[Federal Register: July 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 130)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 32822-32838]
[DOCID:fr09jy09-15]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0027; FRL-8928-3]
RIN 2060-AO94

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 10, 2009 unless a
public hearing is requested by July 20, 2009. If a hearing is requested
on the proposed rules, written comments must be received by August 24,
2009. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of having full effect if the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments
on or before August 10, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0027, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the EPA Air and
Radiation Docket Web Site.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0027 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Area Source NESHAP for Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of
two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0027. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Area Source NESHAP for Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Docket, EPA/DC,

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Warren Johnson, Outreach and
Information Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MC-
C404-05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(919) 541-0242; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards
    A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for
the proposed standards?
    B. What source categories are affected by the proposed
standards?
    C. What are the production operations, emission sources, and
available controls?
    D. What existing national standards apply to this source
category?
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
    A. Do the proposed standards apply to my source?
    B. When must I comply with the proposed standards?
    C. What are the proposed standards?
    D. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements?
    E. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule
    A. How did we select the source category?
    B. How did we select the affected source?
    C. How did we address PAH emissions in this rule?
    D. How was GACT determined?
    E. How did we select the compliance requirements?
    F. How did we decide to exempt this area source category from
title V permitting requirements?
V. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed Standards
    A. What are the air impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy
impacts?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?

    Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document
Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0027. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

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

D. When would a public hearing occur?

    If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing
concerning the proposed rule by July 20, 2009, we will hold a public
hearing on July 24, 2009. Persons interested in presenting oral
testimony at the hearing, or inquiring as to whether a hearing will be
held, should contact Ms. Christine Adams at<PHONE_NUMBER> at least two
days in advance of the hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be
held at 10 a.m. at EPA's Campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in
Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby.

II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards

A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for the
proposed standards?

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

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

Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and
economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important
when developing regulations for source categories, like this one, that
have many small businesses. Determining what constitutes GACT involves
considering the control technologies and management practices that are
generally available to the area sources in the source category. We also
consider the standards applicable to major sources in the same
industrial sector to determine if the control technologies and
management practices are transferable and generally available to area
sources. In appropriate circumstances, we may also consider
technologies and practices at area and major sources in similar
categories to determine whether such technologies and practices could
be considered generally available for the area source category at
issue. Finally, as noted above, in determining GACT for a particular
area source category, we consider the costs and economic impacts of
available control technologies and management practices on that
category.
    We are proposing these national emission standards in response to a
court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for 4
source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) by
August 17, 2009 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01-1537, D.D.C., March
2006). Additional rulemakings will be published in separate Federal
Register notices for the remaining source categories that are due in
August 2009.

B. What source categories are affected by the proposed standards?

    We listed the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing
source category under CAA section 112(c)(3) in one of a series of
amendments (November 22, 2002, 67 FR 70427) to the original source
category list included in the 1999 Integrated Urban Strategy. The
inclusion of this source category on the section 112(c)(3) area source
category list is based on 1990 emissions data, as EPA used 1990 as the
baseline year for that listing. Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list
sufficient categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that
area sources representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban
HAP are subject to regulation. The asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing source category was listed for its contributions
toward meeting the 90 percent requirement for polycyclic organic matter
in the form of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).

C. What are the production operations, emission sources, and available
controls?

    The two production operations for which this category was listed
are: (1) The asphalt processing operation (performed in blowing
stills); and (2) the roofing product manufacturing operation, where
substrates are coated with asphalt and other materials to produce
various roofing products (e.g., shingles, roll roofing). The emission
sources are the process vents from each of these operations.
    The production operation with the largest potential to emit PAH is
the processing operation. To our knowledge, all existing blowing still
process vents are controlled by combustion devices that reduce total
hydrocarbon (THC) emissions through thermal oxidation, which also
reduces particulate matter (PM) and PAH emissions (PM is a component of
THC and PAHs are components of PM). We believe that thermal oxidation
controls are the only type of emission control applied to blowing
stills in this source category. We did not identify any management
practices that would reduce PAH emissions from the asphalt processing
operation.
    The other production operation with the potential to emit PAH at
these facilities is the manufacturing (coating) operation. The
equipment configuration of coating operations varies depending on the
type of roofing product manufactured at the facility. Three types of
manufacturing operations (coating line configurations) are used in the
industry: (1) Lines with coaters only (these lines manufacture roofing
products using inorganic substrates), (2) lines that have both
saturators/wet loopers and coaters (these lines can manufacture roofing
products using either inorganic or organic substrates), and (3) lines
that have saturators/wet loopers only (these lines manufacture roofing
products using organic substrates). Each of these manufacturing
operation types have a unique emission characteristic profile.
    Based on available information, we believe PM controls (e.g.,
fiber-bed filters, high efficiency air filters (HEAF) or, in some of
cases, thermal oxidizers) are the only type of add-on emission control
devices applied to the manufacturing operation equipment. While these
control technologies are capable of achieving similar control
efficiencies, the emissions reductions that may be achieved through use
of PM controls vary depending on the PM emissions generated by the
different types of equipment configurations. We did not identify any
management practices that would reduce PAH emissions from the asphalt
roofing manufacturing operations.

D. What existing national standards apply to this source category?

    The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Asphalt

Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacture (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart UU)
applies to ``each saturator and each mineral handling and storage
facility at asphalt roofing plants; and each asphalt storage tank and
each blowing still at asphalt processing plants, petroleum refineries,
and asphalt roofing plants'' for which construction or modification
commenced after November 18, 1980. The term ``saturator'' is defined in
the NSPS to include the saturator, wet looper, and coater. Sources that
are subject to the NSPS because they have blowing stills, saturators,
wet loopers, or coaters that have been constructed or modified since
November 18, 1980 would be subject to this proposed rule.
    In addition to the asphalt NSPS, the major source NESHAP for
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing (40 CFR part 63,
subpart LLLLL) regulates HAP emissions from the same types of equipment
(i.e., blowing stills, saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, and
coaters) covered by this proposed rule. However, area sources that
would be subject to this proposed rule would not be covered by the
asphalt NESHAP unless they become a major source.

III. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Do the proposed standards apply to my source?

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

B. When must I comply with the proposed standards?

    All existing area source facilities subject to this proposed rule
would be required to comply with the rule requirements no later than
one year after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. New sources would be required to comply with the rule
requirements by the date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register or at startup of the facility, whichever is later.
    Because the majority of existing sources in this category are
already well-controlled, we believe that one year is a reasonable
amount of time to allow existing sources to conduct performance testing
and prepare compliance demonstrations with the proposed rule.

C. What are the proposed standards?

    As discussed in section II.C of this preamble, the two production
operations for which this category was listed are: (1) Asphalt
processing (refining) operations; and (2) roofing product manufacturing
operations.
    For asphalt processing, the proposed standards would require the
owner or operator to limit PAH emissions to 0.003 lb/ton of asphalt
charged to the asphalt refining (blowing still) operation.
Alternatively, owners or operators may choose to comply with a PM
emissions limit of 1.2 lb/ton of asphalt charged to the asphalt
refining operation. The proposed standards for new refining operations
are the same as for existing sources.
    For the asphalt roofing product manufacturing operations, we
examined the process operations and other factors and determined that
subcategories are justified to reflect the unique emission
characteristic profiles of the different equipment configurations. We
developed three subcategories based upon the various equipment
configurations used in the industry: (1) Production lines that use a
coater only, (2) production lines that use a saturator only, and (3)
production lines that use saturators and coaters. See section IV.D of
this preamble for a discussion of how GACT was determined.
    For existing coater-only production lines, the proposed standards
would require the owner or operator to limit PAH emissions from all
coating mixers and coaters to 0.0002 lb/ton of product manufactured.
Alternatively, owners or operators may choose to comply with a PM
emission limit of 0.03 lb/ton of product manufactured.
    For existing saturator-only production lines, the proposed
standards would require the owner or operator to limit PAH emissions
from all saturators (and wet loopers) to 0.0004 lb/ton of product
manufactured. The proposed standards for saturator-only production
lines would alternatively allow owners or operators to comply with a PM
emissions limit of 0.05 lb/ton of product manufactured.
    For existing combined saturator and coater production lines, the
proposed standards would require the owner or operator to limit PAH
emissions from all saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, and coaters
to 0.0006 lb/ton of product manufactured. The proposed standards for
combined saturator and coater production lines would alternatively
allow owners or operators to comply with a PM emissions limit of 0.07
lb/ton of product manufactured. This alternative emission limit is at
least as stringent as GACT for PAH emissions.
    The proposed standards for new roofing product manufacturing
operations for all subcategories are the same as for existing sources.

D. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements?

    The proposed standards would require an initial performance
assessment of the process emissions or control device outlet to
demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable standard, and to
establish the range of parameter values (e.g., temperature, pressure
drop) for the process or control device that will be monitored to
demonstrate continuous compliance. For existing sources, the proposed
standards would require owners or operators to conduct the initial
compliance assessment within 180 days of the date the final rule is
published in the Federal Register. Owners or operators of new sources
would be required to conduct compliance assessments within 180 days of
the date the final rule is published in the Federal Register or startup
(whichever is later).
    Initial compliance with proposed emission limits for existing and
new asphalt processing operations and asphalt roofing manufacturing
lines that include a saturator must be demonstrated by conducting
emission tests. For existing and new asphalt roofing manufacturing
lines that do not include a saturator, the proposed standards would
allow owners or operators to demonstrate initial compliance and
establish continuous monitoring parameters:
     By conducting emissions tests, or
     By using process knowledge and engineering calculations.
    As an alternative to conducting emission tests to demonstrate
initial compliance with the asphalt processing or asphalt roofing
manufacturing emission limits, an owner or operator of an existing
source may use the results from an emission test conducted in the past
five years. Owners or operators can use the results of the previously-
conducted test only if the emission measurements were made using the
test methods specified in the proposed standards. Additionally, the
owner or operator must be able to demonstrate that no process changes
have been made since the date of the previous test, or that the results
of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably
demonstrate compliance despite any process changes.
    Continuous compliance with the proposed emission limits would be
demonstrated by monitoring parameters

and process conditions established during the initial compliance
assessment. Under normal operating conditions (i.e., periods other than
startup, shutdown, and malfunction), the proposed standards for
demonstrating continuous compliance are based upon a 3-hour averaging
period. In cases where add-on control devices are not needed to comply
with the proposed standards, facilities would be required to establish
operating values for process parameters during the performance
assessment and maintain the 3-hour average of those parameters within
the established values. If a thermal oxidizer is used to comply with
the PAH or PM emission limits, the proposed standards would require
that the 3-hour average combustion zone temperature of each affected
thermal oxidizer be maintained at or above the operating limit
established during the performance assessment. For PM control devices,
the proposed standards would require that the inlet gas temperature be
maintained at or below the average 3-hour value established during the
performance assessment. The pressure drop across any filter media, if
used by the control device (e.g., a HEAF), must also be maintained at
or below the average 3-hour values established during the performance
assessment. If an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) is used as the PM
control device, the proposed standards would require that the 3-hour
average ESP voltage be maintained at or above the operating value
established during the initial performance test. For other types of
controls, the proposed standards would allow the owner or operator to
establish approved monitoring parameters and maintain the value of
those parameters within the operating values established during the
initial performance test. During periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction, facilities would be required to comply with the proposed
emission limits; however, the averaging period for determining
compliance would be extended from three hours to 24 hours.

E. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?

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

IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule

A. How did we select the source category?

    As described in section II.B, we listed the asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing manufacturing source category under CAA section
112(c)(3) on November 22, 2002 (67 FR 70427). The inclusion of this
source category on the area source category list was based on data from
the CAA section 112(k) inventory, which represents 1990 urban air
information. The asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing
area source category was listed as contributing a percentage of the
total area source urban HAP emissions for PAH.
    In developing the proposed standards for this source category, we
relied upon information on the production operations, emission sources,
and prevalent emission controls employed by area sources: (1) Obtained
from the industry trade association; (2) gleaned from published
literature; and (3) derived from reviewing operating permits. We also
held discussions with industry representatives, State permitting
organizations, and EPA experts. This research confirmed that the
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing source category
emits PAH.

B. How did we select the affected source?

    ``Affected source'' means the collection of equipment and processes
in the source category or subcategory to which the subpart applies. We
selected the affected source for this subpart based upon the processes
identified in the CAA section 112(k) inventory data for this category
as emitting PAH. The affected source is comprised of two operations,
which are: (1) Asphalt processing (refining) operations; and (2)
asphalt manufacturing (coating) operations. Some facilities conduct
both of these operations, while others conduct only asphalt coating
operations.

C. How did we address PAH emissions in this rule?

    The proposed rule includes both a PAH emission limit and an
equivalent PM emission limit. We have determined that it is appropriate
to treat PM as a surrogate for PAH. PAH are a fractional constituent of
the PM currently being controlled by affected sources. Thus, reductions
in PM emissions necessarily result in proportional reductions in PAH
emissions since the PM control devices used by sources in the category
also effectively control PAH emissions. As we have been able to
quantify the relationship between PM emissions and PAH emissions, we
believe that it is appropriate to allow owners and operators to monitor
and quantify PM emissions in lieu of monitoring and quantifying PAH
emissions. This approach is particularly appropriate for this source
category since the existing Federal regulations that cover these
sources (i.e., the asphalt NSPS) already require testing for PM
emissions.

D. How was GACT determined?

    As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), we are proposing standards
representing GACT to regulate PAH emissions from the asphalt processing
and asphalt roofing manufacturing source category. The CAA allows the
Agency to establish standards for area sources listed pursuant to
section 112(c) based on GACT. The statute does not set any condition
precedent for issuing standards under section 112(d)(5) other than that
the area source category or subcategory at issue must be one that EPA
listed pursuant to section 112(c), which is the case here.
    In establishing GACT, we considered the control technologies
currently used by facilities in the source category that reduce PAH
emissions from the refining operations and coating operations described
in section II.C. of this preamble, and the costs and incremental
emissions reduction achieved by more stringent controls. We were unable
to identify any management practices which effectively reduced PAH
emissions.
    1. Asphalt processing.
    Based upon the process equipment and control device configuration
data supplied by the industry trade association (the Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturers Association, ARMA) and data obtained through online
permit database searches, all of the existing blowing stills are
controlled using thermal oxidation. Thermal oxidizers at existing
sources reduce PAH to 0.003 lb/ton of asphalt charged to the blowing
stills. Consequently, we consider GACT

for existing blowing stills to be a PAH emissions limit of 0.003 lb/ton
of asphalt charged to the blowing stills. Alternatively, the proposed
standards would allow facilities to comply with an equivalent PM
emissions limit of 1.2 lb/ton of asphalt charged to the blowing stills.
    For new blowing stills, we are also proposing that GACT is a PAH
emissions limit of 0.003 lb/ton of asphalt charged to the blowing
stills, or a PM emissions limit of 1.2 lb/ton of asphalt charged to the
blowing stills. Based upon the information currently available, we did
not identify any technologies beyond thermal oxidation for which we
would propose more stringent emission limits for new blowing stills in
this source category.
    2. Asphalt roofing manufacturing.
    For roofing manufacturing operations, we estimated the baseline
level of control in the industry using process equipment and control
device configuration data supplied by ARMA and data obtained through
online permit database searches. We also conducted a Web search and
obtained operating permits for 9 non-ARMA facilities. Using the
emissions data collected to support development of the asphalt NESHAP,
we determined that establishing separate subcategories for coater-only,
saturator-only, and combined saturator/coater production lines is
appropriate to address the different types of equipment configurations.
Saturators manufacture roofing products using organic substrates (e.g.,
felt) which require much higher asphalt application rates than coaters
which are used to manufacture roofing products based upon inorganic
substrates (e.g., fiberglass mat). Because of the different asphalt
application rates, the emission rate of PAH and PM from a saturator is
an order of magnitude higher than that from a coater.
    We established the proposed emission limits indicative of GACT for
each of these subcategories by applying the average reduction
performance for PAH and PM emissions achieved by the controls
identified at baseline for each type of process. For existing roofing
production lines, we established GACT as follows for each subcategory:
     PAH emission limit of 0.0002 lb/ton of product
manufactured or an alternative, equivalent PM emission limit of 0.03
lb/ton of product manufactured for coater-only lines;
     PAH emission limit of 0.0004 lb/ton of product
manufactured or an alternative, equivalent PM emission limit of 0.05
lb/ton of product manufactured for saturator-only lines; and
     PAH emission limit of 0.0006 lb/ton of product
manufactured or an alternative, equivalent PM emission limit of 0.07
lb/ton of product manufactured for combined saturator/coater lines.
    For new sources, we established the GACT level of control at the
same level as GACT for existing sources, which reflects the use of
fiber-bed or high-efficiency air filters. We considered requiring that
new sources reduce PAH emission using thermal oxidizers. However, we
rejected this option because of the high cost-effectiveness value
($5,000,000/ton of PAH reduced) which is due to the very low levels of
PAH emissions and the high capital and annual costs associated with
thermal oxidizers, when compared to less expensive PM controls.

E. How did we select the compliance requirements?

    We are proposing testing, monitoring, notification, and
recordkeeping requirements that are adequate to assure continuous
compliance with the requirements of the rule. These provisions are
based, in part, on requirements that have been applied to industries
with similar control devices in other rulemakings. We selected these
requirements based upon our determination of the information necessary
to ensure emissions controls are maintained and operated properly on a
continuing basis. We believe the proposed requirements would ensure
continuous compliance with the emission reduction requirements of this
proposed rule without posing a significant additional burden for
facilities that must implement them.
1. Asphalt Processing
    We are proposing that compliance with the emission limits for
blowing stills be demonstrated by monitoring the combustion zone
operating temperature and maintaining the 3-hour average combustion
zone operating temperature at or above the temperature established
during the initial compliance demonstration.
    The performance of thermal oxidizers is dictated by the turbulence
and residence time of the gases in the combustion zone and by the
combustion zone temperature. For a given flow rate, the turbulence and
residence time are fixed properties. Therefore, the remaining parameter
necessary for determining the operation of the thermal oxidizer is
combustion zone temperature. Additionally, most thermal oxidizers are
already equipped with systems for monitoring and recording operating
temperature. Monitoring of combustion zone temperature for blowing
still thermal oxidizers is also required by the asphalt NSPS. For the
initial compliance demonstration, facilities would be allowed to use
the results from performance tests used to demonstrate compliance with
Federal or State regulations that are at least as stringent as the
proposed emission limits, provided that the performance test was
conducted within the last 5 years and the test methods used were the
same as the test methods specified in the proposed rule. Additionally,
the owner or operator must be able to demonstrate that no process
changes have been made since the date of the previous test, or that the
results of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably
demonstrate compliance despite any process changes. We are proposing to
allow the use of existing performance tests to reduce the potential
compliance burden on asphalt area sources.
2. Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
    We are proposing that compliance with the emission limits for
saturators, coating mixers, and coaters using add-on controls be
demonstrated by monitoring the gas temperature at the inlet of the PM
control device and the pressure drop across the device. Facilities must
maintain the 3-hour average inlet gas temperature and the 3-hour
average pressure drop across the control device at or below the
operating limits established during the initial compliance
demonstration. We believe that, for this source category, the removal
performance of PM control devices is adequately characterized by the
inlet gas temperature and pressure drop across the device. For all PM
control devices, the inlet gas temperature would have to be at or below
the temperature at which the performance test was conducted to ensure
that a sufficient amount of PM has condensed from the vent gas prior to
entering the PM control device. The control device pressure drop would
have to be at or below the value established during the performance
test to ensure that the control device is providing sufficient removal
of PM and that the removal mechanism (e.g., filter media) does not
become plugged or fouled. Although monitoring of pressure drop is not
required by the asphalt NSPS, monitoring of inlet gas temperature for
PM control devices is the same as the monitoring requirements of the
asphalt NSPS. This minimizes the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting burden on

facilities with these processes. We are also proposing to allow the use
of existing performance tests for PM control devices in an effort to
reduce the potential compliance burden on asphalt area sources,
provided that the performance test was conducted within the last 5
years and the test methods used were the same as the test methods
specified in the proposed rule. Additionally, the owner or operator
must be able to demonstrate that no process changes have been made
since the date of the previous test, or that the results of the
performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate
compliance despite any process changes.
    Facilities that can comply with the proposed standards without the
use of add-on control devices must monitor approved process parameters
and maintain those parameters within the range of values established
during the initial performance test.

F. How did we decide to exempt this area source category from title V
permitting requirements?

    For the reasons described below, we are proposing exemption from
title V permitting requirements for affected sources in the asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category that
are not already required to have a title V permit for other reasons. We
estimate that approximately 33 of the 75 area source facilities in this
industry currently have title V permits. We are not proposing that
sources in this category that already have a title V permit be exempt
from title V permitting requirements.
    Section 502(a) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may
exempt an area source category from title V if (s)he determines that
compliance with title V requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or
unnecessarily burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section
502(a). In December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the
term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and developed a
four-factor balancing test for determining whether title V is
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category, such
that an exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320,
December 19, 2005 (Exemption Rule).
    The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for
determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome on a particular
area source category include: (1) Whether title V would result in
significant improvements to the compliance requirements, including
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area
source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V permitting would
impose significant burdens on the area source category and whether the
burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the sources may have in
obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 FR 75324); (3)
whether the costs of title V permitting for the area source category
would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in
compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); and (4)
whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that
are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP for the area source
category, without relying on title V permits (70 FR 75326).
    In discussing these factors in the Exemption Rule, we further
explained that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to
which one or more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for
a given source category, and then we assessed whether considered
together those factors demonstrated that compliance with title V
requirements would be `unnecessarily burdensome' on the category,
consistent with section 502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, in
the Exemption Rule, we explained that not all of the four factors must
weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to determine that title V is
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category.
Instead, the factors are to be considered in combination, and EPA
determines whether the factors, taken together, support an exemption
from title V for a particular source category.
    In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome
on an area source category, we considered, consistent with the guidance
provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether
exempting an area source category would adversely affect public health,
welfare or the environment. See 70 FR 15254-15255, March 25, 2005. As
explained below, we propose that title V permitting is unreasonably
burdensome for the area source category at issue in this proposed rule.
We have also determined that the proposed exemptions from title V would
not adversely affect public health, welfare and the environment. Our
rationale for this decision follows here.
    In considering the exemption from title V requirements for sources
in the category affected by this proposed rule, we first compared the
title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements (factor
one) to the requirements in the proposed NESHAP for the area source
category. The proposed rule requires facilities to comply with an
emission limit using either process changes or add-on controls.
Continuous compliance would be demonstrated using parametric monitoring
of the process or a control device. Facilities that can comply with the
proposed standards without the use of add-on control devices must
monitor approved process parameters and maintain those parameters
within the range or value established during the initial performance
test. For add-on control devices (i.e., PM control devices and thermal
oxidizers) used to comply with the emission limits, the proposed rule
specifies the monitoring parameters and averaging periods. For PM
control devices, the proposed standards would require that the inlet
gas temperature be maintained at or below the average 3-hour value
established during the performance assessment. The pressure drop across
any filter media, if used by the control device, must also be
maintained at or below the average 3-hour values established during the
performance assessment. If an electrostatic precipitator is used as the
PM control device, the proposed standards would require that the 3-hour
average ESP voltage be maintained at or above the operating value
established during the initial performance test. For other types of
controls, the proposed standards would allow owners or operators to
establish approved monitoring parameters and maintain the value of
those parameters within the operating values established during the
initial performance test. For thermal oxidizers, the proposed rule
would require the owner or operator to maintain the 3-hour average
combustion zone temperature at or above the temperature established
during the initial compliance demonstration. Existing sources would be
allowed to use previously conducted performance tests to demonstrate
compliance provided that the tests were conducted within the past 5
years and the emission measurements were made using the test methods
specified in the proposed standards.
    Additionally, the owner or operator must be able to demonstrate
that no process changes have been made since the date of the previous
test, or that the results of the performance test, with or without
adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite any process
changes. New sources would be required to conduct initial performance
tests.
    The proposed rule also requires the preparation of a semi-annual

compliance certification report and submission of this report, which
would include any deviations from the emission or operating limits that
occurred during the reporting period, to the State agency. The semi-
annual report would call attention to those facilities in need of
inspection to the State agency in the same way as a title V permit.
Records would be required to ensure that the compliance requirements
are followed and that any needed corrective actions are taken.
Therefore, this proposed rule contains monitoring requirements that are
sufficient to assure compliance with the proposed rule.
    As part of the first factor, in addition to monitoring, we have
considered the extent to which title V could potentially enhance
compliance for area sources covered by this proposed rule through
recordkeeping or reporting requirements. We have considered the various
title V recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including
requirements for a 6-month monitoring report, deviation reports, and an
annual certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6. For any affected area
source in this category, this proposed rule would require an Initial
Notification and a Notification of Compliance Status. In addition,
owners or operators or affected facilities must maintain records that
show on-going compliance with the emission limits and the established
monitoring parameters. The information in the semi-annual compliance
reports is consistent with the information that must be provided in the
monitoring reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3).
    We acknowledge that title V might impose additional compliance
requirements on this category, but we believe the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this proposed NESHAP for
the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing source
category would be sufficient to assure compliance with the provisions
of this NESHAP, and title V would not significantly improve those
compliance requirements.
    For the second factor, we determined whether title V permitting
would impose a significant burden on the area sources in the category
and whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the
source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency.
Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and
costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. EPA estimated
that the average cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit
was $65,700 per source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. See
Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit
Regulations, June 2007, EPA ICR Number 1587.07. EPA does not have
specific estimates for the burdens and costs of permitting these
specific types of area sources; however, there are certain activities
associated with the part 70 and 71 rules. These activities are
mandatory and impose burdens on the facility. They include reading and
understanding permit program guidance and regulations; obtaining and
understanding permit application forms; answering follow-up questions
from permitting authorities after the application is submitted;
reviewing and understanding the permit; collecting records; preparing
and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-month or more frequent basis;
preparing and submitting prompt deviation reports, as defined by the
State, which may include a combination of written, verbal, and other
communications methods; collecting information, preparing, and
submitting the annual compliance certification; preparing applications
for permit revisions every 5 years; and, as needed, preparing and
submitting applications for permit revisions. In addition, although not
required by the permit rules, many sources obtain the contractual
services of consultants to help them understand and meet the permitting
program's requirements. The ICR for part 70 provides additional
information on the overall burdens and costs, as well as the relative
burdens of each activity described here. Also, for a more comprehensive
list of requirements imposed on part 70 sources (hence, burden on
sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
    In assessing the second factor for facilities affected by this
proposal, approximately 33 currently have title V permits leaving
approximately 42 facilities that do not. Based upon the permits
reviewed for this proposed rulemaking, we believe that none of the
facilities that currently have title V permits are small entities.
There are approximately 11 facilities owned and operated by small
entities. As discussed above, title V permitting would impose
significant costs on these area sources, and, accordingly, we conclude
that title V is a significant burden for sources in this category.
Furthermore, given the number of sources in the category that currently
do not have a title V permit, it may be difficult for them to obtain
sufficient assistance from the permitting authority. Thus, we conclude
that factor two supports title V exemption for this category.
    The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance
likely to occur for such sources. As explained above for the second
factor, the costs of compliance with title V would impose a significant
burden on facilities that do not currently have title V operating
permits. Although title V might impose additional requirements, we
believe in considering the first factor the monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements in this proposed NESHAP assure compliance
with the emission standards imposed in the NESHAP as proposed. In
addition, in our consideration of the fourth factor, we find that there
are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place to assure
compliance with the NESHAP. Because the costs, both economic and non-
economic, of compliance with title V are high for any small entity, and
the potential for gains in compliance is low, title V permitting is not
justified for this source category. Accordingly, the third factor
supports title V exemptions for this area source category.
    The fourth factor we considered in determining if title V is
unnecessarily burdensome is whether there are implementation and
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance
with the NESHAP without relying on title V permits. EPA has implemented
regulations that provide States the opportunity to take delegation of
area source NESHAP, and we believe that States' delegated programs are
sufficient to assure compliance with this NESHAP. See 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E (States must have adequate programs to enforce the section
112 regulations and provide assurances that they will enforce the
NESHAP before EPA will delegate the program). We also noted that EPA
retains authority to enforce this NESHAP anytime under CAA sections
112, 113 and 114. Also, States and EPA often conduct voluntary
compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs (compliance
assistance programs), which are not required by statute. We determined
that these additional programs will supplement and enhance the success
of compliance with these proposed standards. We believe that the
statutory requirements for implementation and enforcement of this
NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA and the additional assistance
programs described above together are sufficient to assure compliance
with

these proposed standards without relying on title V permitting.
    In light of all the information presented here, we believe that
there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are
sufficient to assure compliance with the proposed standards without
relying on title V permitting.
    Balancing the four factors for this area source category strongly
supports the proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome
in this situation. While title V might add additional compliance
requirements if imposed, we believe that there would not be significant
improvements to the compliance requirements in this proposed rule
because the proposed rule requirements are specifically designed to
assure compliance with the emission standards imposed on this area
source category. We further maintain that the costs of compliance with
title V would impose a significant burden on the 42 facilities that do
not currently have a title V permit. We determined that the high
relative costs would not be justified given that there is likely to be
little or no potential gain in compliance if title V permitting were
required. And, finally, there are adequate implementation and
enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with these proposed
standards. Thus, we propose that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' for this area source category.
    In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' EPA also considered,
consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section
502(a), whether exempting this area source category from title V
requirements would adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment. Exemption of this area source category from title V
requirements would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment because the level of control would remain the same if a
permit were required. The title V permit program does not impose new
substantive air quality control requirements on sources, but instead
requires that certain procedural measures be followed, particularly
with respect to determining compliance with applicable requirements. As
stated in our consideration of factor one for this category, title V
would not lead to significant improvements in the compliance
requirements applicable to existing or new area sources.
    Furthermore, we explained in the Exemption Rule that requiring
permits for a relatively small number of area source facilities subject
to these proposed standards could, at least in the first few years of
implementation, potentially adversely affect public health, welfare, or
the environment by shifting State agency resources away from assuring
compliance for major sources with existing permits to issuing new
permits for these area sources, potentially reducing overall air
program effectiveness. Based on the above analysis, we conclude that
title V exemptions for these area sources will not adversely affect
public health, welfare, or the environment for all of the reasons
explained above.
    For the reasons stated here, we are proposing to exempt this area
source category from title V permitting requirements.

V. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed Standards

A. What are the air impacts?

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

B. What are the cost impacts?

    We believe that all asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities will be able to meet the proposed standards
using existing controls; some facilities may need to conduct emission
tests to demonstrate compliance. Therefore, no additional air pollution
control devices would be required. However, we have assumed that 38
facilities (50 percent) will need to install a pressure drop monitoring
system for existing controls. No other capital costs are associated
with this proposed rule and no new operational and maintenance costs
are expected because, absent any data to demonstrate otherwise, we have
assumed that existing facilities are already following the
manufacturer's instructions for operation and maintenance of pollution
control devices and systems.
    The annual cost of monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping for
this proposed rule is estimated at approximately $3,000 per facility
per year for the first 3 years following promulgation. The costs are
expected to be less than 1 percent of revenues. The annual estimate
includes 8 hours per facility per year for preparing semiannual
compliance reports.
    The total number of labor hours for the first 3 years following
promulgation in this annual cost estimate is 12,442 hours. This total
includes 173 hours industry-wide for preparation of the Initial
Notification in the first year and 173 hours industry-wide for
preparation of the Notification of Compliance Status in the first year.
The average total labor hour burden in the first year is 71 hours per
facility, which include 15 hours per facility for monitoring
activities.
    Information on our cost impact estimates on the sources is
available in the docket for this proposed rule. (See Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0027).

C. What are the economic impacts?

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

D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy impacts?

    No detrimental secondary impacts are expected to occur from the
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing sources because
all facilities are currently achieving the GACT level of control. No
additional solid waste would be generated as a result of the PAH and PM
emissions collected and there are no additional energy impacts
associated with the

operation of control devices or monitoring systems for the asphalt
refining and asphalt roofing manufacturing sources. We expect no
increase in the generation of wastewater or other water quality
impacts. None of the control measures considered for this proposed rule
generates a wastewater stream.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2352.01.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this proposed rule
are based on the requirements in EPA's NESHAP General Provisions (40
CFR part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting requirements
in the General Provisions are mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than emissions data
submitted to EPA pursuant to the information collection requirements
for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according
to CAA section 114(c) and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40
CFR part 2, subpart B.
    This proposed NESHAP would require asphalt roofing manufacturing
area sources to submit an Initial Notification and a Notification of
Compliance Status and to conduct continuous parametric monitoring and
submit semi-annual compliance reports according to the requirements in
40 CFR 63.9 of the General Provisions (subpart A). The annual burden
for this information collection averaged over the first three years of
this ICR is estimated to be a total of 4,147 labor hours per year at a
cost of $224,085 or approximately $3,000 per facility.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0027]. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after July 9, 2009, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it by August 10, 2009. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed area
source NESHAP on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A
small business that meets the Small Business Administration size
standards for small businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 750
for NAICS 324122); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district, or special
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule is estimated to impact all new and existing asphalt
roofing manufacturing area source facilities. We estimate that 11
facilities are owned by small entities. Although some small entities
may incur capital costs to install additional monitoring equipment
(e.g., pressure drop monitoring system for existing controls), we have
determined that small entity compliance costs, as assessed by the
facilities' cost-to-sales ratio, are expected to be less than 1
percent. The costs are so small that the impact is not expected to be
significant. Although this proposed rule contains requirements for new
area sources, we are not aware of any new area sources being
constructed now or planned in the next year, and consequently, we did
not estimate any impacts for new sources.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
standards represent practices and controls that are common throughout
the asphalt roofing manufacturing industry. The standards also require
only the essential recordkeeping and reporting needed to demonstrate
and verify compliance. These standards were developed based on
information obtained for small businesses in the data provided by ARMA
and obtained through online permit database searches, consultation with
small business representatives on the State and national level, and
industry representatives that are affiliated with small businesses.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed action on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, and tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local,
tribal governments or the private sector.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The proposed rules
contain no requirements that apply to such governments, and impose no
obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to

ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule does not
impose any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action
would not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. The action imposes requirements on owners
and operators of specified area sources and not tribal governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on
technology performance.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this
proposed rule is not likely to have any adverse energy impacts.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable VCS.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA
proposes in this rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G,
3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5A, and 23. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted
searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in addition to these
EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were
identified.
    Under Sec.  63.7(f) and Sec.  63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative
test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any
required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of this proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This proposed rule will establish national standards
for the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area
source category.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: July 2, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

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

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart AAAAAAA to read as follows:

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

Sec.
63.11559 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11560 What are my compliance dates?

Standards and Compliance Requirements

63.11561 What are my standards and management practices?
63.11562 What are my initial compliance requirements?
63.11563 What are my monitoring requirements?
63.11564 What are my notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?

Other Requirements and Information

63.11565 What General Provisions sections apply to this subpart?
63.11566 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11567 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

Tables

Table 1 to Subpart AAAAAAA--Emission Limits for Asphalt Processing
Operations

Table 2 to Subpart AAAAAAA--Emission Limits for Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing Operations

Table 3 to Subpart AAAAAAA--Test Methods

Table 4 to Subpart AAAAAAA--Operating Limits

Table 5 to Subpart AAAAAAA--Applicability of General Provisions to
Subpart AAAAAAA

Applicability and Compliance Dates

Sec.  63.11559  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an
asphalt processing operation and/or asphalt roofing manufacturing
operation that is an area source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions, as defined in Sec.  63.2.
    (b) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source as
defined in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
    (1) Asphalt processing. The affected source for asphalt processing
operations is the collection of all blowing stills, as defined in Sec.
63.11566, at an asphalt processing operation.
    (2) Asphalt roofing manufacturing. The affected source for asphalt
roofing manufacturing operations is the collection of all asphalt
coating equipment, as defined in Sec.  63.11566, at an asphalt roofing
manufacturing operation.
    (c) This subpart does not apply to hot mix asphalt plant operations
that are used in the paving of roads or hardstand, or operations where
asphalt may be used in the fabrication of a built-up roof.
    (d) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced
construction after July 9, 2009.
    (e) An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the criteria as
defined in Sec.  63.2.
    (f) An affected source is an existing source if it is not new or
reconstructed.
    (g) On and after [Insert date of publication of the final rule in
the FEDERAL REGISTER], if your asphalt processing or asphalt roofing
manufacturing operation becomes a major source, as defined in Sec.
63.2, you must meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL.
    (h) This subpart does not apply to research or laboratory
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act.
    (i) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required
to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a).
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with
the provisions of this subpart.

Sec.  63.11560  What are my compliance dates?

    (a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must be
in compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart no later
than [Insert date one year after publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register]. As specified in Sec.  63.11562(f), you must
demonstrate initial compliance within 180 calendar days after [Insert
date one year after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register].
    (b) If you own or operate a new affected source, you must be in
compliance with the provisions in this subpart on or before [Insert
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] or upon
startup, whichever date is later. As specified in Sec.  63.11562(g),
you must demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable emission
limits no later than 180 calendar days after [Insert date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] or within 180
calendar days after startup of the source, whichever is later.

Standards and Compliance Requirements

Sec.  63.11561  What are my standards and management practices?

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

Sec.  63.11562  What are my initial compliance requirements?

    (a) For asphalt processing operations, you must demonstrate
compliance with the emission limits specified in Table 1 of this
subpart by conducting emission tests using the methods specified in
Table 3 of this subpart.
    (b) For asphalt roofing manufacturing lines that include a
saturator, you must demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable
emission limits specified in Table 2 of this subpart by conducting
emission tests using the methods specified in Table 3 of this subpart.
    (c) For asphalt roofing manufacturing lines that do not include a
saturator, you must demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable
emission limits specified in Table 2 of this subpart by:
    (1) Conducting emission tests using the methods specified in Table
3 of this subpart, or
    (2) Using process knowledge and engineering calculations.
    (d) During the emission tests specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c)(1) of this section, you must establish the value of the monitoring
parameters specified in Table 4 to this subpart. If you are using
process knowledge and engineering calculations to demonstrate initial
compliance, as specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, you must
identify the process parameters and corresponding parameter values that
you will monitor and maintain to demonstrate continuous compliance.
    (e) As an alternative to the emission testing requirement specified
in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section, you may use the
results of a previously-conducted emission test to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limitations in this subpart for existing
sources if:
    (1) The test was conducted within the last 5 years;
    (2) No changes have been made to the process since the time of the
emission test;
    (3) The operating conditions and test methods used for the previous
test conform to the requirements of this subpart; and
    (4) The control device and process parameter values established
during the previously-conducted emission test are used to demonstrate
continuous compliance with this subpart.
    (f) For existing sources, you must demonstrate initial compliance
no later than 180 calendar days after [Insert date one year after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register].
    (g) For new sources, you must demonstrate initial compliance no
later than 180 calendar days after [Insert date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register] or within 180 calendar days after
startup of the source, whichever is later.
    (h) For emission tests conducted to demonstrate initial compliance
with the emission limits specified in Tables 1 and 2, you must follow
the requirements specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(5) of this
section.
    (1) You must conduct the tests under conditions that represent
normal operation. You may not conduct performance tests during periods
of

startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(1).
    (2) You must conduct a minimum of three separate test runs for each
performance test required in this section, as specified in Sec.
63.7(e)(3). The sampling time and sample volume of each test run must
be as follows:
    (i) For asphalt processing operations, the sampling time and sample
volume for each test run must be at least 90 minutes or the duration of
the coating blow or non-coating blow, whichever is greater, and 2.25
dscm (79.4 dscf).
    (ii) For asphalt coating operations, the sampling time and sample
volume for each test run must be at least 120 minutes and 3.00 dscm
(106 dscf).
    (3) For asphalt processing operations, you must use the following
equations to calculate the asphalt charging rate (P).
    (i) P=(Vd)/(K' [Theta])

Where:

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

Where:

d = Density of the asphalt, kg/m\3\ (lb/ft\3\)
K1= 1056.1 kg/m\3\ (metric units)
= 64.70 lb/ft\3\ (English Units)
K2= 0.6176 kg/(m\3\ [deg]C) (metric units)
= 0.0694 lb/(ft\3\ [deg]F) (English Units)
Ti= temperature at the start of the blow, [deg]C ([deg]F)

    (4) You must use the following equation to demonstrate compliance
with the emission limits specified in Table 2 of this subpart:

E = [(C)*(Q)/(P)*(K)]

Where:

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

    (5) For coating operations, you must conduct the performance test
while manufacturing one of the following final products:
    (i) A 106.6-kg (235-lb) shingle or mineral-surfaced roll roofing.
    (ii) A 6.8-kg (15-lb) saturated felt or smooth-surfaced roll
roofing.
    (iii) A 100-kg (220-lb) fiberglass shingle.

Sec.  63.11563  What are my monitoring requirements?

    (a) If you are using a control device to comply with the emission
limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this subpart, you must establish
site-specific control device parameter values during the initial
emission test and maintain those parameters as specified in Table 4 of
this subpart.
    (b) If you are using an emission test to demonstrate that no add-on
control devices are required to comply with the emission limits
specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this subpart, you must establish site-
specific process parameter values during the initial emission test and
maintain those parameters as specified in Table 4 of this subpart.
    (c) If you are using means other than those listed in paragraphs
(a) or (b) of this section to comply with the emission limits specified
in Tables 1 and 2 of this subpart, you must apply to the Administrator
for approval of an alternative monitoring plan under Sec.  63.8(f). The
plan must specify how process parameters identified in the initial
compliance demonstration under Sec.  63.11562(c)(2) will be monitored
and maintained to demonstrate continuous compliance.
    (d) If you are using a control device to comply with the emission
limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this subpart, you must install,
operate, and maintain a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS)
as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) of this section.
    (1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period.
    (2) To determine the 3-hour average, you must:
    (i) Have a minimum of four successive cycles of operation to have a
valid hour of data.
    (ii) Have valid data from at least three of four equally spaced
data values for that hour from a CPMS that is not out-of-control
according to your site-specific monitoring plan.
    (iii) Determine the 3-hour average of all recorded readings for
each operating day, except as stated in paragraph (b) of this section.
You must have at least two of the three hourly averages for that period
using only hourly average values that are based on valid data (i.e.,
not from out-of-control periods).
    (3) You must record the results of each inspection, calibration,
and validation check of the CPMS.
    (e) For each temperature monitoring device, you must meet the CPMS
requirements in paragraph (d) of this section and the following:
    (1) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a
representative temperature.
    (2) For a noncryogenic temperature range, use a temperature sensor
with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2.8 [deg]C or 1.0 percent of
the temperature value, whichever is larger.
    (3) If a chart recorder is used, the recorder sensitivity in the
minor division must be at least 20 [deg]F.
    (4) Perform an accuracy check at least semiannually or following an
operating parameter deviation:
    (i) According to the procedures in the manufacturer's
documentation; or
    (ii) By comparing the sensor output to redundant sensor output; or
    (iii) By comparing the sensor output to the output from a
calibrated temperature measurement device; or
    (iv) By comparing the sensor output to the output from a
temperature simulator.
    (5) Conduct accuracy checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature range or install
a new temperature sensor.
    (6) At least quarterly or following an operating parameter
deviation, perform visual inspections of components if redundant
sensors are not used.
    (f) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the CPMS
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section and the following:
    (1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in, or as close as possible, to a
position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure.
    (2) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.12
kiloPascals or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 5
percent of the pressure range.
    (3) Check pressure tap pluggage daily. Perform an accuracy check at
least quarterly or following an operating parameter deviation:
    (i) According to the manufacturer's procedures; or
    (ii) By comparing the sensor output to redundant sensor output.
    (4) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a
new pressure sensor.
    (5) At least monthly or following an operating parameter deviation,
perform a leak check of all components for integrity, all electrical
connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage.
    (6) At least quarterly or following an operating parameter
deviation, perform visible inspections on all components if redundant
sensors are not used.

    (g) For each electrostatic precipitator (ESP) used to control
emissions, you must install and operate a CPMS to provide
representative measurements of the voltage supplied to the ESP.
    (h) As an alternative to installing the CPMS specified in paragraph
(d) of this section, you may install a continuous emissions monitoring
system (CEMS) that meets the requirements specified in Sec.  63.8 and
the applicable performance specifications of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
B.
    (i) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or
operating levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling a minimum
data availability requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data
collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the
control device and associated control system.
    (j) For each monitoring system required in this section, you must
develop and make available for inspection by the permitting authority,
upon request, a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses the
following:
    (1) Installation of the CPMS or CEMS sampling probe or other
interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process
unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the
exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last control device);
    (2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer,
and the data collection and reduction system; and
    (3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations).
    (k) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address
the following:
    (1) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii),
(c)(7), and (c)(8);
    (2) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d); and
    (3) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec.  63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
    (l) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CPMS or CEMS
in accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
    (m) You must operate and maintain the CPMS or CEMS in continuous
operation according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
    (n) At all times the owner or operator must operate and maintain
any affected source, including associated air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The
general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or
operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels
required by this standard have been achieved. Determination of whether
such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based
on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection
of the source.

Sec.  63.11564  What are my notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?

    (a) You must submit the notifications specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(6) of this section.
    (1) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.  63.5(b),
63.7(b); 63.8(e) and (f); 63.9(b) through (e); and 63.9(g) and (h) that
apply to you by the dates specified in those sections.
    (2) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2), if you have an existing
affected source, you must submit an Initial Notification not later than
120 calendar days after [Insert date of publication].
    (3) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(4) and (5), if you have a new
affected source, you must submit an Initial Notification not later than
120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.
    (4) You must submit a notification of intent to conduct a
performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test
is scheduled to begin, as required in Sec.  63.7(b)(1).
    (5) You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according
to Sec.  63.9(h)(2)(ii). You must submit the Notification of Compliance
Status, including the 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).
    (6) 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, you must submit the test data in
lieu of the initial performance test results with the Notification of
Compliance Status required under paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
    (b) You must submit a compliance report as specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section.
    (1) During periods for which there are no deviations from any
emission limitations (emission limit or operating limit) that apply to
you, the compliance report must contain the information specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(1)(v) of this section.
    (i) Company name and address.
    (ii) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
    (iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the
reporting period.
    (iv) A statement that there were no deviations from the emission
limitations during the reporting period.
    (v) If there were no periods during which the CPMS or CEMS was out-
of-control as specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), a statement that there
were no periods during which the CPMS or CEMS was out-of-control during
the reporting period.
    (2) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit
and operating limit), including periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction, you must include the information in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section.
    (i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (ii) The date and time that each CPMS or CEMS was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (iii) The date, time and duration that each CPMS or CEMS was out-
of-control, including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (iv) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period.
    (v) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (vi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
    (vii) A summary of the total duration of CPMS or CEMS downtime
during the reporting period and the total duration of CPMS or CEMS
downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during that
reporting period.
    (viii) An identification of each air pollutant that was monitored
at the affected source.

    (ix) A brief description of the process units.
    (x) A brief description of the CPMS or CEMS.
    (xi) The date of the latest CPMS or CEMS certification or audit.
    (xii) A description of any changes in CPMS, CEMS, processes, or
controls since the last reporting period.
    (3) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each report
in Table 4 to this subpart and according to the following dates:
    (i) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.11560 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the first calendar half after the
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec.  63.11560.
    (ii) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the
first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for
your affected source in Sec.  63.11560.
    (iii) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (iv) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
    (c) You must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(7) of this section.
    (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) Records of performance tests and performance evaluations as
required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (3) Documentation identifying the emissions limit of the compliance
alternative specified in Sec.  63.11561(c)(1) or (c)(2), if an
alternative is used, and the calculations that show that the emission
reductions achieved by the compliance alternative are at least as
stringent as those achieved by complying with the applicable emission
limits specified in Sec.  63.11561(a) and (b).
    (4) Calculations and supporting documentation that shows compliance
with the applicable emission limits specified in Table 2 of this
subpart if the initial compliance demonstration is based upon process
knowledge and engineering calculations as specified in Sec.
63.11562(c)(2).
    (5) Documentation that shows that the following conditions are
true, if you use a previously-conducted emission test to demonstrate
initial compliance as specified in Sec.  63.11562(d):
    (i) The test was conducted within the last 5 years;
    (ii) No changes have been made to the process since the time of the
emission test;
    (iii) The operating conditions and test methods used for the
previous test conform to the requirements of this subpart; and
    (iv) The control device and process parameter values established
during the previously-conducted emission test are used to demonstrate
continuous compliance with this subpart.
    (6) A copy of the approved alternative monitoring plan required
under Sec.  63.11563(c).
    (7) Records required in Table 4 to this subpart to show continuous
compliance with each operating limit that applies to you.

Other Requirements and Information

Sec.  63.11565   What General Provisions sections apply to this
subpart?

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

Sec.  63.11566   What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Asphalt flux means the organic residual material from distillation
of crude oil that is generally used in asphalt roofing manufacturing
and paving and non-paving asphalt products.
    Asphalt coating equipment means the saturators, coating mixers, and
coaters used to apply asphalt to substrate to manufacture roofing
products (e.g., shingles, roll roofing).
    Asphalt processing operation means any operation engaged in the
preparation of asphalt flux at stand-alone asphalt processing
facilities, petroleum refineries, and asphalt roofing facilities.
Asphalt preparation, called ``blowing,'' is the oxidation of asphalt
flux, achieved by bubbling air through the heated asphalt, to raise the
softening point and to reduce penetration of the oxidized asphalt. An
asphalt processing facility includes one or more asphalt flux blowing
stills.
    Asphalt roofing manufacturing operation coating equipment means the
collection of equipment used to manufacture asphalt roofing products
through a series of sequential process steps. The equipment
configuration of an asphalt roofing manufacturing process varies
depending upon the type of substrate used (i.e., organic or inorganic).
For example, an asphalt roofing manufacturing line that uses organic
substrate (e.g., felt) typically would consist of a saturator (and wet
looper), coating mixer, and coater (although the saturator could be
bypassed if the line manufacturers multiple types of products). An
asphalt roofing manufacturing line that uses inorganic (fiberglass mat)
substrate typically would consist of a coating mixer and coater.
    Blowing still means the equipment in which air is blown through
asphalt flux to change the softening point and penetration rate of the
asphalt flux, creating oxidized asphalt.
    Coater means the equipment used to apply amended (filled or
modified) asphalt to the top and bottom of the substrate (typically
fiberglass mat) used to manufacture shingles and rolled roofing
products.
    Coating mixer means the equipment used to mix coating asphalt and a
mineral stabilizer, prior to applying the stabilized coating asphalt to
the substrate.
    Responsible official is defined in Sec.  63.2.
    Saturator means the equipment in which substrate (predominantly
organic felt) is impregnated with asphalt. Saturators are predominantly
used for the manufacture of saturated felt products. The term saturator
includes the saturator and wet looper.

Sec.  63.11567   Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), or a delegated authority
such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA
Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal
agency, then that agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the
authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact
your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if implementation and
enforcement of this subpart is delegated.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the following authorities are retained by the Administrator
of U.S. EPA:

    (1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in Sec. Sec.
63.11559, 63.11560, 63.11561, 63.11562, and 63.11563.
    (2) Approval of major changes to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f) and
as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec.  63.10(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.

Tables to Subpart AAAAAAA of Part 63

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

   Table 2 to Subpart AAAAAAA of Part 63--Emission Limits for Asphalt
               Roofing Manufacturing (Coating) Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          For . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Coater-only production      a. Limit PAH emissions to 0.0002 lb/ton
 lines.                         of asphalt roofing product manufactured;
                                or
                               b. Limit PM emissions to 0.03 lb/ton of
                                asphalt roofing product manufactured.
2. Saturator-only production   a. Limit PAH emissions to 0.0004 lb/ton
 lines.                         of asphalt roofing product manufactured;
                                or
                               b. Limit PM emissions to 0.05 lb/ton of
                                asphalt roofing product manufactured.
3. Combined saturator/coater   a. Limit PAH emissions to 0.0006 lb/ton
 production lines..             of asphalt roofing product manufactured;
                                or
                               b. Limit PM emissions to 0.07 lb/ton of
                                asphalt roofing product manufactured.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

         Table 4 to Subpart AAAAAAA of Part 63--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     You must
    For this type of control       establish an     And maintain \b\ . .
         device . . .            operating value             .
                                  for \a\ . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thermal oxidizer...........  Combustion zone    The 3-hour average
                                 temperature.       combustion zone
                                                    temperature at or
                                                    above the operating
                                                    value established
                                                    during the initial
                                                    emission test.
2. High-efficiency air filter   a. Inlet gas       The 3-hour average
 or fiber bed filter.            temperature, and.  inlet gas
                                                    temperature at or
                                                    below the operating
                                                    value established
                                                    during the initial
                                                    emission test.
                                b. Pressure drop   The 3-hour average
                                 across device.     pressure drop across
                                                    device at or below
                                                    the operating value
                                                    established during
                                                    the initial emission
                                                    test.
3. Electrostatic precipitator   Voltage to the     The 3-hour average
 (ESP).                          ESP.               ESP voltage at or
                                                    above the operating
                                                    value established
                                                    during the initial
                                                    emission test.
4. Process equipment            Approved process   The monitoring
 management whereby no add-on    monitoring         parameters within
 control device is required.     parameters.        the operating values
                                                    established during
                                                    the initial emission
                                                    test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The operating limits specified in Table 4 are applicable if you are
  monitoring control device operating parameters to demonstrate
  continuous compliance. If you are using a CEMS, you must maintain
  emissions below the value established during the initial performance
  test. If you are using process modifications in lieu of a control
  device, you must maintain the approved process monitoring parameters
  below the values established during the initial performance test.
\b\ The 3-hour averaging period applies during operating conditions
  other than startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), as defined in
  Sec.   63.2. For an hour within which an SSM event occurs, a 24-hour
  average may be used for all 24 hour periods that include that hour.
  For all periods that do not include an hour within which an SSM event
  occurs, the 3-hour average must be used.

          Table 5 to Subpart AAAAAAA of part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart AAAAAAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Citation                                 Subject                    Applies to subpart AAAAAAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1...........................  Applicability.........................  Yes.
Sec.   63.2...........................  Definitions...........................  Yes.
Sec.   63.3...........................  Units and Abbreviations...............  Yes.

Sec.   63.4...........................  Prohibited Activities.................  Yes.
Sec.   63.5...........................  Construction/Reconstruction...........  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(a)-(d)....................  Compliance With Standards and           Yes.
                                         Maintenance Requirements.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)..................  Operation and Maintenance Requirements  No.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)-(iii)...........  Operation and Maintenance Requirements  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2).....................  [Reserved]                              ................................
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).....................  Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction      No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not
                                         Plan.                                   require startup, shutdown, and
                                                                                malfunction plans.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).....................  Compliance with Nonopacity Emission     No. The emission limits apply at
                                         Standards.                              all times.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3).................  Methods for Determining Compliance and  Yes.
                                         Finding of Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(h)........................  Opacity/Visible Emission (VE)           No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not
                                         Standards.                              contain opacity or VE
                                                                                standards.
Sec.   63.6(i)........................  Compliance Extension..................  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(j)........................  Presidential Compliance Exemption.....  Yes.
Sec.   63.7...........................  Performance Testing Requirements......  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1).....................  Applicability of Monitoring             Yes.
                                         Requirements.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2).....................  Performance Specifications............  Yes, if CEMS used.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3).....................  [Reserved]                              ................................
Sec.   63.8(a)(4).....................  Monitoring with Flares................  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1).....................  Monitoring............................  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3).................  Multiple Effluents and Multiple         Yes.
                                         Monitoring Systems.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1).....................  Monitoring System Operation and         Yes.
                                         Maintenance.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)..................  CMS maintenance.......................  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii).................  Spare Parts for CMS Malfunction.......  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)................  Compliance with Operation and           No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not
                                         Maintenance Requirements.               require startup, shutdown, and
                                                                                malfunction plans.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3).................  Monitoring System Installation........  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4).....................  CMS Requirements......................  No; Sec.   63.11563 specifies
                                                                                the CMS requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5).....................  COMS Minimum Procedures...............  No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not
                                                                                contain opacity or VE
                                                                                standards.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6).....................  CMS Requirements......................  No; Sec.   63.11563 specifies
                                                                                the CMS requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)-(8).................  CMS Requirements......................  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(d)........................  CMS Quality Control...................  No; Sec.   63.11563 specifies
                                                                                the CMS requirements.
Sec.   63.8(e)-(g)....................  CMS Performance Evaluation............  Yes.
Sec.   63.9...........................  Notification Requirements.............  Yes.
Sec.   63.10..........................  Recordkeeping and Reporting             Yes.
                                         Requirements.
Sec.   63.11..........................  Control Device and Work Practice        Yes.
                                         Requirements.
Sec.   63.12..........................  State Authority and Delegations.......  Yes.
Sec.   63.13..........................  Addresses of State Air Pollution        Yes.
                                         Control Agencies and EPA Regional
                                         Offices.
Sec.   63.14..........................  Incorporations by Reference...........  Yes.
Sec.   63.15..........................  Availability of Information and         Yes.
                                         Confidentiality.
Sec.   63.16..........................  Performance Track Provisions..........  No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E9-16260 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P