determine that title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a particular
area source category. Instead, the factors are to be considered in
combination and EPA determines whether the factors, taken together,
rather than on an individual basis, support an exemption from title V
for a particular source category.
    The commenter asserts that ``EPA must show * * * that the
``burden'' of compliance is unnecessary.'' This is not, however, one of
the four factors that we developed in the Exemption Rule in
interpreting the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502,
but rather a new test that the commenter maintains EPA ``must'' meet in
determining what is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' under CAA section 502.
The EPA did not re-open its interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' in CAA section 502 in the July 9, 2009 proposed rule for
the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source
category. Rather, we applied the four-factor balancing test articulated
in the Exemption Rule to the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing area source category and, on that basis, proposed to
exempt the

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

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

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

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

F. Definitions

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

G. Cost Impacts

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

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

H. Miscellaneous

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

VI. Summary of Impacts of the Final Standards

A. What Are the Air Impacts?

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

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

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

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

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

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

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

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

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

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

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

K. Congressional Review Act

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

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

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

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

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

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

Applicability and Compliance Dates

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

Standards and Compliance Requirements

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

Other Requirements and Information

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

Tables

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

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

Applicability and Compliance Dates

Sec.  63.11559  Am I Subject to this Subpart?

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

Sec.  63.11560  What are my Compliance Dates?

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

Standards and Compliance Requirements

Sec.  63.11561  What are my Standards and Management Practices?

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

Sec.  63.11562  What are my Initial Compliance Requirements?

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

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

Where:

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

    (ii) d = K1-K2Ti

Where:

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

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

Where:

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

Sec.  63.11563  What are my Monitoring Requirements?

    (a) You must maintain the operating parameters established under
Sec.  63.11562(a)(2), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (c)(2) as specified in Table
4 of this subpart.
    (b) If you are using a control device to comply with the emission
limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this subpart, you must develop
and make available for inspection by the delegated authority, upon
request, a site-specific monitoring plan for each monitoring system
that addresses the following:
    (1) Installation of the CPMS probe or other interface at a
measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that
the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions
(e.g., on or downstream of the last control device);
    (2) Performance and equipment specifications for the probe or
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer,
and the data collection and reduction system; and
    (3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations).
    (i) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address
the following:
    (A) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii),
(c)(7), and (c)(8);
    (B) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d); and
    (C) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec.  63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).

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

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

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

operating limits of this subpart, you must submit the test data in lieu
of the initial compliance test results with the Notification of
Compliance Status required under paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
    (b) You must submit a compliance report as specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section.
    (1) If you are using a control device to comply with the emission
limits, the compliance report must identify the controlled units (e.g.,
blowing stills, saturators, coating mixers, coaters). If you are not
using a control device to comply with the emission limits, the
compliance report must identify the site-specific process operating
parameters monitored to determine compliance with the emission limits.
    (2) During periods for which there are no deviations from any
emission limitations (emission limit or operating limit) that apply to
you, the compliance report must contain the information specified in
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of this section.
    (i) Company name and address.
    (ii) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
    (iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the
reporting period.
    (iv) A statement that there were no deviations from the emission
limitations during the reporting period.
    (v) If there were no periods during which the CPMS was out-of-
control as specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were
no periods during which the CPMS was out-of-control during the
reporting period.
    (3) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit
and operating limit), you must include the information in paragraphs
(b)(3)(i) through (b)(3)(xii) of this section.
    (i) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped.
    (ii) The date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (iii) The date, time and duration that each CPMS was out-of-
control, including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (iv) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period.
    (v) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (vi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
    (vii) A summary of the total duration of CPMS downtime during the
reporting period and the total duration of CPMS downtime as a percent
of the total source operating time during that reporting period.
    (viii) An identification of each air pollutant that was monitored
at the affected source.
    (ix) A brief description of the process units.
    (x) A brief description of the CPMS.
    (xi) The date of the latest CPMS certification or audit.
    (xii) A description of any changes in CPMS or controls since the
last reporting period.
    (4) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each report
specified in paragraph (b) of this section according to the following
dates:
    (i) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.11560 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the first calendar half after the
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec.  63.11560.
    (ii) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the
first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for
your affected source in Sec.  63.11560.
    (iii) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (iv) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
    (c) You must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(10) of this section.
    (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) Copies of emission tests used to demonstrate compliance and
performance evaluations as required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (3) Documentation that shows that the following conditions are true
if you use a previously-conducted emission test to demonstrate initial
compliance as specified in Sec.  63.11562(a)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(ii), and
(c)(1)(ii):
    (i) The test was conducted within the last 5 years;
    (ii) No changes have been made to the process since the time of the
emission test;
    (iii) The operating conditions and test methods used for the
previous test conform to the requirements of this subpart; and
    (iv) The data used to establish the value or range of values of the
operating parameters, as specified in Sec.  63.11562(a)(2)(ii),
(b)(2)(ii), or (c)(2)(ii), were recorded during the emission test.
    (4) Documentation that identifies the operating parameters and
values specified in Table 4 of this subpart and that contains the data
used to establish the parameter values as specified in Sec.
63.11562(a)(2), (b)(2), (b)(3), or (c)(2).
    (5) Copies of the written manufacturers performance specifications
used to establish operating parameter values as specified in Sec.
63.11562(b)(3)(iii).
    (6) Documentation of the process knowledge and engineering
calculations used to demonstrate initial compliance as specified in
Sec.  63.11562(e).
    (7) Documentation of the process knowledge and engineering
calculations used to establish the value or range of values of
operating parameters as specified in Sec.  63.11562(f).
    (8) A copy of the site-specific monitoring plan required under
Sec.  63.11563(b) or (l).
    (9) A copy of the approved alternative monitoring plan required
under Sec.  63.11563(m), if applicable.
    (10) Records of the operating parameter values required in Table 4
of this subpart to show continuous compliance with each operating limit
that applies to you.

Other Requirements and Information

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

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

Sec.  63.11566  What Definitions Apply to this Subpart?

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

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

Sec.  63.11567  Who Implements and Enforces this Subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), or a delegated authority
such as your State, local, or Tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA
Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or Tribal
agency, then that agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the
authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact
your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if implementation and
enforcement of this subpart is delegated.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or Tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the following authorities are retained by the Administrator
of U.S. EPA:
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in Sec. Sec.
63.11559, 63.11560, 63.11561, 63.11562, and 63.11563.
    (2) Approval of major changes to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f) and
as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec.  63.10(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
Tables

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

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

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

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

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

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

[FR Doc. E9-27946 Filed 12-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P