EPA's interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' 
in CAA section 502. The EPA reasonably applied the four factors to the 
facts of the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area 
source category, and the commenter has not identified any flaw in EPA's 
application of the four factor test.
    Moreover, as explained in the proposal, we considered 
implementation and enforcement issues in evaluating the fourth factor 
of the four-factor balancing test. Specifically, the fourth factor of 
EPA's unnecessarily burdensome analysis provides that EPA will consider 
whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that 
are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP without relying on 
title V permits. See 70 FR 32829-32830.
    In applying the fourth factor here, EPA determined that there are 
adequate enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the 
CAA. As stated in the proposal, we believe that State-delegated 
programs are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP and that 
EPA retains authority to enforce this NESHAP under the CAA. See 74 FR 
32822, 32829. We also indicated that States and EPA often conduct 
voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs to 
assist sources and that these additional programs will supplement and 
enhance the success of compliance with this NESHAP. See 74 FR 32822, 
32829-32830. The commenter does not challenge the conclusion that there 
are adequate State and Federal programs in place to ensure compliance 
with and enforcement of the NESHAP. Instead, the commenter provides an 
unsubstantiated assertion that information about compliance by area 
sources with this NESHAP will not be as accessible to the public as 
information provided to a State pursuant to title V. In fact, the 
commenter does not provide any information that States will treat 
information submitted under this NESHAP differently than information 
submitted pursuant to a title V permit.
    Even accepting the commenter's assertions that it is more difficult 
for citizens to enforce the NESHAP absent a title V permit, which we 
dispute, in evaluating the fourth factor in EPA's balancing test, EPA 
concluded that there are adequate implementation and enforcement 
programs in place to enforce the NESHAP. The commenter has provided no 
information to the contrary or explained how the absence of title V 
actually impairs the ability of citizens to enforce the provisions of 
the NESHAP. Furthermore, the fourth factor is one factor that we 
evaluated in

[[Page 63254]]

determining if the title V requirements were unnecessarily burdensome. 
As explained above, we considered that factor together with the other 
factors and determined that it was appropriate to finalize the proposed 
exemptions for the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing 
source category.
    Comment. One commenter explained that title V provides important 
monitoring benefits, and, according to the commenter, EPA assumes that 
title V monitoring would not add any monitoring requirements beyond 
those required by the regulations for the asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category. The commenter 
stated that in its proposal EPA proposed ``using parametric 
monitoring'' of either process changes or add-on controls. 74 FR at 
32828.'' The commenter further stated that ``EPA argues that its 
proposed standard, by including these requirements, provides monitoring 
``sufficient to assure compliance'' with the proposed rule. Id. at 
32829.'' The commenter maintains that EPA made conclusory assertions 
and that the Agency failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that 
the proposed monitoring requirements will assure compliance with the 
NESHAP for the exempt sources. The commenter stated that, for this 
reason as well, its claim that title V requirements are ``unnecessarily 
burdensome'' is arbitrary and capricious, and its exemption is unlawful 
and arbitrary and capricious.
    Response. The EPA used the four-factor test described above to 
determine if title V requirements were unnecessarily burdensome for the 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source 
category. In the first factor, EPA considers whether imposition of 
title V requirements would result in significant improvements to the 
compliance requirements that are proposed for the area source category. 
See 70 FR 75323. It is in the context of this first factor that EPA 
evaluates the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 
the proposed NESHAP to determine the extent to which those requirements 
are consistent with the requirements of title V. See 70 FR 75323.
    The commenter asserts that ``EPA argues that its proposed standard, 
by including these requirements, provides monitoring `sufficient to 
assure compliance' with the proposed rule,'' and that ``EPA has failed 
to provide any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that the monitoring 
requirements in [the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area source category rule] `assure' compliance.'' 
However, the commenter does not provide any evidence that contradicts 
the conclusion that the proposed monitoring requirements are sufficient 
to assure compliance with the standards in the rule.
    We considered whether title V monitoring requirements would lead to 
significant improvements in the monitoring requirements in the proposed 
NESHAP and determined that they would not. We believe that the 
monitoring requirements in this area source rule can assure compliance. 
Compliance with the emission limits is determined during the initial 
assessment and continuous compliance with the final emission limits is 
demonstrated by monitoring parameters and process conditions 
established during the initial compliance assessment. For the reasons 
described above and in the proposed rule, the first factor supports 
exempting this area source category from title V requirements. Assuming 
for argument's sake that the first factor alone is not sufficient to 
support the exemption, i.e., that a single factor cannot alone support 
the exemption, a proposition that EPA rejects, the four factors when 
considered in combination do support the exemption. As we explained in 
the preamble to the proposed rule, the four-factor balancing test 
requires EPA to examine the factors in combination and determine 
whether the factors, viewed together, weigh in favor of exemption. See 
74 FR 32828. As explained above, we determined that the factors, 
weighed together, support exemption of the area source categories from 
title V.
    Comment. According to one commenter EPA argued that compliance with 
title V would not yield any gains in compliance with underlying 
requirements in the relevant NESHAP (74 FR 32829). The commenter stated 
that EPA's conclusory claim could be made equally with respect to any 
major or area source category. According to the commenter, the Agency 
provides no specific reasons to believe--with respect to the asphalt 
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category--that 
the additional informational, monitoring, reporting, certification, and 
enforcement requirements that exist in title V, but not in the proposed 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source 
category NESHAP, would not provide additional compliance benefits. The 
commenter also stated that the only basis for EPA's claim is, 
apparently, its beliefs that those additional requirements never confer 
additional compliance benefits. According to the commenter, by 
advancing such argument, EPA merely seeks to elevate its own policy 
judgment over Congress' decisions reflected in the CAA's text and 
legislative history.
    Response. The commenter takes out of context certain statements in 
the proposed rule concerning the factors used in the balancing test to 
determine if imposition of title V permitting requirements is 
unnecessarily burdensome for the source category. The commenter also 
mischaracterizes the first of the four-factor balancing test with 
regard to determining whether imposition of title V would result in 
significant improvements in compliance. In addition, the commenter 
mischaracterizes the analysis in the third factor of the balancing test 
which instructs EPA to take into account any gains in compliance that 
would result from the imposition of the title V requirements.
    First, EPA nowhere states, nor does it believe, that title V never 
confers additional compliance benefits as the commenter asserts. While 
EPA recognizes that requiring a title V permit can generally offer 
additional compliance options, for the asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing area source category, EPA concluded that 
requiring title V permits would be unnecessarily burdensome because the 
final rule already contains provisions sufficient to assure compliance.
    Second, the commenter mischaracterizes the first factor by 
asserting that EPA must demonstrate that title V will provide no 
additional compliance benefits. The first factor calls for a 
consideration of ``whether title V would result in significant 
improvements to the compliance requirements, including monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area source 
category.'' Thus, contrary to the commenter's assertion, the inquiry 
under the first factor is not whether title V will provide any 
compliance benefit, but rather whether it will provide significant 
improvements in compliance requirements.
    The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the 
rule are sufficient to assure compliance with the requirements of this 
rule and are sufficient to allow the public the opportunity to obtain 
knowledge about the source, consistent with the goal in title V 
permitting. For example, in the Initial Notification, the source must 
identify its size, whether it must meet any of the GACT requirements in 
the rule, and how it plans to comply with the rule requirements. Also, 
in the notification of compliance status, the

[[Page 63255]]

source must certify how it is achieving compliance and that it has 
complied with all of the requirements of the final rule. The source 
must keep records to document on going compliance with the emission 
standards finalized in this rule. The source must also submit semi-
annual compliance reports to the delegated authority. This information 
is available to the public once the source has filed the reports with 
the delegated authority.
    The EPA believes that these requirements in the rule itself, 
including the requirement to provide information about the source's 
compliance that is available to the public, provide sufficient basis to 
assure compliance, and that the title V requirements, if applicable to 
these sources, would not offer significant improvements in the 
compliance of the sources with the rule.
    Third, the commenter incorrectly characterizes our statements in 
the proposed rule concerning our application of the third factor. Under 
the third factor, EPA evaluates ``whether the costs of title V 
permitting for the area source category would be justified, taking into 
consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to occur for 
such sources.'' Contrary to what the commenter alleges, EPA did not 
state in the proposed rule that compliance with title V would not yield 
any gains in compliance with the underlying requirements in the 
relevant NESHAP, nor does factor three require such a determination. 
Instead, consistent with the third factor, we considered whether the 
costs of title V are justified in light of any potential gains in 
compliance. In other words, EPA must evaluate whether any improvement 
in compliance above what the rule requires justifies the costs 
associated with title V permitting requirements. The EPA reviewed the 
area source category at issue and determined that approximately 30 of 
the 75 sources that would be subject to the rule currently have a title 
V permit. As stated in the proposal (74 FR 32829), EPA estimated that 
the average cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit was 
$65,700 per source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. See 
Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit 
Regulations, 72 FR 32290, June 12, 2007, EPA ICR Number 1587.07. Based 
on this information, EPA determined that there is a significant cost 
burden to the industry to require title V permitting for all the 
sources subject to the rule. In addition, in analyzing factor one, EPA 
found that imposition of the title V requirements offers no significant 
improvements in compliance. In considering the third factor, we stated 
in part that, ``Because the costs, both economic and non-economic, of 
compliance with title V are high for any small entity, and the 
potential for gains in compliance is low, title V permitting is not 
justified for this source category. Accordingly, the third factor 
supports title V exemptions for this area source category.'' See 74 FR 
32829.
    Most importantly, EPA considered all four factors in the balancing 
test in determining whether title V was unnecessarily burdensome on the 
area source category. The EPA found it reasonable, after considering 
all four factors, to exempt the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area source category from the permitting requirements in 
title V. This rulemaking did not re-open EPA's interpretation of the 
term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502. Because the 
commenter's statements do not demonstrate a flaw in EPA's application 
of the four-factor balancing test to the specific facts of the asphalt 
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category, the 
comments provide no basis for the Agency to reconsider its proposal to 
exempt the category from title V.
    Comment. According to one commenter, ``[t]he agency does not 
identify any aspect of any of the underlying NESHAP showing that with 
respect to these specific NESHAP--unlike all the other major and area 
source NESHAP it has issued without title V exemptions--title V 
compliance is unnecessary.'' Instead, according to the commenter, EPA 
merely pointed to existing State requirements and the potential for 
actions by States and EPA that are generally applicable to all 
categories (along with some small business and voluntary programs). The 
commenter stated that, absent a showing by EPA that distinguishes the 
sources it proposes to exempt from other sources, however, the Agency's 
argument boils down to the generic and conclusory claim that it 
generally views title V requirements as unnecessary. The commenter 
stated that, while this may be EPA's view, it was not Congress' view 
when Congress enacted title V, and a general view that title V is 
unnecessary does not suffice to show that title V compliance is 
unnecessarily burdensome.
    Response. The commenter again takes issue with the Agency's test 
for determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome, as 
developed in the Exemption Rule. Our interpretation of the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' is not the subject of this rulemaking. In 
any event, as explained above, we believe the Agency's interpretation 
of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is a reasonable. In addition, 
our determination to exempt the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area source category from title V is specific to this 
rule, and is not, as the commenter suggests, reflective of a general 
view that title V requirements are unnecessary. We review the facts of 
each area source category individually in determining whether to exempt 
the category, or a portion of the category, from the requirements of 
title V pursuant to section 502. To the extent the commenter asserts 
that our application of the fourth factor is flawed, we disagree. The 
fourth factor involves a determination as to whether there are 
implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to 
assure compliance with the rule without relying on the title V permits. 
In discussing the fourth factor in the proposal, EPA states that prior 
to delegating implementation and enforcement to a State, EPA must 
ensure that the State has programs in place to enforce the rule. The 
EPA believes that these programs will be sufficient to assure 
compliance with the rule. The EPA also retains authority to enforce 
this NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. The EPA also 
noted other factors in the proposal that together are sufficient to 
assure compliance with this area source standard.
    The commenter argues that EPA cannot exempt these area sources from 
title V permitting requirements because ``t]he agency does not identify 
any aspect of any of the underlying NESHAP showing that with respect to 
these specific NESHAP--unlike all the other major and area source 
NESHAP it has issued without title V exemptions--title V compliance is 
unnecessary.'' As an initial matter, EPA cannot exempt major sources 
from title V permitting. 42 U.S.C. 502(a). The application of the 
standard that the commenter proposes--that EPA must show that ``title V 
compliance is unnecessary''--in determining whether to exempt an area 
source category from title V is not consistent with the standard the 
Agency established in the Exemption Rule and applied in the proposed 
rule in determining if title V requirements are unnecessarily 
burdensome for the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing 
area source category.
    Furthermore, we disagree that the basis for excluding the asphalt 
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category

[[Page 63256]]

from title V requirements is generally applicable to any source 
category. As explained in the proposal preamble and above, we balanced 
the four factors considering the facts and circumstances of the source 
category at issue in this rule.
    Comment. One commenter stated that EPA concedes that the 
legislative history of the CAA shows that Congress did not intend EPA 
to exempt source categories from compliance with title V unless doing 
so would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the 
environment, citing 74 FR 32830. Nonetheless, according to the 
commenter, EPA does not make any showing that its exemptions would not 
have adverse impacts on health, welfare and the environment. The 
commenter stated that, instead, EPA offered only the conclusory 
assertion that ``the level of control would remain the same'' whether 
title V permits are required or not (74 FR 32830).
    The commenter continued by stating that EPA relied entirely on the 
conclusory arguments advanced elsewhere in its proposal that compliance 
with title V would not yield additional compliance with the underlying 
NESHAP. The commenter stated that those arguments are wrong for the 
reasons provided earlier in its comments, and that, therefore, EPA's 
claims about public health, welfare and the environment are wrong too. 
The commenter also stated that Congress enacted title V for a reason: 
``to assure compliance with all applicable requirements and to empower 
citizens to get information and enforce the CAA.'' The commenter stated 
that those benefits--of which EPA's proposed rule deprives the public--
would improve compliance with the underlying standards and thus have 
benefits for public health, welfare and the environment. According to 
the commenter, EPA has not demonstrated that these benefits are 
unnecessary with respect to any specific source category, but again 
simply rests on its own apparent belief that they are never necessary.
    The commenter concluded that, for the reasons given above, the 
attempt to substitute EPA's judgment for Congress' is unlawful and 
arbitrary.
    Response. Congress gave the Administrator the authority to exempt 
area sources from compliance with title V if, in his or her discretion, 
the Administrator ``finds that compliance with [title V] is 
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome.'' See CAA 
section 502(a). The EPA has interpreted one of the three justifications 
for exempting area sources, ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' as requiring 
consideration of the four factors discussed above. The EPA applied 
these four factors to the area source category subject to this rule and 
concluded that requiring title V for this area source category would be 
unnecessarily burdensome.
    In addition to determining that title V would be unnecessarily 
burdensome on the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing 
area source category, as in the Exemption Rule, EPA also considered 
whether exempting the area source category would adversely affect 
public health, welfare or the environment. As explained in the proposal 
preamble, we concluded that exempting the asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category from title V would 
not adversely affect public health, welfare or the environment because 
the level of control would be the same even if title V applied. We 
further explained in the proposal preamble that the title V permit 
program does not generally impose new substantive air quality control 
requirements on sources, but instead requires that certain procedural 
measures be followed, particularly with respect to determining 
compliance with applicable requirements. The commenter has not provided 
any information that exemption of the asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing area source category from title V will adversely 
affect public health, welfare or the environment.

F. Definitions

    Comment. Two commenters noted that the definition of saturator in 
the proposed rule implies that an impregnator vat is a saturator. The 
commenters noted that the distinction is important because emission 
limits in Table 2 of the proposed rule are different for coater-only 
lines and saturator-only lines. Consequently, the commenters said that 
EPA should clarify the definition of saturator. One of the commenters 
also noted that it would be helpful if EPA further explained what is 
meant by ``hot mix asphalt plant operations used in hardstand,'' 
``operations where asphalt may be used in the fabrication of a built-up 
roof,'' ``asphalt roofing facility'' and ``wet looper.''
    Response. We agree with the commenters and the final rule clarifies 
the definition of saturator with regard to impregnation vats and wet 
looper, and adds definitions for ``hot mix asphalt plant operations,'' 
``built-up roofing operations,'' and ``asphalt roofing facility.''

G. Cost Impacts

    Comment. One commenter stated that the EPA's assertions that all 
facilities will be able to meet the proposed standards using existing 
controls, that only 50 percent of facilities would need to install 
monitoring equipment, that the only additional costs would be for 
reporting and recordkeeping, and that the proposed rule would not 
impose a significant adverse impact on any facilities, large or small 
are not supported by information collected by the commenter.
    Although it may be possible for some sources to modify existing 
control equipment to meet the emission limits, the commenter stated 
that it is unlikely that every source, especially the 11 small 
businesses, will be able to meet the standards under the worst 
foreseeable circumstances, the standard that is required for continuous 
compliance. (See Section V of these comments for a discussion of 
variability and Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 665 (DC Cir. 1999).
    For the proposed GACT standards, the commenter noted that EPA 
estimated an average cost of $3000 per facility. The commenter believed 
that the compliance cost will be at least an order of magnitude greater 
than the EPA cost estimates. Accordingly, the commenter developed a 
cost estimate by assuming that 25 percent of existing lines will need 
to install controls equivalent to those EPA identified in 2001 as 
``beyond the MACT floor.'' The commenter's industry-wide cost 
estimates, not adjusted for inflation, are:
     $12,921,000 in capital costs (19 lines x $680,000 in 
capital costs),
     $11,951,925 in installation costs (19 lines x $629,000 in 
installation costs),
     $6,971,011.33 in annual operating costs (19 lines x 
$367,000 in annual operating costs), and
     $234,000 (EPA's estimate of annual cost of $3000 per 
facility for monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting for 78 lines).
    In addition, the commenter noted that facilities will bear the 
costs of performance testing. Under the proposal, the commenter said 
that facilities would have to continue re-testing until they conduct a 
test on one of the hottest days of the year. The commenter stated that 
these performance test costs will be significant--approximately $10,000 
per test.
    The commenter noted that these costs will not be incurred by 
individual facilities as ``industry-wide average costs.'' The commenter 
said that some facilities will bear only the $3000

[[Page 63257]]

annual recordkeeping and reporting costs; others will incur the 
$1,310,000 in capital costs and $367,000 in operating costs for each 
line at the facility and a further $3000 in monitoring, recordkeeping 
and reporting costs. In addition, the commenter said that most 
facilities will incur costs of at least $10,000 for each performance 
test required. The commenter stated that EPA did not account for these 
costs for performance testing.
    Response. The commenter's assertions regarding control cost 
estimates are based upon the assumption that new control devices will 
be needed to comply with the GACT standards which we believe is not the 
case. Considering that all asphalt processing operations and the vast 
majority or asphalt roofing manufacturing operations are currently 
controlled, and considering the revised GACT emissions limits (which 
incorporate both the additional data provided by the commenter and the 
variability in the underlying emissions data) and the allowance for 
owners or operators to use manufacturer specifications when 
establishing monitoring parameter ranges for roofing lines in the final 
rule, we continue to believe that no new add-on control devices will be 
needed to comply with the GACT standards. Therefore, we do not believe 
that it is necessary to revise our approach for estimating control 
device costs. Additionally, we disagree with the commenter with regard 
to consideration of the costs of conducting compliance tests. We took 
into account the cost of conducting compliance tests in developing the 
final standards. In the Information Collection Request (ICR) prepared 
for this rulemaking, we assumed that 25 percent of the industry would 
need to conduct a new test (at a cost of $6,000) to demonstrate 
compliance with the GACT emission limits. We believe that this approach 
is reasonably conservative.

H. Miscellaneous

    Comment. One commenter stated that in order for these rules to be 
implemented properly, EPA should provide sufficient additional funds to 
State and local clean air agencies. The commenter stated that in recent 
years, Federal grants for State and local air programs have amounted to 
only about one-third of what they should be, and budget requests for 
the last two years have called for additional cuts. According to the 
commenter, additional area source programs, which are not eligible for 
title V fees, will require significant increases in resources for State 
and local air agencies beyond what is currently provided. The commenter 
claims that without increased funding, some State and local air 
agencies may not be able to adopt and enforce additional area source 
rules.
    Response. State and local air programs are an important and 
integral part of the regulatory scheme under the CAA. As always, EPA 
recognizes the efforts of State and local agencies in taking 
delegations to implement and enforce CAA requirements, including the 
area source standards under section 112. We understand the importance 
of adequate resources for State and local agencies to run these 
programs; however, the issue of funding for these resources is beyond 
the purview of today's rulemaking. The EPA today is promulgating 
standards for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 
area source category that reflect what constitutes GACT for the Urban 
HAP for which the source category was listed. GACT standards are 
technology-based standards. The level of State and local resources 
needed to implement these rules is not a factor that we consider in 
determining what constitutes GACT. Although the resource issue cannot 
be resolved through today's rulemaking for the reason stated above, EPA 
remains committed to working with State and local agencies to implement 
this rule. State and local agencies that receive grants for continuing 
air programs under CAA section 105 should work with their project 
officer to determine what resources are necessary to implement and 
enforce the area source standards. The EPA will continue to provide the 
resources appropriated for section 105 grants consistent with the 
statute and the allotment formula developed pursuant to the statute.

VI. Summary of Impacts of the Final Standards

A. What Are the Air Impacts?

    Since 1990, in addition to a lessening of air impacts due to the 
increased use of add-on controls in response to Federal and State 
permitting requirements, the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing industry has further reduced its air impacts by reducing 
the amount of asphalt used to manufacture roofing products 
(reformulation), largely through the use of inorganic substrates which 
do not require the asphalt-intensive step of saturating the substrate. 
These process improvements have reduced the generation rate of PAH 
emissions by approximately 0.0015 lbs/ton of product manufactured 
before controls are applied. In addition to the PAH emission 
reductions, the process improvements undertaken by the industry since 
1990 have resulted in reductions of approximately 0.02 lbs of total 
HAP, 0.29 lbs of THC, and 0.58 lbs of PM per ton of product 
manufactured.
    We believe that the final standards codify, and thereby lock in, 
the reductions in PAH emissions, and the concomitant reductions in 
total HAP, THC, and PM emissions resulting from co-control, that have 
been achieved by the asphalt refining and asphalt roofing manufacturing 
industry since 1990 by requiring compliance with the level of control 
that can be achieved via the use of current GACT as applied to the 
reduced amount of asphalt used by the industry to produce asphalt 
roofing products.

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    While some asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing 
facilities may need to conduct emissions tests to demonstrate 
compliance with the final standards, based on the available 
information, we believe that all asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing facilities will be able to meet the final standards using 
existing controls. Therefore, no additional air pollution control 
devices would be required. We have assumed that 38 facilities (50 
percent) will need to install a pressure drop monitoring system for 
existing controls. Compliance with the final rule will not require any 
other capital expenditures. We do not expect compliance with the final 
rule to result in any new control device operational and maintenance 
costs because, absent any data to demonstrate otherwise, we have 
assumed that existing facilities are already following the 
manufacturer's instructions for operating and maintaining air pollution 
control devices and systems.
    The annual cost of monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping for 
this final rule is estimated at approximately $3,000 per facility per 
year for the first 3 years following promulgation. The costs are 
expected to be less than 1 percent of revenues. The annual cost 
estimate includes 8 hours per facility per year for preparing 
semiannual compliance reports.
    The annual cost estimate includes 12,442 labor hours for the first 
3 years following promulgation. This total includes 173 hours industry-
wide for preparation of the Initial Notification in the first year and 
173 hours industry-wide for preparation of the Notification of 
Compliance Status in the first year. The average total labor hour 
burden in the first year is 71 hours per facility,

[[Page 63258]]

which include 15 hours per facility for monitoring activities.
    Information on our cost impact estimates on the sources expected to 
be subject to the final rule is available in the docket for this final 
rule. (See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0027).

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    The only measurable costs attributable to these final standards are 
associated with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements. These final standards are estimated to impact a total of 
75 area source facilities. We estimate that 11 of these facilities are 
owned by small businesses. Our analysis indicates that this final rule 
would not impose a significant adverse impact on any facilities, large 
or small, because, even for the smallest sources, these costs are less 
than 1 percent of the individual company revenues.

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

    No detrimental secondary impacts are expected to occur from the 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing sources complying 
with the final rule because all facilities are currently achieving the 
GACT level of control. No additional solid waste would be generated as 
a result of the PAH and PM emissions collected and there are no 
additional energy impacts associated with the operation of control 
devices or monitoring systems for the asphalt refining and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing sources. We expect no increase in the generation 
of wastewater or other water quality impacts. None of the control 
measures considered for this final rule generate a wastewater stream.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 
this action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because OMB 
determined that it may raise novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, 
EPA submitted this action to the OMB for review under EO 12866 and any 
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in 
the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this final rule are 
based on the requirements in EPA's NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 
the General Provisions are mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the CAA 
(42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than emissions data submitted 
to EPA pursuant to the information collection requirements for which a 
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to CAA 
section 114(c) and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 
2, subpart B.
    This final NESHAP would require asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing area sources to submit an Initial Notification 
and a Notification of Compliance Status, and to conduct continuous 
parametric monitoring and submit semi-annual compliance reports 
according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the General Provisions 
(subpart A). The annual burden for this information collection averaged 
over the first three years of this ICR is estimated to be a total of 
4,147 labor hours per year at a total cost of $224,085 or approximately 
$3,000 per facility. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    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. EPA displays OMB control numbers 
various ways. For example, EPA lists OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR part 9, which we amend periodically. 
Additionally, we may display the OMB control number in another part of 
the CFR, or in a valid Federal Register notice, or by other appropriate 
means. The OMB control number display will become effective the 
earliest of any of the methods authorized in 40 CFR part 9.
    When this ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a Federal 
Register notice announcing this approval and displaying the OMB control 
number for the approved information collection requirements contained 
in this final rule. We will also publish a technical amendment to 40 
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to consolidate the display of the 
OMB control number with other approved information collection 
requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of the final asphalt 
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source NESHAP on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that 
meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small 
businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 750 for NAICS 324122); 
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, 
county, town, school district, or special district with a population of 
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final 
rule is estimated to impact all new and existing asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing area source facilities. We estimate that 
11 facilities are owned by small entities. Although some small entities 
may incur capital costs to install additional monitoring equipment 
(e.g., a pressure drop monitoring system for existing controls), we 
have determined that small entity compliance costs, as assessed by the 
facilities' cost-to-sales ratio, are expected to be less than 1 percent 
of revenues for any individual facility. The costs are so small that 
the impact is not expected to be significant. Although this final rule 
contains requirements for new area sources, we are not aware of any new 
area sources being constructed now or planned in the next year, and 
consequently, we did not estimate any impacts for new sources.
    This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities; however, EPA has, nonetheless, 
tried to reduce the impact of this final rule on small entities. The 
standards represent practices and controls that are common throughout 
the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing industry. The 
standards also require only the essential monitoring, recordkeeping, 
and reporting needed to demonstrate and verify compliance. These final 
standards were developed based, in part, on information concerning 
small businesses included in the data provided by ARMA, as well as

[[Page 63259]]

information obtained through online permit database searches, 
consultation with small business representatives on the state and 
national level, and consultation with industry representatives that are 
affiliated with small businesses.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result 
in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
The total annual cost of the rule is estimated at $224,085/yr. This 
final rule is not expected to impact State, local, or Tribal 
governments. Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This final rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 
203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This final rule 
contains no requirements that apply to such governments, imposes no 
obligations upon them, and would not result in expenditures by them of 
$100 million or more in any one year or any disproportionate impacts on 
them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. This final rule does not impose any 
requirements on state and local governments and therefore creates no 
substantial direct effects on the states. Thus, Executive Order 13132 
does not apply to this action. Although section 6 of Executive Order 
13132 does not apply to this action, EPA did solicit comment from State 
program officials. A summary of these comments and EPA's response to 
these comments is provided in section V of this preamble.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This final 
action imposes no requirements on Tribal governments; thus, Executive 
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health 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 the Agency.
    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 action is not subject 
to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology 
performance. It is also not ``economically significant''.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. We have concluded that this final rule 
will not likely have any significant adverse energy effects because no 
additional pollution controls or other equipment that consume energy 
will be needed to comply with the final rule.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted 
by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable VCS.
    This final rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA has 
decided to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 
5A, and 23 in conjunction with the final rule. 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.
    Under Sec. Sec.  63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General 
Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative 
test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any 
required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures in 
the final rule.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, any disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their 
programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-
income populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have any 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General 
of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this final 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. A 
``major rule'' cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published 
in the Federal Register. This

[[Page 63260]]

action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This 
final rule will be effective December 2, 2009.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 16, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is to be amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart AAAAAAA to read as follows:
Subpart AAAAAAA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Area Sources: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing

Applicability and Compliance Dates

Sec.
63.11559 Am I Subject to this Subpart?
63.11560 What are my Compliance Dates?

Standards and Compliance Requirements

63.11561 What are my Standards and Management Practices?
63.11562 What are my Initial Compliance Requirements?
63.11563 What are my Monitoring Requirements?
63.11564 What are my Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

Other Requirements and Information

63.11565 What General Provisions Sections Apply to this Subpart?
63.11566 What Definitions Apply to this Subpart?
63.11567 Who Implements and Enforces this Subpart?

Tables

Table 1 of Subpart AAAAAAA--Emission Limits for Asphalt Processing 
Operations
Table 2 of Subpart AAAAAAA--Emission Limits for Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing Operations
Table 3 of Subpart AAAAAAA--Test Methods
Table 4 of Subpart AAAAAAA--Operating Limits
Table 5 of Subpart AAAAAAA--Applicability of General Provisions to 
Subpart AAAAAAA

Subpart AAAAAAA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Area Sources: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing

Applicability and Compliance Dates


Sec.  63.11559  Am I Subject to this Subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an 
asphalt processing operation and/or asphalt roofing manufacturing 
operation that is an area source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 
emissions, as defined in Sec.  63.2.
    (b) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source as 
defined in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
    (1) Asphalt processing. The affected source for asphalt processing 
operations is the collection of all blowing stills, as defined in Sec.  
63.11566, at an asphalt processing operation.
    (2) Asphalt roofing manufacturing. The affected source for asphalt 
roofing manufacturing operations is the collection of all asphalt 
coating equipment, as defined in Sec.  63.11566, at an asphalt roofing 
manufacturing operation.
    (c) This subpart does not apply to hot mix asphalt plant operations 
that are used in the paving of roads or hardstand, or operations where 
asphalt may be used in the fabrication of a built-up roof.
    (d) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced 
construction or reconstruction after July 9, 2009.
    (e) An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the criteria as 
defined in Sec.  63.2.
    (f) An affected source is an existing source if it is not new or 
reconstructed.
    (g) This subpart does not apply to research or laboratory 
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act.
    (h) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required 
to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a). 
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with 
the provisions of this subpart.


Sec.  63.11560  What are my Compliance Dates?

    (a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must be 
in compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart no later 
than December 2, 2010. As specified in Sec.  63.11562(f), you must 
demonstrate initial compliance within 180 calendar days after December 
2, 2010.
    (b) If you own or operate a new affected source, you must be in 
compliance with the provisions in this subpart on or before December 2, 
2009 or upon startup, whichever date is later. As specified in Sec.  
63.11562(g), you must demonstrate initial compliance with the 
applicable emission limits no later than 180 calendar days after 
December 2, 2009 or within 180 calendar days after startup of the 
source, whichever is later.

Standards and Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.11561  What are my Standards and Management Practices?

    (a) For asphalt processing operations, you must meet the emission 
limits specified in Table 1 of this subpart.
    (b) For asphalt roofing manufacturing lines, you must meet the 
applicable emission limits specified in Table 2 of this subpart.
    (c) These standards apply at all times.


Sec.  63.11562  What are my Initial Compliance Requirements?

    (a) For asphalt processing operations, you must:
    (1) Demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits 
specified in Table 1 of this subpart by:
    (i) Conducting emission tests using the methods specified in Table 
3 of this subpart; or
    (ii) Using the results of a previously-conducted emission test as 
specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (2) Establish the value or range of values of the operating 
parameters specified in Table 4 of this subpart:
    (i) Using the operating parameter data recorded during the 
compliance emission tests; or
    (ii) Using the operating parameter data recorded during a 
previously-conducted emission test.
    (b) For asphalt roofing manufacturing lines that use a control 
device to comply with the emission limits in Table 2 of this subpart, 
you must:
    (1) Demonstrate initial compliance by:
    (i) Conducting emission tests using the methods specified in Table 
3 of this subpart; or
    (ii) Using the results of a previously-conducted emission test as 
specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (2) Establish the value of the operating parameter specified in 
Table 4 of this subpart for thermal oxidizers:
    (i) Using the operating parameter data recorded during the 
compliance emission tests; or
    (ii) Using the operating parameter data recorded during a 
previously-conducted emission test.
    (3) Establish the value or range of values of the operating 
parameters

[[Page 63261]]

specified in Table 4 of this subpart for control devices other than 
thermal oxidizers:
    (i) Using the operating parameter data recorded during the 
compliance emission tests;
    (ii) Using the operating parameter data recorded during a 
previously-conducted emission test; or
    (iii) Using manufacturer performance specifications.
    (c) For asphalt roofing manufacturing lines that do not require a 
control device to comply with the emission limits in Table 2 of this 
subpart, you must:
    (1) Demonstrate initial compliance by:
    (i) Conducting emission tests using the methods specified in Table 
3 of this subpart,
    (ii) Using the results of a previously-conducted emission test as 
specified in paragraph (d) of this section; or
    (iii) Using process knowledge and engineering calculations as 
specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (2) Establish the value or range of values of the operating 
parameters specified in Table 4 of this subpart:
    (i) Using the operating parameter data recorded during the 
compliance emission tests;
    (ii) Using the operating parameter data recorded during a 
previously-conducted emission test; or
    (iii) Using process knowledge and engineering calculations as 
specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (d) If you are using a previously-conducted emission test to 
demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations in this subpart 
for existing sources, as specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), 
(b)(1)(ii), or (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the following conditions 
must be met:
    (1) The emission test was conducted within the last 5 years;
    (2) No changes have been made to the process since the time of the 
emission test;
    (3) The operating conditions and test methods used for the previous 
test conform to the requirements of this subpart; and
    (4) The data used to establish the value or range of values of the 
operating parameters, as specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii), 
(b)(2)(ii), or (c)(2)(ii) of this section, were recorded during the 
emission test.
    (e) If you are using process knowledge and engineering calculations 
to demonstrate initial compliance as specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) 
of this section, you must prepare written documentation that contains 
the data and any assumptions used to calculate the process emission 
rate that demonstrate compliance with the emission limits specified in 
Table 2 of this subpart.
    (f) If you are using process knowledge and engineering calculations 
to establish the value or range of values of operating parameters as 
specified in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section, you must prepare 
written documentation that contains the data and any assumptions used 
to show that the process parameters and corresponding parameter values 
correlate to the process emissions.
    (g) For existing sources, you must demonstrate initial compliance 
no later than 180 calendar days after December 2, 2010.
    (h) For new sources, you must demonstrate initial compliance no 
later than 180 calendar days after December 2, 2009 or within 180 
calendar days after startup of the source, whichever is later.
    (i) For emission tests conducted to demonstrate initial compliance 
with the emission limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this subpart, 
you must follow the requirements specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through 
(i)(4) of this section.
    (1) You must conduct the tests while manufacturing the product that 
generates the greatest PAH and PM emissions to the control device 
inlet, or exiting the process if you are not using a control device to 
comply with the emissions limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this 
subpart.
    (2) You must conduct a minimum of three separate test runs for each 
compliance test specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (b)(1)(i), and 
(c)(1)(i) of this section according to the requirements specified in 
Sec.  63.7(e)(3). The sampling time and sample volume of each test run 
must be as follows:
    (i) For asphalt processing operations, the sampling time and sample 
volume for each test run must be at least 90 minutes or the duration of 
the coating blow or non-coating blow, whichever is greater, and 2.25 
dscm (79.4 dscf).
    (ii) For asphalt coating operations, the sampling time and sample 
volume for each test run must be at least 120 minutes and 3.00 dscm 
(106 dscf).
    (3) For asphalt processing operations, you must use the following 
equations to calculate the asphalt charging rate (P).
    (i) P = (Vd)/(K' [Theta])

Where:

P = asphalt charging rate to blowing still, Mg/hr (ton/hr).
V = volume of asphalt charged, m\3\ (ft\3\).
d = density of asphalt, kg/m\3\ (lb/ft\3\).
K' = conversion factor, 1000 kg/Mg (2000 lb/ton).
[Theta] = duration of test run, hr.

    (ii) d = K1-K2Ti

Where:

d = Density of the asphalt, kg/m\3\ (lb/ft\3\)
d = K1-K2Ti
K1 = 1056.1 kg/m\3\ (metric units)
= 66.6147 lb/ft\3\ (English Units)
K2 = 0.6176 kg/(m\3\ [deg]C) (metric units)
= 0.02149 lb/(ft\3\ [deg]F) (English Units)
Ti = temperature at the start of the blow, [deg]C 
([deg]F)

    (4) You must use the following equation to demonstrate compliance 
with the emission limits specified in Table 2 of this subpart:
    E = [(C)*(Q)/(P)*(K)]

Where:

E = emission rate of particulate matter, kg/Mg (lb/ton).
C = concentration of particulate matter, g/dscm (gr/dscf).
Q = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
P = the average asphalt roofing production rate or asphalt charging 
rate over the duration of the test, Mg/hr (ton/hr).
K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg [7000 (gr/lb)].


Sec.  63.11563  What are my Monitoring Requirements?

    (a) You must maintain the operating parameters established under 
Sec.  63.11562(a)(2), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (c)(2) as specified in Table 
4 of this subpart.
    (b) If you are using a control device to comply with the emission 
limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this subpart, you must develop 
and make available for inspection by the delegated authority, upon 
request, a site-specific monitoring plan for each monitoring system 
that addresses the following:
    (1) Installation of the CPMS 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 probe or 
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).
    (i) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address 
the following:
    (A) 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);
    (B) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d); and
    (C) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance 
with the general requirements of Sec.  63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).

[[Page 63262]]

    (c) If you are using a control device to comply with the emission 
limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this subpart, you must install, 
operate, and maintain a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) 
as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section.
    (1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for 
each successive 15-minute period.
    (2) To determine the 3-hour average, you must:
    (i) Have a minimum of four successive cycles of operation to have a 
valid hour of data.
    (ii) 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.
    (iii) Determine the 3-hour average of all recorded readings for 
each operating day, except as stated in paragraph (g) of this section. 
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).
    (3) You must record the results of each inspection, calibration, 
and validation check of the CPMS.
    (d) For each temperature monitoring device, you must meet the CPMS 
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section and 
the following requirements:
    (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 2.8 [deg]C or 1.0 percent of 
the temperature value, whichever is larger.
    (3) If a chart recorder is used, the recorder sensitivity in the 
minor division must be at least 20 [deg]F.
    (4) Perform an accuracy check at least semiannually or following an 
operating parameter deviation:
    (i) According to the procedures in the manufacturer's 
documentation; or
    (ii) By comparing the sensor output to redundant sensor output; or
    (iii) By comparing the sensor output to the output from a 
calibrated temperature measurement device; or
    (iv) By comparing the sensor output to the output from a 
temperature simulator.
    (5) Conduct accuracy checks any time the sensor exceeds the 
manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature range or install 
a new temperature sensor.
    (6) At least quarterly or following an operating parameter 
deviation, perform visual inspections of components if redundant 
sensors are not used.
    (e) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the CPMS 
requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(6) of this section and 
the following requirements:
    (1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in, or as close as possible, to a 
position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure.
    (2) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.12 
kiloPascals or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 5 
percent of the pressure range.
    (3) Check pressure tap for blockage daily. Perform an accuracy 
check at least quarterly or following an operating parameter deviation:
    (i) According to the manufacturer's procedures; or
    (ii) By comparing the sensor output to redundant sensor output.
    (4) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the 
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a 
new pressure sensor.
    (5) At least monthly or following an operating parameter deviation, 
perform a leak check of all components for integrity, all electrical 
connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage.
    (6) At least quarterly or following an operating parameter 
deviation, perform visible inspections on all components if redundant 
sensors are not used.
    (f) For each electrostatic precipitator (ESP) used to control 
emissions, you must install and operate a CPMS that meets the 
requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section to 
provide representative measurements of the voltage supplied to the ESP.
    (j) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CPMS in 
accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
    (k) You must operate and maintain the CPMS in continuous operation 
according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
    (l) If you are not using a control device to comply with the 
emission limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this subpart, you must 
develop and make available for inspection by the delegated authority, 
upon request, a site-specific monitoring plan. The plan must specify 
the process parameters established during the initial compliance 
assessment and how they are being monitored and maintained to 
demonstrate continuous compliance.
    (m) If you would like to use parameters or means other than those 
specified in Table 4 of this subpart to demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the emission limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this 
subpart, you must apply to the Administrator for approval of an 
alternative monitoring plan under Sec.  63.8(f). The plan must specify 
how process parameters established during the initial compliance 
assessment will be monitored and maintained to demonstrate continuous 
compliance.
    (n) At all times the owner or operator must operate and maintain 
any affected source, including associated air pollution control 
equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety 
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The 
general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or 
operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels 
required by this standard have been achieved. Determination of whether 
such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based 
on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is 
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance 
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection 
of the source.


Sec.  63.11564  What are my Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    (a) You must submit the notifications specified in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (a)(6) of this section.
    (1) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.  63.5(b), 
63.7(b); 63.8(e) and (f); 63.9(b) through (e); and 63.9(g) and (h) that 
apply to you by the dates specified in those sections.
    (2) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2), if you have an existing 
affected source, you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 
120 calendar days after December 2, 2009.
    (3) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(4) and (5), if you have a new 
affected source, you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 
120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.
    (4) You must submit a notification of intent to conduct a 
compliance test at least 60 calendar days before the compliance test is 
scheduled to begin, as required in Sec.  63.7(b)(1).
    (5) 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 compliance test results, before the close of 
business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the 
compliance test according to Sec.  63.10(d)(2).
    (6) If you are using data from a previously-conducted emission test 
to serve as documentation of compliance with the emission standards and

[[Page 63263]]

operating limits of this subpart, you must submit the test data in lieu 
of the initial compliance test results with the Notification of 
Compliance Status required under paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
    (b) You must submit a compliance report as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section.
    (1) If you are using a control device to comply with the emission 
limits, the compliance report must identify the controlled units (e.g., 
blowing stills, saturators, coating mixers, coaters). If you are not 
using a control device to comply with the emission limits, the 
compliance report must identify the site-specific process operating 
parameters monitored to determine compliance with the emission limits.
    (2) During periods for which there are no deviations from any 
emission limitations (emission limit or operating limit) that apply to 
you, the compliance report must contain the information specified in 
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of this section.
    (i) Company name and address.
    (ii) 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.
    (iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the 
reporting period.
    (iv) A statement that there were no deviations from the emission 
limitations during the reporting period.
    (v) 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 which the CPMS was out-of-control during the 
reporting period.
    (3) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit 
and operating limit), you must include the information in paragraphs 
(b)(3)(i) through (b)(3)(xii) of this section.
    (i) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped.
    (ii) The date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for 
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (iii) The date, time and duration that each CPMS was out-of-
control, including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (iv) 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.
    (v) 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.
    (vi) 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.
    (vii) 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.
    (viii) An identification of each air pollutant that was monitored 
at the affected source.
    (ix) A brief description of the process units.
    (x) A brief description of the CPMS.
    (xi) The date of the latest CPMS certification or audit.
    (xii) A description of any changes in CPMS or controls since the 
last reporting period.
    (4) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for 
submission of reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each report 
specified in paragraph (b) of this section according to the following 
dates:
    (i) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.  
63.11560 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.  63.11560.
    (ii) 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.  63.11560.
    (iii) 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.
    (iv) 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.
    (c) You must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (c)(10) of this section.
    (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) Copies of emission tests used to demonstrate compliance and 
performance evaluations as required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (3) Documentation that shows that the following conditions are true 
if you use a previously-conducted emission test to demonstrate initial 
compliance as specified in Sec.  63.11562(a)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(ii), and 
(c)(1)(ii):
    (i) The test was conducted within the last 5 years;
    (ii) No changes have been made to the process since the time of the 
emission test;
    (iii) The operating conditions and test methods used for the 
previous test conform to the requirements of this subpart; and
    (iv) The data used to establish the value or range of values of the 
operating parameters, as specified in Sec.  63.11562(a)(2)(ii), 
(b)(2)(ii), or (c)(2)(ii), were recorded during the emission test.
    (4) Documentation that identifies the operating parameters and 
values specified in Table 4 of this subpart and that contains the data 
used to establish the parameter values as specified in Sec.  
63.11562(a)(2), (b)(2), (b)(3), or (c)(2).
    (5) Copies of the written manufacturers performance specifications 
used to establish operating parameter values as specified in Sec.  
63.11562(b)(3)(iii).
    (6) Documentation of the process knowledge and engineering 
calculations used to demonstrate initial compliance as specified in 
Sec.  63.11562(e).
    (7) Documentation of the process knowledge and engineering 
calculations used to establish the value or range of values of 
operating parameters as specified in Sec.  63.11562(f).
    (8) A copy of the site-specific monitoring plan required under 
Sec.  63.11563(b) or (l).
    (9) A copy of the approved alternative monitoring plan required 
under Sec.  63.11563(m), if applicable.
    (10) Records of the operating parameter values required in Table 4 
of this subpart to show continuous compliance with each operating limit 
that applies to you.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.11565  What General Provisions Sections Apply to this Subpart?

    You must comply with the requirements of the General Provisions (40 
CFR part 63, subpart A) according to Table 5 of this subpart.


Sec.  63.11566  What Definitions Apply to this Subpart?

    Asphalt coating equipment means the saturators, coating mixers, and 
coaters

[[Page 63264]]

used to apply asphalt to substrate to manufacture roofing products 
(e.g., shingles, roll roofing).
    Asphalt flux means the organic residual material from distillation 
of crude oil that is generally used in asphalt roofing manufacturing 
and paving and non-paving asphalt products.
    Asphalt processing operation means any operation engaged in the 
preparation of asphalt flux at stand-alone asphalt processing 
facilities, petroleum refineries, and asphalt roofing facilities. 
Asphalt preparation, called ``blowing,'' is the oxidation of asphalt 
flux, achieved by bubbling air through the heated asphalt, to raise the 
softening point and to reduce penetration of the oxidized asphalt. An 
asphalt processing facility includes one or more asphalt flux blowing 
stills.
    Asphalt roofing manufacturing operation means the collection of 
equipment used to manufacture asphalt roofing products through a series 
of sequential process steps. The equipment configuration of an asphalt 
roofing manufacturing process varies depending upon the type of 
substrate used (i.e., organic or inorganic). For example, an asphalt 
roofing manufacturing line that uses organic substrate (e.g., felt) 
typically would consist of a saturator (and wet looper), coating mixer, 
and coater (although the saturator could be bypassed if the line 
manufacturers multiple types of products). An asphalt roofing 
manufacturing line that uses inorganic (fiberglass mat) substrate 
typically would consist of a coating mixer and coater.
    Blowing still means the equipment in which air is blown through 
asphalt flux to change the softening point and penetration rate of the 
asphalt flux, creating oxidized asphalt.
    Built-up roofing operations means operations involved in the on-
site (e.g., at a commercial building) assembly of roofing system 
components (e.g., asphalt, substrate, surface granules).
    Coater means the equipment used to apply amended (filled or 
modified) asphalt to the top and bottom of the substrate (typically 
fiberglass mat) used to manufacture shingles and rolled roofing 
products.
    Coating mixer means the equipment used to mix coating asphalt and a 
mineral stabilizer, prior to applying the stabilized coating asphalt to 
the substrate.
    Hot-mix asphalt operation means operations involved in mixing 
asphalt cement and aggregates to produce materials for paving roadways 
and hardstand (e.g., vehicle parking lots, prepared surfaces for 
materiel storage).
    Particulate matter (PM) means, for the purposes of this subpart, 
includes any material determined gravimetrically using EPA Method 5A--
Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions From the Asphalt 
Processing And Asphalt Roofing Industry (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-3).
    Responsible official is defined in Sec.  63.2.
    Saturator means the equipment used to impregnate a substrate 
(predominantly organic felt) with asphalt. Saturators are predominantly 
used for the manufacture of rolled-roofing products (e.g., saturated 
felt). For the purposes of this subpart, the term saturator includes 
impregnation vat and wet looper.
    Wet looper means the series of rollers typically following the 
saturator used to provide additional absorption time for asphalt to 
penetrate the roofing substrate.


Sec.  63.11567  Who Implements and Enforces this Subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (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 Sec. Sec.  
63.11559, 63.11560, 63.11561, 63.11562, and 63.11563.
    (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.
Tables

   Table 1 of Subpart AAAAAAA of Part 63--Emission Limits for Asphalt
                    Processing (Refining) Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  You must meet the following emission
          For * * *                           limits * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Blowing stills............  a. Limit PAH emissions to 0.003 lb/ton of
                                asphalt charged to the blowing stills;
                               or
                               .........................................
                               b. Limit PM emissions to 1.2 lb/ton of
                                asphalt charged to the blowing stills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 2 of Subpart AAAAAAA of Part 63--Emission Limits for Asphalt
               Roofing Manufacturing (Coating) Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          For * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Coater-only production      a. Limit PAH emissions to 0.0002 lb/ton
 lines.                         of asphalt roofing product manufactured;
                                or
                               b. Limit PM emissions to 0.06 lb/ton of
                                asphalt roofing product manufactured.
2. Saturator-only production   a. Limit PAH emissions to 0.0007 lb/ton
 lines.                         of asphalt roofing product manufactured;
                                or
                               b. Limit PM emissions to 0.30 lb/ton of
                                asphalt roofing product manufactured.
3. Combined saturator/coater   a. Limit PAH emissions to 0.0009 lb/ton
 production lines.              of asphalt roofing product manufactured;
                                or
                               b. Limit PM emissions to 0.36 lb/ton of
                                asphalt roofing product manufactured.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 63265]]


           Table 3 of Subpart AAAAAAA of Part 63--Test Methods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          For * * *                        You must use * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Selecting the sampling      EPA test method 1 or 1A in appendix A to
 locations \a\ and the number   part 60.
 of traverse points.
2. Determining the velocity    EPA test method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G,
 and volumetric flow rate.      as appropriate, in appendix A to part
                                60.
3. Determining the gas         EPA test method 3, 3A, 3B, as
 molecular weight used for      appropriate, in appendix A to part 60.
 flow rate determination.
4. Measuring the moisture      EPA test method 4 in appendix A to part
 content of the stack gas.      60.
5. Measuring the PM emissions  EPA test method 5A in appendix A to part
                                60.
6. Measuring the PAH           EPA test method 23 \b\ with analysis by
 emissions.                     SW-846 Method 8270D.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The sampling locations must be located at the outlet of the process
  equipment (or control device, if applicable), prior to any releases to
  the atmosphere.
\b\ When using EPA Method 23, the toluene extraction step specified in
  section 3.1.2.1 of the method should be omitted.


         Table 4 of Subpart AAAAAAA of Part 63--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   You must
    If you comply with the       establish an
 emission limits using * * *   operating value   And maintain \a\ * * *
                                  for * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A thermal oxidizer........  Combustion zone  The 3-hour average
                                temperature.     combustion zone
                                                 temperature at or above
                                                 the operating value
                                                 established as
                                                 specified in Sec.
                                                 63.11562(a)(2) and
                                                 (b)(2).
2. A high-efficiency air       a. Inlet gas     The 3-hour average inlet
 filter or fiber bed filter.    temperature      gas temperature within
                                \b\, and.        the operating range
                               b. Pressure       established as
                                drop across      specified in Sec.
                                device \b\.      63.11562(a)(2) and
                                                 (b)(3).
                                                The 3-hour average
                                                 pressure drop across
                                                 the device within the
                                                 approved operating
                                                 range established as
                                                 specified in Sec.
                                                 63.11562(a)(2) and
                                                 (b)(3).
3. An electrostatic            Voltage \c\ to   The 3-hour average ESP
 precipitator (ESP).            the ESP.         voltage \c\ at or above
                                                 the approved operating
                                                 value established as
                                                 specified in Sec.
                                                 63.11562(a)(2) and
                                                 (b)(3).
4. Process modifications       Appropriate      The monitoring
 (i.e., a control device is     process          parameters within the
 not required).                 monitoring       operating values
                                parameters.\d\   established as
                                                 specified in Sec.
                                                 63.11562(c)(2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The 3-hour averaging period applies at all times other than startup
  and shutdown, as defined in Sec.   63.2. Within 24 hours of a startup
  event, or 24 hours prior to a shutdown event, you must normalize the
  emissions that occur during the startup or shutdown, when there is no
  production rate available to assess compliance with the lb/ton of
  product emission limits, with emissions that occur when the process is
  operational. The emissions that occur during the startup or shutdown
  event must be included with the process emissions when assessing
  compliance with the emission limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of
  this subpart.
\b\ As an alternative to monitoring the inlet gas temperature and
  pressure drop, you can use a leak detection system that identifies
  when the filter media has been comprised.
\c\ As an alternative to monitoring the ESP voltage, you can monitor the
  ESP instrumentation (e.g. light, alarm) that indicates when the ESP
  must be cleaned and maintain a record of the instrumentation on an
  hourly basis. Failure to service the ESP within one hour of the
  indication is an exceedance of the applicable monitoring requirements
  specified in Sec.   63.11563(a).
\d\ If you are not using a control device to comply with the emission
  limits specified in Table 2 of this subpart, the process parameters
  and corresponding parameter values that you select to demonstrate
  continuous compliance must correlate to the process emissions.


          Table 5 of Subpart AAAAAAA of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart AAAAAAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Citation                                  Subject                    Applies to subpart AAAAAAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1...........................  Applicability...........................  Yes.
Sec.   63.2...........................  Definitions.............................  Yes.
Sec.   63.3...........................  Units and Abbreviations.................  Yes.
Sec.   63.4...........................  Prohibited Activities...................  Yes.
Sec.   63.5...........................  Construction/Reconstruction.............  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(a)-(d)....................  Compliance With Standards and             Yes.
                                         Maintenance Requirements.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)..................  Operation and Maintenance Requirements..  No.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii).................  Operation and Maintenance Requirements..  No.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)................  Operation and Maintenance Requirements..  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2).....................  [Reserved]..............................  ..............................
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).....................  Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan.  No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not
                                                                                   require startup, shutdown,
                                                                                   and malfunction plans.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).....................  Compliance with Nonopacity Emission       No. The emission limits apply
                                         Standards.                                at all times.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3).................  Methods for Determining Compliance and    Yes.
                                         Finding of Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(h)........................  Opacity/Visible Emission (VE) Standards.  No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not
                                                                                   contain opacity or VE
                                                                                   standards.
Sec.   63.6(i)........................  Compliance Extension....................  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(j)........................  Presidential Compliance Exemption.......  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(a)-(d)....................  Performance Testing Requirements........  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).....................  Performance Testing Requirements........  No. Subpart AAAAAAA specifies
                                                                                   the conditions under which
                                                                                   performance tests must be
                                                                                   conducted.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(4).................  Conduct of Performance Tests and Data     Yes.
                                         Reduction.

[[Page 63266]]

 
Sec.   63.7(f)-(h)....................  Use of Alternative Test Method; Data      Yes.
                                         Analysis, Recordkeeping, and Reporting;
                                         and Waiver of Performance Tests.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1).....................  Applicability of Monitoring Requirements  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2).....................  Performance Specifications..............  No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not
                                                                                   allow CEMS.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3).....................  [Reserved]..............................  ..............................
Sec.   63.8(a)(4).....................  Monitoring with Flares..................  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1).....................  Conduct of Monitoring...................  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3).................  Multiple Effluents and Multiple           Yes.
                                         Monitoring Systems.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1).....................  Monitoring System Operation and           Yes.
                                         Maintenance.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)..................  CMS maintenance.........................  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii).................  Spare Parts for CMS Malfunction.........  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)................  Compliance with Operation and             No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not
                                         Maintenance Requirements.                 require startup, shutdown,
                                                                                   and malfunction plans.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3).................  Monitoring System Installation..........  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4).....................  CMS Requirements........................  No; Sec.   63.11563 specifies
                                                                                   the CMS requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5).....................  COMS Minimum Procedures.................  No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not
                                                                                   contain opacity or VE
                                                                                   standards.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6).....................  CMS Requirements........................  No; Sec.   63.11563 specifies
                                                                                   the CMS requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)-(8).................  CMS Requirements........................  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(d)........................  CMS Quality Control.....................  No; Sec.   63.11563 specifies
                                                                                   the CMS requirements.
Sec.   63.8(e)-(f)....................  CMS Performance Evaluation..............  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(g)(1)-(4).................  Data Reduction Requirements.............  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(g)(5).....................  Data to Exclude from Averaging..........  No. All monitoring data must
                                                                                   be included when calculating
                                                                                   averages.
Sec.   63.9...........................  Notification Requirements...............  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(a).......................  Recordkeeping and Reporting               Yes.
                                         Requirements--Applicability.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)....................  General Recordkeeping Requirements......  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)-(iii)...........  General Recordkeeping Requirements......  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)............  Records of Actions Taken During Startup,  No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not
                                         Shutdown, and Malfunction Plans.          require startup, shutdown,
                                                                                   and malfunction plans.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xiv)..........  General Recordkeeping Requirements......  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(14)...............  Additional Recordkeeping Requirements     Yes.
                                         for Sources with Continuous Monitoring
                                         Systems.
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)...................  Additional Recordkeeping Requirements     No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not
                                         for Sources with Continuous Monitoring    require startup, shutdown,
                                         Systems.                                  and malfunction plans.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)-(4)................  General Reporting Requirements..........  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)....................  Periodic Startup, Shutdown, and           No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not
                                         Malfunction Reports.                      require startup, shutdown,
                                                                                   and malfunction plans.
Sec.   63.10(e).......................  Additional Reporting Requirements for     Yes.
                                         Sources with Continuous Monitoring
                                         Systems.
Sec.   63.10(f).......................  Waiver of Recordkeeping or Reporting      Yes.
                                         Requirements.
Sec.   63.11..........................  Control Device and Work Practice          Yes.
                                         Requirements.
Sec.   63.12..........................  State Authority and Delegations.........  Yes.
Sec.   63.13..........................  Addresses of State Air Pollution Control  Yes.
                                         Agencies and EPA Regional Offices.
Sec.   63.14..........................  Incorporations by Reference.............  Yes.
Sec.   63.15..........................  Availability of Information and           Yes.
                                         Confidentiality.
Sec.   63.16..........................  Performance Track Provisions............  No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E9-27946 Filed 12-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P