at item 3 of Table 2 and item 3 of Table 5 that the operating criteria
for each particulate control device include both a maximum and minimum
pressure drop operating limit as opposed to solely a maximum pressure
drop operating limit. The addition of a minimum limitation to the
operating range of the PM control device mirrors the approach in the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing area source
NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAAAA, and provides an indication of
breakthrough or bypass of the control device, as a drop in the
differential pressure below that established by the manufacturer's
specification would indicate that potentially either the control device
has been inadvertently bypassed (leaking around the filter) or possible
tearing or distortion of the filter has occurred. As discussed later in
this preamble (in response to another comment we received), we are also
clarifying in the final rule at item 12 of Table 3 procedures for
establishing the maximum and minimum pressure drop operating limits.
    Comment: Two commenters argued that the proposed amendment to 40
CFR 63.8689(d) allowing the use of manufacturers' recommendations to
establish operating limits for particulate control devices is not a
reliable indicator of continued compliance.
    One commenter said that control system vendors may incorporate
components from various manufacturers in their systems and the
manufacturers may be unaware of the configuration. The commenter also
said that control systems may also be reconfigured from time to time to
reflect changes in the manufacturing process or the raw materials used,
and manufacturers are unable to predict these changes. Similarly,
another commenter asserted that the revisions change the limit from a
demonstrated point to an assumed point of compliance. The commenter
stated that manufacturer specifications may show where a control device
should operate within compliance but are not sufficient to show whether
a device is operating within compliance.
    One commenter contended that the change was proposed in response to
industry's claim that tests to capture the maximum pressure drop and
gas temperature are difficult due to their dependence on ambient
temperature and operating life of the filter. The commenter added that
the EPA previously acceded to industry requests for pressure limits but
concluded that temperature was too important in evaluating emissions,
because emissions are temperature dependent. The commenter added that
the EPA made the change based on cost and cited the EPA's cost
memorandum, which reports that the switch will save industry nearly
half a million dollars, primarily by avoiding having to change out its
filters as often. The commenter concluded that industry asked the EPA
to save it some money by loosening its standards, and the EPA complied.
    A commenter said that the EPA neither cites any authority, nor
supplies a reasoned explanation to demonstrate how this change
satisfies the CAA. The commenter added that the EPA may not change the
standards without demonstrating how the revised standard

satisfies CAA section 112(d)(2) through (3) and the EPA has no
authority to weaken the existing standard under CAA section 112(d)(6)
or otherwise. The commenter concluded that the EPA may not use cost to
set or weaken floor standards under CAA section 112(d)(3) or to weaken
standards below the ``maximum achievable degree of emission reduction''
under CAA section 112(d)(2).
    A commenter alleged that the EPA failed to provide the emission and
health impacts of the revisions or the scientific or engineering basis
for the decision. The commenter added that the EPA did not explain how
or whether it validated industry claims that actually running tests
created difficulties due to scheduling, whether this change risks an
increase in malfunctions or emissions, the impact on the effectiveness
of filters when not switching them more frequently, and why
manufacturer specifications are sufficient to fit facilities that may
vary in their ambient conditions, in their equipment, and in their
production. The commenter added that by not providing these analyses,
the EPA has deprived the public of the opportunity to file meaningful
comments on the change, which is a violation of notice-and-comment
rulemaking.
    Response: The EPA agrees that for some control technologies,
manufacturers' specifications may not be sufficient to determine
operating limits; however, manufacturers' specifications in conjunction
with the periodic performance tests are sufficient to demonstrate
compliance for the operation of filter banks such as those used in this
source category (where the replaceable parts are limited to the filters
themselves and the induced draft fan). Specifically, the EPA disagrees
that the use of manufacturers' specifications for the maximum pressure
drop is not a reliable indicator of filter bank performance at the
upper end of filter bank pressure drop. The EPA further disagrees that
the use of manufacturers' specifications in setting the maximum
pressure drop is a loosening of the standard. The efficiency of a
filter bank increases as the pressure drop increases through use
because the deposition of material on the filter forms a layer of dust
that decreases the effective pore size and increases capture
efficiency. The purpose of a maximum pressure drop as a regulatory
limit in the case of a filter bank is to prevent overloading of the
filter, which may eventually cause breakthrough or result in structural
damage to the filter or a possible bypass of the control device. The
use of manufacturers' specifications as an option for setting the
operating range allows for a facility to remain in compliance with the
operating limits when the filter is replaced, because that is the
moment at which the pressure drop of a properly functioning filter bank
is the lowest. As stated in our proposal, allowing use of
manufacturers' specifications to establish operating limits provides
flexibility and alleviates the need for a facility to have to retest
the PM control device to reestablish new operating limits due to the
inability of a source to ``dial in'' the differential pressure of their
control device for a particular performance test as the differential
pressure increases over time as a result of particulate deposition.
Finally, as discussed previously in this preamble (in response to
another comment), we are requiring in the final rule at item 3 of Table
2 and item 3 of Table 5 that the operating criteria for each
particulate control device include both a maximum and minimum pressure
drop as opposed to solely a maximum pressure drop operating limit.
Therefore, in consideration of this comment and in order to provide
additional flexibility, we are clarifying in the final rule at 40 CFR
63.8689(d) that facilities may either use the manufacturers'
specifications or a performance test to set each operating limit. For
example, facilities may choose to establish the minimum pressure drop
operating limit using the manufacturer's specifications and choose to
establish the maximum pressure drop operating limit using a performance
test. In this example, the facility could use the performance test to
demonstrate that it can still meet the emission limit beyond the
maximum pressure drop recommended by the manufacturer's specifications.
    Comment: One commenter supported allowing facilities a 20-percent
margin of compliance on the average inlet temperature of a PM control
device other than a thermal oxidizer. The commenter stated that it is
typically necessary to schedule tests at least 1 to 2 months in advance
to assure the availability of stack testing contractors. The commenter
also agreed with the EPA that it is impractical to schedule testing at
times of the year when maximum temperatures will occur because ambient
temperatures cannot be precisely predicted in advance. The commenter
stated that they appreciate that the EPA recognizes the variations in
operating conditions that facilities may routinely experience
consistent with the proper operation of such control devices within the
manufacturer's specifications. However, the commenter suggested that
the EPA clarify this 20-percent allowance applies to temperatures
expressed in units of degrees Fahrenheit because the application of a
20-percent margin to temperature expressed in other units of measure
would not result in the same temperature.
    On the contrary, two other commenters opposed allowing facilities a
20-percent margin of compliance on the average inlet temperature of a
PM control device other than a thermal oxidizer.
    One commenter disagreed with the EPA's claims that the change
addresses the high impact of ambient conditions on the inlet
temperature and removes some of the scheduling uncertainty while still
accounting for the temperature dependence of emissions. The commenter
contended that the difficulty industry faces is in trying to capture
the maximum gas inlet temperature at which they can achieve compliance,
which is the maximum point at which that facility can show it can
operate while being in compliance. The commenter contended that the 20-
percent extra allowance for temperature is a malfunction buffer and the
EPA is statutorily barred from creating a malfunction exemption, and
they cited Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
(citing CAA sections 112 and 302(k)).
    Additionally, the commenter contended that the EPA did not include
an analysis that explains why it chose to add the 20-percent margin for
temperature limits, the impact that this will have, and why this change
to its prior standards is justified by the best available science. The
commenter asserted that the EPA needs to also cite its authority for
the proposed change, demonstrate how its proposal stays within the
bounds of that authority, and explain and show its work, so that the
public can evaluate and comment on it. Similarly, another commenter
said the 20-percent extra allowance for temperature is unsupported by
any data.
    A commenter stated that where condensable PM, including high
boiling point asphalt components, is present, control efficiency is
affected by the vapor pressure of the components, and emissions will
increase at higher temperatures. The commenter suggested that
facilities that are unable to maintain the operating limits established
during a successful performance test conducted in the winter should be
required to conduct an additional performance test in the summer to
establish a seasonal operating limit. Further, the commenter said that
there is no rationale to allow a 20-percent margin for facilities that

have conducted their performance tests in the summer. Additionally, the
commenter pointed out that it is unclear whether the risk assessment
included these potentially increased emissions (of condensable PM due
to higher control device operating temperatures) and called attention
to the statement in the preamble (84 FR 18952) that no air quality
impacts are anticipated. The commenter said this statement in the
preamble incorrectly ignores the increased emissions due to higher
control device operating temperatures that would be allowed in the
proposed amendments.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assessment that
the proposed 20-percent extra allowance on the inlet gas temperature
limit of the PM control device is a malfunction buffer. Malfunction is
defined in 40 CFR 63.2 as ``any 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
which causes, or has the potential to cause, the emission limitations
in an applicable standard to be exceeded.'' The potential temperature
exceedance being addressed by this provision is not a failure to
operate in a normal or usual manner, but a normal variation of inlet
temperature in accordance with natural temperature variation. The
temperature at the inlet to these PM control devices is highly
dependent on the ``sweep'' air from the process area, a non-temperature
controlled environment. The inlet temperature, thus, swings over the
course of a day and through the seasons based upon the ambient
temperature. Facilities are not equipped to modulate the inlet
temperature. The issue facilities face is not one of testing in the
winter and, thus, being out of compliance in the summer, as there is no
lower temperature limit being set and facilities are not testing in the
winter, but of trying to accurately predict the hottest day of the next
5 summer weeks in advance to be sure that the temperature at the inlet
is at its peak during the test event. An 85 degrees Fahrenheit day
instead of an anticipated 95 degrees Fahrenheit day is sufficient to
cause potential issues in the setting of maximum temperature
limitations, as facilities do not have a mechanism for controlling the
inlet temperature. The EPA has used operating margins in the setting of
control device operating parameter limits for certain other rules such
as 40 CFR part 63, subparts AA and BB, NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid
Manufacturing Plants and Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants,
respectively, where the daily average differential pressure across an
absorber and the flow rate of the liquid to each absorber or the
secondary voltage for a wet electrostatic precipitator is 20 percent of the baseline average; 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL,
NESHAP for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry, where the
temperature of the inline kiln/raw mill during startup/shutdown may
exceed the temperature limit by 10 percent; and 40 CFR part 63, subpart
RRR, NESHAP for Secondary Aluminum Production, where the flow rate of
the capture/collection system indicators is maintained at greater than
90 percent of the flow rate measured during the performance test.
    The EPA anticipates no increases in emissions as a result of the
change in the mechanism of determining the maximum allowable inlet
temperature. As discussed above, facilities have no control over the
inlet temperature; the temperature of the sweep air to a large extent
defines the inlet temperature. Facilities will not be increasing the
inlet operating temperature as a result of this change but will be
better able to schedule their periodic performance test as a result.
Facilities will likely continue to aim to perform their performance
tests at the highest temperature possible in order to best insulate
themselves from potentially exceeding their maximum temperature limit
as a result of higher ambient temperatures. The inclusion of the
periodic performance test will also help ensure that emissions are
maintained below the emission limit through the recurring measurement
of actual emissions.
    The EPA agrees that a clarification of which temperature scale the
temperature is to be determined is necessary because the application of
a 20-percent margin to temperature expressed in units other than
degrees Celsius or degrees Fahrenheit would result in too large of an
operating limit window (e.g., although 305 Kelvin is equal to about 90
degrees Fahrenheit, 20 percent of 305 Kelvin is very different from 20
percent of 90 degrees Fahrenheit). Therefore, the EPA is specifying in
the final rule at item 12 of Table 3 that the temperature must be
measured in units of degrees Celsius or degrees Fahrenheit. We
acknowledge that the use of Celsius will result in a slightly more
conservative temperature range (6.4 degrees Fahrenheit less when
compared to the corresponding Fahrenheit range), but want to ensure the
flexibility of either temperature scale for facilities.
    Comment: One commenter pointed out that Table 3 to the proposed
rule does not specify a required frequency for the EPA Method 22
visible emissions test. The commenter suggested EPA Method 22 should be
conducted daily because it serves to ensure continued satisfactory
performance of the emissions capture system. The commenter said that
defects in the capture system and duct work leading to a control device
should not be allowed to persist for 5 years before initiating
corrective action.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the frequency
for EPA Method 22 evaluations is not specified in the rule. Table 3 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, presents the Requirements for
Performance Tests; the frequency of these tests, after the initial
Performance Test, is set in 40 CFR 63.8691(e). The EPA is clarifying
that the visible emissions and opacity tests are included in the
periodic performance tests by removing the phrase ``during the initial
compliance period described in 63.8686'' from the appropriate rows in
Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL (Initial and Continuous
Compliance With Emissions Limitations), dealing with opacity and
visible emissions measurements. The inclusion of the EPA Method 22
visible emissions measurement during the performance test documents
that, during the performance test, the emissions capture system was
operating correctly and that emissions directed to the control device
are maximized. The addition of a daily EPA Method 22 evaluation is not
necessary. The requirement to limit visible emissions from the capture
system is applicable at all times, and the continuing operation of the
emissions capture system outside of the performance test is governed by
the general duty to operate and maintain any affected source including
the air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices.
    Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's proposal to require
performance testing within 3 years of publication and every 5 years
thereafter, to ensure compliance. Another commenter said the
requirement to perform testing once every 5 years is redundant with
existing requirements. The commenter contended that facilities subject
to the current NESHAP are subject to title V permitting, and many title
V permits now require re-testing once every 5 years consistent with the
title V renewal cycle.
    Response: The EPA is finalizing the requirement that the
performance tests must be conducted at least once every

5 years, as proposed; however, we are adding language to the final rule
text at 40 CFR 63.8691(e)(1) to clarify that facilities are allowed to
synchronize their periodic performance testing schedule with a
previously conducted emission test, such as a test associated with
title V permit renewal, provided the facility can demonstrate to the
Administrator's satisfaction that the testing meets the requirements of
40 CFR 63.8686(b).
    Comment: One commenter suggested that if the EPA will not
reconsider the regulation requiring periodic testing every 5 years,
then the EPA should propose an approach that allows testing to be
curtailed after a facility demonstrates repeated compliance in
successive testing events.
    Response: The EPA is not revising the proposed rule to incorporate
a reduction in testing frequency greater than 5 years. The EPA has, in
some other rules, included a provision that allows for a reduction in
the frequency of testing from annual to a 3 or 5-year period after
multiple demonstrations of compliance. The 5-year interval for testing
in this rule between performance tests would require at least 15 years
to demonstrate a trend. Due to the timeframe of recurrent testing (once
every 5 years) being promulgated in this rule, the EPA concludes that
allowance for a reduced testing frequency is not warranted.
    Comment: One commenter declared that the requirement for periodic
testing is overly broad and fails to acknowledge both the costs
incurred (direct and indirect) and whether additional testing would
result in any environmental benefit. The commenter said the proposed
rule would require performance testing of each control device used to
comply with NESHAP standards for PM, THC, opacity, or visible emissions
but argued that NESHAP regulations typically require testing only for
the control devices on larger sources, not all control devices. The
commenter recommended that for smaller control devices, opacity
controls (e.g., mist eliminators), and flares, it should be adequate to
operate and maintain each control device as recommended by the
manufacturer. The commenter pointed out that petroleum refineries are
not required to do any periodic testing for flares subject to the
Petroleum Refineries NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC). The commenter
said that by focusing on only the largest emission sources, there is a
clear environmental benefit from the testing, much less disruption to
operations, and much less cost incurred by the operator. To the extent
the EPA requires some periodic testing, the commenter recommended that
the testing requirement exclude opacity and visible emission control
devices, the testing requirement exclude flares, and the periodic
testing should focus only on the largest emitting source, where risk is
determined to be higher or above some specified threshold.
    Response: The EPA is finalizing the testing requirements as
proposed. The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the
NESHAP regulations typically require testing only for larger emissions
sources. The periodic performance test on all sources (small and large)
provides a demonstration that the control devices associated with these
sources are continuing to operate as designed. The operation of mist
eliminators is not merely to control opacity, but also to control
emissions of the PM and organic compounds which cause the opacity. The
visible emissions tests of the emissions capture system are integral to
determining if the overall capture and control system are operating as
designed. The commenter indicates that the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP
(40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) does not have periodic testing for flares;
however, the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP includes robust continuous
monitoring requirements associated with flares that are not present in
the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR
part 63, subpart LLLLL).
    Comment: One commenter argued that the net cost benefit that the
EPA presents in its justification for added performance testing
requirements is significantly overstated and may become a net burden.
The commenter suggested the EPA develop more accurate estimates of
testing costs to provide a more realistic estimate of the cost impact
for the subject facilities. The commenter stated the EPA's cost
estimate for performance testing assumes that each source to be tested
has an existing emissions point that can actually be sampled, but this
may not always be the case, and the costs of adding a stack, sampling
ports, and/or sample platforms and ladders should be included.
Additionally, the commenter said the EPA's performance test cost
estimates for thermal oxidizers treating vent gas from blowing stills
are too low. The commenter argued that the EPA underestimated the
number of thermal oxidizer/blowing still tests required, and a test on
a thermal oxidizer treating vent gas from one or more blowing stills
typically requires testing over 3 separate workdays because only one
test run can be completed in a typical workday. The commenter stated
that blowing stills operate using a batch process that takes up to 6
hours, and to assure the test measurements are representative of the
batch cycle, testing is performed for the duration of a batch. The
commenter said the cost for testing one thermal oxidizer associated
with one or more blowing stills, with each test run covering an entire
batch cycle of up to 6 hours, is $44,000. Using this value, the
commenter estimated total testing costs to be $172,600 from an asphalt
roofing facility that has five reactors controlled by two different
thermal oxidizers which discharge to separate stacks. The commenter
applied the increased blowing still/thermal oxidizer costs to the
number of tests required for the four facilities that do not already
have 5-year testing requirements under their respective state title V
programs, and showed that the nationwide cost impact is $309,100 rather
than the EPA's estimate of $138,800. The commenter said their cost
estimate was more than double the estimate the EPA provided in Appendix
A of the Cost Impacts memorandum. The commenter said their cost
estimate is greater than the EPA's estimated cost savings of $221,100
from proposed changes in monitoring requirements, resulting in a net
cost burden rather than net cost benefit.
    Response: The EPA agrees that further review of the costs is
warranted and based on this review, we have revised our proposed cost
impacts analysis. All sources required to be tested have existing
initial performance testing requirements and so have already been
tested at least once. Therefore, the additional costs for adding a
stack, sampling ports, and/or sample platforms and ladders have not
been added to the burden of this rule because we have assumed these
items already exist (due to the existing initial performance testing
requirements). However, the EPA agrees that, based on the longer run
time duration for the blowing stills, the initial cost estimates for
these tests was low. Therefore, we revised our cost impacts analysis to
reflect the commenter's recommended higher blowing still/thermal
oxidizer testing costs (i.e., $44,000). We also revised the number of
thermal oxidizer/blowing still tests required for one facility. Our
revised analysis (even after considering the information provided by
this commenter) still results in a net cost savings rather than a net
cost burden as suggested by the commenter. We estimate that the final
amendments will result in a nationwide net cost savings of $132,000
(2017$) over the 5-year period following promulgation of the
amendments. For further information on

the costs and cost savings associated with the final amendments, see
the memoranda, Cost Impacts of Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing Risk and Technology Review Final and Economic Impact
Analysis for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
NESHAP RTR Final, which are available in the docket for this action.
    4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions
for the other amendments for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing source categories?
    We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments
for this subpart including the proposed technical and editorial
corrections. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule (84 FR
18939), and in sections III.D and IV.D.3 of this preamble, we are
finalizing these amendments.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

    There are four asphalt processing facilities, plus another four
asphalt processing facilities collocated with asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities, currently operating as major sources of HAP.
As such, eight facilities are subject to the final amendments. A
complete list of facilities that are currently subject to the MACT
standards is available in Appendix A of the memorandum titled Clean Air
Act Section 112(d)(6) Review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories Final, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0662.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    Because we are not establishing new numerical emission limits and
are not requiring additional controls, no air quality impacts are
expected as a result of the final amendments to the rule. Requiring
periodic performance testing has the potential to reduce excess
emissions from sources using poorly performing add-on controls, even
though facilities are required to be in compliance at all times.
    The final amendments will have no effect on the energy needs of the
affected facilities in either source category and would, therefore,
have no indirect or secondary air emissions impacts.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We revised our proposed cost impacts analysis based on a comment
received during the public comment period (see section IV.D.3 of this
preamble). We estimate that the final amendments will result in a
nationwide net present value of net cost savings of $132,000 (2017$)
over the 5-year period following promulgation of amendments (2019-
2023). The equivalent annualized value of these net cost savings is
$32,000 per year when costs are discounted at a 7- percent discount
rate. Because periodic performance testing would be required every 5
years, we estimated and summarized the cost savings over a 5-year
period. The costs associated with the final amendments are related to
recordkeeping and reporting labor costs and periodic performance
testing. The requirement for periodic testing of once every 5 years
results in an estimated increase in the present value of costs of about
$252,000 over the 5-year period in addition to an estimated present
value of costs of about $4,000 for reviewing the final amendments.
However, the changes to the monitoring requirements for PM control
devices result in an estimated present value of cost savings of about
$388,000 over the 5-year period. Therefore, overall, we estimate the
net present value of net cost savings of about $132,000 for the 5-year
period. The final amendments to the monitoring requirements are
projected to alleviate some need for asphalt roofing manufacturing
facilities to have to retest the PM control device for the sole purpose
of reestablishing new temperature and pressure drop operating limits
and to allow facilities to extend filter replacement by 3 months. For
further information on the costs and cost savings associated with the
final amendments, see the memoranda, Cost Impacts of Asphalt Processing
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Risk and Technology Review Final and
Economic Impact Analysis for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing NESHAP RTR Final, which are available in the docket for
this action.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    As noted earlier, we estimated a nationwide cost savings associated
with the final requirements over the 5-year period following
promulgation of these amendments. This cost savings is not expected to
have adverse economic impacts. For further information on the economic
impacts associated with the final requirements, see the memorandum,
Economic Impact Analysis for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing NESHAP RTR Final, which is available in the docket for
this action.

E. What are the benefits?

    The EPA is not finalizing changes to emissions limits, and we
estimate the final changes (i.e., changes to SSM, monitoring,
recordkeeping, reporting) are not economically significant. Because
these final amendments are not considered economically significant, as
defined by Executive Order 12866, and because no emissions reductions
were estimated, we did not estimate any benefits from reducing
emissions.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km)
and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the
distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories across
different demographic groups within the populations living near
facilities.
    Results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for six of the
11 demographic groups, African American, Native American, other and
multiracial, ages 0-17, ages 18-64, and below the poverty level, the
percentage of the population living within 5 km of facilities in the
source categories is greater than the corresponding national percentage
for the same demographic groups. When examining the risk levels of
those exposed to emissions from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities, we find that no one is exposed to a cancer
risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater
than 1.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Asphalt Processing
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source

Categories Operations, available in the docket for this action.

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA concludes, based on the results of the risk assessment,
that the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action
do not present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's
health and risk assessments are summarized in section IV.A of this
preamble and are further documented in the risk report, Residual Risk
Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
Source Categories in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review
Final Rule, available in the docket for this action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be
found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action. See document titled Economic Impact
Analysis for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
NESHAP RTR Final, which is available in the docket for this action.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    Information collection activities in this rule have been submitted
for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2598.02. You can find a copy
of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized
here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until
OMB approves them.
    The EPA is not revising the numerical emission limitation
requirements for this subpart. The EPA is finalizing a requirement to
conduct control device performance testing no less frequently than once
every 5 years. The EPA has also revised the SSM provisions of the rule
and is requiring the use of electronic data reporting for future
performance test results and reports, performance evaluation reports,
compliance reports, and NOCS reports. This information would be
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of asphalt
processing facilities and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart LLLLL).
    Estimated number of respondents: Eight (total).
    Frequency of response: Initial, semiannual, and annual.
    Total estimated burden: 69 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $95,900 (per year), which includes $88,400
annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. There are no
small entities affected in this regulated industry. See the document,
Economic Impact Analysis for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing NESHAP RTR Final, available in the docket for this
action.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. None of the eight asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing facilities that have been identified as being
affected by this final action are owned or operated by tribal
governments or located within tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA concludes, based on the results of the risk assessment,
that the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action
do not present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's
health and risk assessments are contained in section IV.A of this
preamble.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51

    This rulemaking involves technical standards. As discussed in the
preamble of the proposal, the EPA conducted searches for the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP through the
Enhanced National Standards Systems Network Database managed by the
American National Standards Institute. We also contacted voluntary
consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and searched their
databases. We conducted searches for EPA Methods 3A, 5A, 9, 10, 22, and
25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. During the EPA's VCS search, if the
title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling
and analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA's

reference method, the EPA reviewed it as a potential equivalent method.
    The EPA incorporates by reference ASTM D7520-16, ``Standard Test
Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient
Atmosphere,'' with conditions as an acceptable alternative to EPA
Method 9. We note that this version of the method (i.e., ASTM D7520-16)
is a newer version than what we proposed (i.e., ASTM D7520-2013). The
same proposed conditions apply to this newer version; therefore, we are
finalizing these conditions, as proposed. The method provides
procedures for determining the opacity of a plume, using digital
imagery and associated hardware and software. During the DCOT
certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, the
owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front
of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions
anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed
backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand). The owner or operator
must also have standard operating procedures in place, including daily
or other frequency quality checks, to ensure the equipment is within
manufacturing specifications as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-
16. The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping procedures
outlined in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance
report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEG formatted images used
for opacity and certification determination. The owner or operator or
the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four (4) independent technology
users apply the software to determine the visible opacity of the 300
certification plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the user may not
exceed 15-percent opacity of any one reading, and the average error
must not exceed 7.5-percent opacity. This approval does not provide or
imply a certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or
software. The onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or
training of the DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with
ASTM D7520-16 and this letter is on the facility, DCOT operator, and
DCOT vendor. This method is available at ASTM International, 1850 M
Street NW, Suite 1030, Washington, DC 20036. See https://www.astm.org/.
    The EPA decided not to include 11 other VCS; these methods are
impractical as alternatives because of the lack of equivalency,
documentation, validation date, and other important technical and
policy considerations. The search and review results have been
documented and are in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard
Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing, which is
available in the docket for this action.
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to the 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 or any amendments.

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

    The EPA concludes, based on the results of an analysis of
demographic factors, that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of
this preamble and in the technical report, Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories
Operations, available in the docket for this action.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: January 30, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA is amending 40
CFR part 63 as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(102) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (102) ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1,
2016, IBR approved for Sec.  63.1625(b) and table 3 to subpart LLLLL.
* * * * *

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

0
3. Section 63.8681 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and removing
and reserving paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8681  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an
asphalt processing facility or an asphalt roofing manufacturing
facility, as defined in Sec.  63.8698, that is a major source as
defined in Sec.  63.2, or is located at, or is part of a major source
as defined in Sec.  63.2.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.8683 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) introductory
text and (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8683  When must I comply with this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its
potential to emit such that it becomes a (or part of a) major source as
defined in Sec.  63.2, then the following requirements apply:
* * * * *
    (d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec.  63.8692
according to the schedules in Sec. Sec.  63.8692 and 63.9(a) through
(f) and (h). Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are
required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.

0
5. Section 63.8684 is amended by revising the section heading to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.8684  What emission limitations and operating limits must I
meet?

0
6. Section 63.8685 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through (c) to
read as follows:

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

    (a) Before September 9, 2020, you must be in compliance with the
emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at
all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
On and after September 9, 2020, you must be in compliance with the
emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at
all times, except during periods of nonoperation of the affected source
(or specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions
to which this subpart applies.
    (b) Before September 9, 2020, you must always operate and maintain
your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring
equipment, according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i). On and
after September 9, 2020, at all times, you must operate and maintain
any affected source, including associated air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The
general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any
further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the
applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a
source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance
requirements will be based on information available to the
Administrator that 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 affected
source.
    (c) Before September 9, 2020, you must develop a written startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in
Sec.  63.6(e)(3). On and after September 9, 2020, a startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan is not required.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.8686 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(3); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(4).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

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

    (a) For existing affected sources, you must conduct initial
performance tests no later than 180 days after the compliance date that
is specified for your source in Sec.  63.8683 and according to the
provisions in Sec.  63.7(a)(2).
    (b) * * *
    (3) The control device and process parameter values established
during the previously-conducted emission test are used to demonstrate
continuous compliance with this subpart; and
    (4) The previously-conducted emission test was completed within the
last 60 months.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.8687 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and removing
and reserving paragraph (c) to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (b) Each performance test must be conducted under normal operating
conditions and under the conditions specified in Table 3 to this
subpart. Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, or
nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions for purposes
of conducting a performance test. You may not conduct performance tests
during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information
that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and
explain why the conditions represent normal operation. Upon request,
you must make available to the Administrator such records as may be
necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 63.8688 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) and (h) to
read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (f) As an option to installing the CPMS specified in paragraph (a)
of this section, you may install a continuous emissions monitoring
system (CEMS) or a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) that
meets the applicable requirements in Sec.  63.8 according to Table 7 to
this subpart and the applicable performance specifications of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B.
* * * * *
    (h) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address
the following:
    (1) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii),
and (c)(7) and (8);
    (2) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d); and
    (3) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with Sec. Sec.  63.8693 and 63.8694 and the general requirements of
Sec.  63.10(e)(1) and (e)(2)(i).
* * * * *

0
10. Section 63.8689 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (b) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, you must
establish each site-specific operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart
that applies to you according to the requirements in Sec.  63.8687 and
Table 3 to this subpart.
* * * * *
    (d) For control devices used to comply with the particulate matter
standards in Table 1 to this subpart, you may establish any of the
operating limits for pressure drop range (i.e., a minimum and a maximum
pressure drop) across the control device using manufacturers'
specifications in lieu of complying with paragraph (b) of this section.

0
11. Section 63.8690 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

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

* * * * *
    (b) Before September 9, 2020, except for monitor malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control
activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required
zero and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously (or collect
data at all required intervals) at all times that the affected source
is operating including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
when the affected source is operating. On and after September 9, 2020,
you must monitor and collect data at all times in accordance with Sec.
63.8685(b), except during periods of nonoperation of the affected
source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the
emissions to which this subpart applies.
* * * * *

0
12. Section 63.8691 is amended by:

0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (d); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (e).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  63.8691  How do I conduct periodic performance tests and
demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and
operating limits?

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating
limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the
procedures specified in Table 5 to this subpart, and you must conduct
performance tests as specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (b) Before September 9, 2020, you must report each instance in
which you did not meet each operating limit in Table 5 to this subpart
that applies to you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. These instances are deviations from the emission
limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.8693. On and after September
9, 2020, you must report each instance in which you did not meet each
operating limit in Table 5 to this subpart that applies to you, except
during periods of nonoperation of the affected source (or specific
portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to which this
subpart applies.
* * * * *
    (d) Before September 9, 2020, consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e)
and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the
Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with
Sec.  63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will determine whether deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are
violations, according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e). On and after
September 9, 2020, this paragraph (d) no longer applies.
    (e) For each control device used to comply with the PM, THC,
opacity, or visible emission standards of this subpart, you must
conduct periodic performance tests using the applicable procedures
specified in Sec.  63.8687 and Table 4 to this subpart to demonstrate
compliance with Sec.  63.8684(a), and to confirm or reestablish the
operating limits required by Sec.  63.8684(b). You must conduct
periodic performance tests according to the schedule specified in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, for
each existing affected source, and for each new and reconstructed
affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after
November 21, 2001 and on or before March 12, 2020, you must conduct the
first periodic performance test on or before March 13, 2023. As an
alternative to the first periodic performance test, you may use the
results of a previously-conducted emission test to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limitations in this subpart, such as tests
for renewing your facility's operating permit under 40 CFR part 70 or
40 CFR part 71, if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction
that it meets the requirements of Sec.  63.8686(b)(1) through (4). The
subsequent periodic performance tests must be conducted no later than
60 months thereafter following the previous performance test.
    (2) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, for
each new and reconstructed affected source that commences construction
or reconstruction after March 12, 2020, you must conduct the first
periodic performance test no later than 60 months following the initial
performance test required by Sec.  63.8689. If you used the alternative
compliance option specified in Sec.  63.8686(b) to comply with the
initial performance test, then you must conduct the first periodic
performance test no later than 60 months following the date you
demonstrated to the Administrator that the requirements of Sec.
63.8686(b) had been met.
    (3) If an affected source is not operating on the dates the
periodic performance test is required to be conducted as specified in
paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section, then you are not required to
restart the affected source for the sole purpose of complying with
paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section. Instead, upon restart of the
affected source, you must conduct the first periodic performance test
within 60 days of achieving normal operating conditions but no later
than 180 days from startup. You must conduct subsequent periodic
performance tests no later than 60 months thereafter following the
previous performance test.

0
13. Section 63.8692 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (e), and (f)
to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8692  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all the notifications in Sec. Sec.  63.6(h)(4)
and (5), 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f), and 63.9(b) through (f) and (h) that
apply to you by the dates specified in these sections, except as
provided in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design
evaluation, opacity observation, visible emission observation, or other
compliance demonstration as specified in Table 3 or 4 to this subpart,
you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to Sec.
63.9(h)(2)(ii). You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status,
including the performance test results, before the close of business on
the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test
according to Sec.  63.10(d)(2). On and after September 9, 2020, you
must submit all subsequent Notification of Compliance Status reports to
EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI),
which can be accessed through EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX)
(https://cdx.epa.gov/). If you claim some of the information required
to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI),
then submit a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI,
to EPA. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph
(e). You may assert a claim of EPA system outage or force majeure for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement in this
paragraph (e) provided you meet the requirements outlined in Sec.
63.8693(h) or (i), as applicable.
    (f) If you are using data from a previously-conducted emission test
to serve as documentation of conformance with the emission standards
and operating limits of this subpart as specified in Sec.  63.8686(b),
you must submit the test data in lieu of the initial performance test
results with the Notification of Compliance Status required under
paragraph (e) of this section.

0
14. Section 63.8693 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(4) and (5), (d) introductory text, (d)(1)
through (4), and (d)(6);
0
c. Adding paragraph (d)(13);
0
d. Revising paragraph (f); and
0
e. Adding paragraphs (g) through (i).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.8693  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) On and after September 9, 2020, you must submit all compliance
reports to EPA via the CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA's CDX
(https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report
template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date report templates become
available will be listed on the CEDRI website. The report must be
submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the
method in which the report is submitted. If you claim some of the
information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a
complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The
report must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI
website or an alternate electronic file consistent with the extensible
markup language (XML) schema listed on the CEDRI website. Submit the
file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic
storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic
medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via
EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph (b)(6). You may assert
a claim of EPA system outage or force majeure for failure to timely
comply with the reporting requirement in this paragraph (b)(6) provided
you meet the requirements outlined in Sec.  63.8693(h) or (i), as
applicable.
    (c) * * *
    (4) Before September 9, 2020, if you had a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent
with your SSMP, the compliance report must include the information in
Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i). On and after September 9, 2020, this paragraph
(c)(4) no longer applies.
    (5) For each reporting period, you must include in the compliance
report the total number of deviations that occurred during the
reporting period. If there are no deviations from any emission
limitations (emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and
visible emission limit) in Sec.  63.8684 that apply to you, then you
must include a statement that there were no deviations from the
emission limitations during the reporting period.
    (d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit,
operating limit, opacity limit, and visible emission limit) in Sec.
63.8684, you must include in the compliance report the information in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section, and the information in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (13) of this section.
    (1) The start date, start time, and duration of each malfunction.
    (2) For each instance that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks, the start date,
start time, and duration that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was inoperative;
the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS being
inoperative; and descriptions of corrective actions taken.
    (3) For each instance that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was out-of-
control as specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), the start date, start time,
and duration that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was out-of-control, including
the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (4) Before September 9, 2020, the start date, start time, and
duration of the deviation, and whether each deviation occurred during a
period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
On and after September 9, 2020, the start date, start time, and
duration of the deviation including a description of the deviation and
the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.8685(b). You must also include:
    (i) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the
deviation occurred;
    (ii) The cause of the deviation (including unknown cause, if
applicable); and
    (iii) Any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to
its normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
    (6) Before September 9, 2020, 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. On and after September 9, 2020,
a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems,
process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
* * * * *
    (13) On and after September 9, 2020, for each deviation from an
emission limitation in Sec.  63.8684, you must include an estimate of
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission
limitation in Sec.  63.8684, and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
    (f) On and after September 9, 2020, within 60 days after the date
of completing each performance test required by this subpart, you must
submit the results of the performance test following the procedures
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by EPA's Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on EPA's ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to EPA via the CEDRI, which can be accessed through
EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file
format generated through the use of EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may
submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on
EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by
EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. The
results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in
the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema
listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or
alternative file to EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) CBI. If you claim some of the information submitted under
paragraph (f)(1) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete
file, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The file must be
generated through the use of EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the
file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic
storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic
medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via
EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
    (g) On and after September 9, 2020, within 60 days after the date
of completing each continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance
evaluation (as defined in Sec.  63.2) as specified in your site-
specific monitoring plan, you must submit the results of the
performance evaluation following the procedures specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (3) of this section.

    (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by EPA's ERT as listed on
EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the results of
the performance evaluation to EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed
through EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file format
generated through the use of EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit
an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT
website.
    (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that
are not supported by EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the
time of the evaluation. The results of the performance evaluation must
be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the
ERT generated package or alternative file to EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) CBI. If you claim some of the information submitted under
paragraph (g)(1) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete
file, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The file must be
generated through the use of EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the
file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic
storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic
medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via
EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
    (h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement in this
section. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (i) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for failure
to timely comply with the reporting requirement in this section. To
assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements
outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.

0
15. Section 63.8694 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8694  What records must I keep?

    (a) * * *
    (2) Before September 9, 2020, the records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii)
through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after
September 9, 2020, this paragraph (a)(2) no longer applies.
* * * * *
    (e) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or EPA as part
of an on-site compliance evaluation.

0
16. Section 63.8697 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.8697  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in Sec. Sec.
63.8681, 63.8682, 63.8683, 63.8684, 63.8685, 63.8686, 63.8687, 63.8688,
63.8689, 63.8690, and 63.8691.
* * * * *

0
17. Section 63.8698 is amended by revising definitions of ``Adhesive
applicator,'' ``Deviation,'' and ``Sealant applicator'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.8698  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Adhesive applicator means the equipment that uses open pan-type
application (e.g., a roller partially submerged in an open pan of
adhesive) to apply adhesive to roofing shingles for

producing laminated or dimensional roofing shingles.
* * * * *
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation
(including any operating limit), or work practice standard;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart, and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Before September 9, 2020, fails to meet any emission limitation
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard in this
subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether
or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. On and after
September 9, 2020, this paragraph (3) no longer applies.
* * * * *
    Sealant applicator means the equipment that uses open pan-type
application (e.g., a roller partially submerged in an open pan of
sealant) to apply a sealant strip to a roofing product. The sealant
strip is used to seal overlapping pieces of roofing product after they
have been applied.
* * * * *

0
18. Table 1 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by revising row 1
and footnote b to read as follows:

        Table 1 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Emission Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           You must meet the following
                 For--                        emission limitation--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each blowing still, Group 1 asphalt   a. Reduce total hydrocarbon
 loading rack, and Group 1 asphalt        mass emissions by 95 percent,
 storage tank at existing, new, and       or to a concentration of 20
 reconstructed asphalt processing         ppmv, on a dry basis corrected
 facilities; and each Group 1 asphalt     to 3 percent oxygen;
 storage tank at existing, new, and      b. Route the emissions to a
 reconstructed asphalt roofing            combustion device achieving a
 manufacturing lines; and each coating    combustion efficiency of 99.5
 mixer, saturator (including wet          percent;
 looper), coater, sealant applicator,    c. Route the emissions to a
 and adhesive applicator at new and       combustion device that does
 reconstructed asphalt roofing            not use auxiliary fuel
 manufacturing lines.                     achieving a total hydrocarbon
                                          (THC) destruction efficiency
                                          of 95.8 percent;
                                         d. Route the emissions to a
                                          boiler or process heater with
                                          a design heat input capacity
                                          of 44 megawatts (MW) or
                                          greater;
                                         e. Introduce the emissions into
                                          the flame zone of a boiler or
                                          process heater; or
                                         f. Route emissions to a flare
                                          meeting the requirements of
                                          Sec.   63.11(b).

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 * * * * *
b The opacity limit can be exceeded for one consecutive 15-minute period
  in any 24-hour period when the storage tank transfer lines are being
  cleared. During this 15-minute period, the control device must not be
  bypassed. If the emissions from the asphalt storage tank are ducted to
  the saturator control device, the combined emissions from the
  saturator and storage tank must meet the 20 percent opacity limit
  (specified in 3.a of Table 1 to this subpart) during this 15-minute
  period. At any other time, the opacity limit applies to Group 2
  asphalt storage tanks.

0
19. Table 2 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by revising rows 3
and 4 and footnotes a and c to read as follows:

          Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 For--                              You must a
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
3. Control devices used to comply with   a. Maintain the 3-hour average
 the particulate matter standards..       b inlet gas temperature at or
                                          below the operating limit
                                          established during the
                                          performance test; and
                                         b. Maintain the 3-hour average
                                          b pressure drop across the
                                          device c within the operating
                                          range limits (i.e., at or
                                          above a minimum pressure drop
                                          and at or below a maximum
                                          pressure drop) established
                                          during the performance test,
                                          or as an alternative,
                                          established according to the
                                          manufacturer's specifications
                                          as specified in Sec.
                                          63.8689(d).
4. Other control devices that are        Maintain the approved
 neither a combustion device nor a        monitoring parameters within
 control device used to comply with the   the operating limits
 particulate matter emission standards.   established during the
                                          performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The operating limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart are
  applicable if you are monitoring control device operating parameters
  to demonstrate continuous compliance. If you are using a CEMS or COMS,
  you must maintain emissions below the value established during the
  initial performance test.
b A 15-minute averaging period can be used as an alternative to the 3-
  hour averaging period for this parameter.
c As an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control
  device, owners or operators using an ESP to achieve compliance with
  the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart can monitor
  the voltage to the ESP. If this option is selected, the ESP voltage
  must be maintained at or above the operating limit established during
  the performance test.

0
20. Table 3 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by revising rows 1,
7, and 11 through 13 and footnotes a and c and adding footnotes d
through f to read as follows:

                   Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                According to the following
               For--                       You must--                Using--                requirements--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All particulate matter, total     a. Select sampling      i. EPA test method 1    A. For demonstrating
 hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and    port's location and     or 1A in appendix A     compliance with the total
 carbon dioxide emission tests.       the number of           to part 60 of this      hydrocarbon percent
                                      traverse points.        chapter.                reduction standard, the
                                                                                sampling sites must be
                                                                                located at the inlet and
                                                                                outlet of the control
                                                                                device prior to any
                                                                                releases to the
                                                                                atmosphere.
                                                                                B. For demonstrating
                                                                                compliance with the
                                                                                particulate matter mass
                                                                                emission rate, THC
                                                                                destruction efficiency,
                                                                                THC outlet concentration,
                                                                                or combustion efficiency
                                                                                standards, the sampling
                                                                                sites must be located at
                                                                                the outlet of the control
                                                                                device prior to any
                                                                                releases to the
                                                                                atmosphere.

                                                  * * * * * * *
7. All opacity tests...............  Conduct opacity         EPA test method 9 in    Conduct opacity
                                      observations.           appendix A to part 60   observations for at least
                                                              of this chapter, or     3 hours and obtain 30, 6-
                                                              ASTM D7520-16 d f.      minute averages.

                                                  * * * * * * *
11. Each combustion device.........  Establish a site-       Data from the CPMS and  You must collect combustion
                                      specific combustion     the applicable          zone temperature data
                                      zone temperature        performance test        every 15 minutes during
                                      operating limit.        method(s).              the entire period of the 3-
                                                                                hour performance test, and
                                                                                determine the average
                                                                                combustion zone
                                                                                temperature over the 3-
                                                                                hour performance test by
                                                                                computing the average of
                                                                                all of the 15-minute
                                                                                readings.
12. Each control device used to      Establish a site-       Data from the CPMS and  You must collect the inlet
 comply with the particulate matter   specific inlet gas      the applicable          gas temperature and
 emission standards.                  temperature operating   performance test        pressure drop b data every
                                      limit; and if not       method(s).              15 minutes during the
                                      complying with Sec.                             entire period of the 3-
                                      63.8689(d), also                                hour performance test, and
                                      establish site-                                 determine the average
                                      specific limits for                             inlet gas temperature and
                                      the pressure drop                               pressure drop c over the 3-
                                      range (i.e., a                                  hour performance test by
                                      minimum and a maximum                           computing the average of
                                      pressure drop) across                           all of the 15-minute
                                      the device e.                                   readings. The inlet gas
                                                                                temperature operating
                                                                                limit is set at +20
                                                                                percent of the test run
                                                                                average inlet gas
                                                                                temperature measured in
                                                                                units of degrees Celsius
                                                                                or degrees Fahrenheit. The
                                                                                maximum (or minimum)
                                                                                pressure drop is set as
                                                                                the maximum (or minimum)
                                                                                average pressure drop of
                                                                                the performance test runs
                                                                                which demonstrated
                                                                                compliance with the
                                                                                applicable emission limit.
13. Each control device that is      Establish site-         Process data and data   You must collect monitoring
 neither a combustion device nor a    specific monitoring     from the CPMS and the   parameter data every 15
 control device used to comply with   parameters.             applicable              minutes during the entire
 the particulate matter emission                              performance test        period of the 3-hour
 standards.                                                   method(s).              performance test, and
                                                                                determine the average
                                                                                monitoring parameter
                                                                                values over the 3-hour
                                                                                performance test by
                                                                                computing the average of
                                                                                all of the 15-minute
                                                                                readings.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a For initial performance tests, as specified in Sec.   63.8686(b), you may request that data from a previously-
  conducted emission test serve as documentation of conformance with the emission standards and operating limits
  of this subpart.
b Performance tests are not required if: (1) The emissions are routed to a boiler or process heater with a
  design heat input capacity of 44 MW or greater; or (2) the emissions are introduced into the flame zone of a
  boiler or process heater.
c As an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control device, owners or operators using an ESP
  to achieve compliance with the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart can monitor the voltage to
  the ESP.
d If you use ASTM D7520-16 in lieu of EPA test method 9, then you must comply with the conditions specified in
  this footnote. During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) certification procedure outlined in Section
  9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, you or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various backgrounds of color
  and contrast representing conditions anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed
  backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand). You must also have standard operating procedures in place
  including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing
  specifications as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16. You must follow the record keeping procedures
  outlined in Sec.   63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data sheets, and all raw
  unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification determination. You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum
  of four (4) independent technology users apply the software to determine the visible opacity of the 300
  certification plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of any one reading
  and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity. This approval does not provide or imply a
  certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain and verify the
  certification and/or training of the DCOT camera, software and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 and
  this letter is on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
e You may conduct two separate performance tests to establish the operating limits for pressure drop range
  (i.e., one performance test to establish a minimum pressure drop operating limit and one performance test to
  establish a maximum pressure drop operating limit); however, you may choose to establish either, or both, the
  minimum and maximum pressure drop operating limits using the requirements of Sec.   63.8689(d) in lieu of the
  requirements specified in this Table.
f Incorporated by reference, see Sec.   63.14.

0
21. Table 4 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by revising the
table heading, the fourth column heading, and rows 4 and 5 to read as
follows:

 Table 4 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Initial and Continuous Compliance
                        With Emission Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                For the following         You have
            For--             emission limitation--     demonstrated
                                                       compliance if--
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
4. Each saturator (including  a. Limit visible      The visible
 wet looper) and coater at     emissions from the    emissions, measured
 an existing, new, or          emissions capture     using EPA test
 reconstructed asphalt         system to 20          method 22 in
 roofing manufacturing line.   percent of any        appendix A to part
                               period of             60 of this chapter,
                               consecutive valid     for any period of
                               observations          consecutive valid
                               totaling 60 minutes.  observations
                                                     totaling 60 minutes
                                                     do not exceed 20
                                                     percent.
                              b. Limit opacity      The opacity,
                               emissions to 20       measured using EPA
                               percent.              test method 9 in
                                                     appendix A to part
                                                     60 of this chapter,
                                                     for each of the
                                                     first 30 6-minute
                                                     averages does not
                                                     exceed 20 percent.

5. Each Group 2 asphalt       Limit exhaust gases   The opacity,
 storage tank at existing,     to 0 percent          measured using EPA
 new, and reconstructed        opacity.              test method 9 in
 asphalt processing                                  appendix A to part
 facilities and asphalt                              60 of this chapter,
 roofing manufacturing lines.                        for each of the
                                                     first 30 6-minute
                                                     averages does not
                                                     exceed 0 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
22. Table 5 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by revising rows 3
and 4 and footnotes a and d to read as follows:

     Table 5 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With
                           Operating Limits a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    You must demonstrate
                                For the following        continuous
            For--               operating limit--      compliance by--

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

                              * * * * * * *
3. Control devices used to    a. Maintain the 3-    i. Passing the
 comply with the particulate   hour c average        emissions through
 matter emission standards.    inlet gas             the control device;
                               temperature at or     and
                               below the operating  ii. Collecting the
                               limit established     inlet gas
                               during the            temperature and
                               performance test;     pressure drop d
                               and.                  data according to
                                                     Sec.   63.8688(b)
                                                     and (c); and
                              b. Maintain the 3-    iii. Reducing inlet
                               hour c average        gas temperature and
                               pressure drop         pressure drop d
                               across device d       data to 3-hour c
                               within the            averages according
                               operating range       to calculations in
                               limits that were      Table 3 to this
                               established           subpart; and
                               pursuant to Sec.     iv. Maintaining the
                               63.8689(b) and/or     3-hour c average
                               (d).                  inlet gas
                                                     temperature within
                                                     the level
                                                     established during
                                                     the performance
                                                     test; and
                                                    v. Maintaining the 3-
                                                     hour c average
                                                     pressure drop
                                                     across device d
                                                     within the level
                                                     established
                                                     pursuant to Sec.
                                                     63.8689(b) and/or
                                                     (d).
4. Other control devices      a. Maintain the       i. Passing the
 that are neither a            monitoring            emissions through
 combustion device nor a       parameters within     the devices;
 control device used to        the operating        ii. Collecting the
 comply with the particulate   limits established    monitoring
 matter emission standards.    during the            parameter data
                               performance test.     according to Sec.
                                                     63.8688(d); and
                                                    iii. Reducing the
                                                     monitoring
                                                     parameter data to 3-
                                                     hour c averages
                                                     according to
                                                     calculations in
                                                     Table 3 to this
                                                     subpart; and
                                                    iv. Maintaining the
                                                     monitoring
                                                     parameters within
                                                     the level
                                                     established during
                                                     the performance
                                                     test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The operating limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart and the
  requirements specified in Table 5 to this subpart are applicable if
  you are monitoring control device operating parameters to demonstrate
  continuous compliance. If you use a CEMS or COMS to demonstrate
  compliance with the emission limits, you are not required to record
  control device operating parameters. However, you must maintain
  emissions below the value established during the initial performance
  test. Data from the CEMS and COMS must be reduced as specified in Sec.
   Sec.   63.8690 and 63.8(g)(1) through (4).
 * * * * * * *
c A 15-minute averaging period can be used as an alternative to the 3-
  hour averaging period for this parameter.
d As an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control
  device, owners or operators using an ESP to achieve compliance with
  the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart can monitor
  the voltage to the ESP. If this option is selected, the ESP voltage
  must be maintained at or above the operating limit established during
  the performance test.

0
23. Table 6 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by revising rows 4,
5, and 6 and adding row 7 to read as follows:

      Table 6 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 The report must     You must submit the
      You must submit--             contain--             report--
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
4. Notification of            The information in    According to the
 compliance status.            Sec.   63.9(h)(2)     requirements in
                               through (5), as       Sec.  Sec.
                               applicable.           63.8692(e) and
                                                     63.9(h)(2) through
                                                     (5), as applicable.

5. A compliance report......  a. A statement that   Semiannually
                               there were no         according to the
                               deviations from the   requirements in
                               emission              Sec.   63.8693(b).
                               limitations during
                               the reporting
                               period, if there
                               are no deviations
                               from any emission
                               limitations
                               (emission limit,
                               operating limit,
                               opacity limit, and
                               visible emission
                               limit) that apply
                               to you.
                              b. If there were no   Semiannually
                               periods during        according to the
                               which the CPMS,       requirements in
                               CEMS, or COMS was     Sec.   63.8693(b).
                               out-of-control as
                               specified in Sec.
                               63.8(c)(7), a
                               statement that
                               there were no
                               periods during
                               which the CPMS,
                               CEMS, or COMS was
                               out-of-control
                               during the
                               reporting period.
                              c. If you have a      Semiannually
                               deviation from any    according to the
                               emission limitation   requirements in
                               (emission limit,      Sec.   63.8693(b).
                               operating limit,
                               opacity limit, and
                               visible emission
                               limit), the report
                               must contain the
                               information in Sec.
                                 63.8693(c) and
                               (d).
                              d. Before September   Semiannually
                               9, 2020, if you had   according to the
                               a startup, shutdown   requirements in
                               or malfunction        Sec.   63.8693(b).
                               during the
                               reporting period
                               and you took
                               actions consistent
                               with your startup,
                               shutdown, and
                               malfunction plan,
                               the compliance
                               report must include
                               the information in
                               Sec.
                               63.10(d)(5)(i). On
                               and after September
                               9, 2020, this
                               paragraph no longer
                               applies.
6. An immediate startup,      The information in    By fax or telephone
 shutdown, and malfunction     Sec.                  within 2 working
 report if you have a          63.10(d)(5)(ii).      days after starting
 startup, shutdown, or                               actions
 malfunction during the                              inconsistent with
 reporting period before                             the plan followed
 September 9, 2020, and                              by a letter within
 actions taken were not                              7 working days
 consistent with your                                after the end of
 startup, shutdown, and                              the event unless
 malfunction plan. On and                            you have made
 after September 9, 2020,                            alternative
 this paragraph no longer                            arrangements with
 applies.                                            the permitting
                                                     authority.
7. Performance test report..  The information in    Within 60 days after
                               Sec.   63.7.          completion of the
                                                     performance test
                                                     according to the
                                                     requirements in
                                                     Sec.   63.8693(f).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
24. Table 7 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the entry for Sec.  63.6(e)(1) and adding entries in
numerical order for Sec. Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii), and
63.6(e)(1)(iii);
0
b. Revising the entries for Sec. Sec.  63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1),
63.6(h)(1), and 63.7(e)(1);
0
c. Adding an entry in numerical order for Sec.  63.7(e)(4);
0
d. Removing the entry for Sec.  63.8(c)(1);
0
e. Revising the entries for Sec. Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(i), 63.8(c)(1)(ii),
63.8(c)(1)(iii), and 63.8(d);
0
f. Removing the entry for Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(i)-(v);
0
g. Adding entries in numerical order for Sec. Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(i),
63.10(b)(2)(ii), 63.10(b)(2)(iii), 63.10(b)(2)(iv), and 63.10(b)(2)(v);
and
0
h. Revising the entry for Sec.  63.10(d)(5).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

            Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart LLLLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Applies to subpart
               Citation                        Subject             Brief description              LLLLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i).................  Operation & Maintenance  Operate to minimize      Yes before September 9,
                                                                 emissions at all times.  2020. No on and after
                                                                                September 9, 2020. See
                                                                                Sec.   63.8685(b) for
                                                                                general duty
                                                                                requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)................  Operation & Maintenance  Correct malfunctions as  Yes before September 9,
                                                                 soon as practicable.     2020. No on and after
                                                                                September 9, 2020.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)...............  Operation & Maintenance  Operation and            Yes.
                                                                 maintenance
                                                                 requirements
                                                                 independently
                                                                 enforceable;
                                                                 information
                                                                 Administrator will use
                                                                 to determine if
                                                                 operation and
                                                                 maintenance
                                                                 requirements were met.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)....................  Startup, Shutdown, and   1. Requirement for SSM   Yes before September 9,
                                        Malfunction (SSM) Plan   and startup, shutdown,   2020. No on and after
                                        (SSMP).                  malfunction plan.        September 9, 2020.
                                                                2. Content of SSMP.....
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)....................  Compliance Except        You must comply with     Yes before September 9,
                                        During SSM.              emission standards at    2020. No on and after
                                                                 all times except         September 9, 2020.
                                                                 during SSM.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(h)(1)....................  Compliance with Opacity/ You must comply with     Yes before September 9,
                                        VE Standards.            opacity/VE emission      2020. No on and after
                                                                 limitations at all       September 9, 2020.
                                                                 times except during
                                                                 SSM.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)....................  Conditions for           1. Performance tests     Yes before September 9,
                                        Conducting Performance   must be conducted        2020. No on and after
                                        Tests.                   under representative     September 9, 2020. See
                                                                 conditions. Cannot       Sec.   63.8687.
                                                                 conduct performance
                                                                 tests during SSM.
                                                                2. Not a violation to
                                                                 exceed standard during
                                                                 SSM.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.7(e)(4)....................  Conduct of performance   Administrator's          Yes.
                                        tests.                   authority to require
                                                                 testing under section
                                                                 114 of the Act.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i).................  Routine and predictable  1. Keep parts for        Yes before September 9,
                                        CMS malfunction.         routine repairs          2020. No on and after
                                                                 readily available.       September 9, 2020.
                                                                2. Reporting
                                                                 requirements for CMS
                                                                 malfunction when
                                                                 action is described in
                                                                 SSM plan.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)................  CMS malfunction not in   Keep the necessary       Yes.
                                        SSP plan.                parts for routine
                                                                 repairs if CMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)...............  Compliance with          Develop a written        Yes before September 9,
                                        Operation and            startup, shutdown, and   2020. No on and after
                                        Maintenance              malfunction plan for     September 9, 2020.
                                        Requirements.            CMS.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.8(d).......................  CMS Quality Control....  1. Requirements for CMS  Yes.
                                                                 quality control,
                                                                 including calibration,
                                                                 etc.
                                                                2. Must keep quality
                                                                 control plan on record
                                                                 for the life of the
                                                                 affected source.
                                                                3. Keep old versions
                                                                 for 5 years after
                                                                 revisions.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)................  Records related to       Occurrence of each of    Yes before September 9,
                                        Startup and Shutdown.    operation (process       2020. No on and after
                                                                 equipment).              September 9, 2020.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)...............  Recordkeeping Relevant   Occurrence of each       Yes before September 9,
                                        to Malfunction Periods   malfunction of air       2020. No on and after
                                        and CMS.                 pollution equipment.     September 9, 2020.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)..............  Recordkeeping Relevant   Maintenance on air       Yes.
                                        to Maintenance of Air    pollution control
                                        Pollution Control and    equipment.
                                        Monitoring Equipment.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)...............  Recordkeeping Relevant   Actions during startup,  Yes before September 9,
                                        to Startup, Shutdown,    shutdown, and            2020. No on and after
                                        and Malfunction          malfunction.             September 9, 2020.
                                        Periods and CMS.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(v)................  Recordkeeping Relevant   Actions during startup,  Yes before September 9,
                                        to Startup, Shutdown,    shutdown, and            2020. No on and after
                                        and Malfunction          malfunction.             September 9, 2020.
                                        Periods and CMS.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)...................  Startup, Shutdown, and   Contents and submission  Yes before September 9,
                                        Malfunction Reports.                              2020. No on and after
                                                                                September 9, 2020.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-02369 Filed 3-11-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P