not identify cost-effective processes, practices, or control
technologies that would further reduce emissions and health risks from
asphalt loading racks, coating mixers, saturators (including wet
loopers), coaters, sealant applicators, adhesive (laminate)
applicators, and blowing stills, we are proposing that the current
NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
    Considering the results of our environmental risk screening, we do
not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions
from these source categories, and we are proposing that it is not
necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an
adverse environmental effect.

C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?

1. Introduction
    In section III.B of this preamble, we describe our typical approach
for conducting technology reviews and the types of information we
gather and evaluate as part of these reviews. In addition, as we
described in the preamble of the Coke Ovens RTR final rule published on
April 15, 2005 (70 FR 20009), and in the recent proposed RTR rule for
coatings operations titled National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Large Appliances; Printing, Coating,
and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture Residual Risk and Technology Reviews published on September
12, 2018 (83 FR 46262), we believe that the results of a CAA section
112(f) risk determination for a CAA section 112(d) standard should be
key factors in any subsequent CAA section 112(d)(6) determination for
that standard. In these two previous actions, the agency described
potential scenarios where it may not be necessary to revise the
standards based on developments in technologies, practices, or
processes if the remaining risks associated with HAP emissions from a
source category have already been reduced to a level where we have
determined further reductions under CAA section 112(f) are not
necessary. Under one scenario, if the ample margin of safety analysis
for the CAA section 112(f) determination was not based on the
availability or cost of particular control technologies, practices, or
processes, then advances in air pollution control technology,
practices, or processes would not necessarily be a cause to revise the
MACT standard pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), because the CAA
section 112(f) standard (or a CAA section 112(d) standard evaluated
pursuant to CAA section 112(f)) would continue to assure an adequate
level of safety. Under another scenario, if the ample margin of safety
analysis for a CAA section 112(f) standard (or a CAA section 112(d)
standard evaluated pursuant to CAA section 112(f)) shows that lifetime
excess cancer risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from a
source in the category is less than 1-in-1 million, and the remaining
risk associated with threshold pollutants falls below a similar
threshold of safety, then no further revision under CAA section
112(d)(6) would be necessary, because an ample margin of safety has
already been assured.

    As described in the risk review sections of this preamble (see
sections IV.A and IV.B), the risks due to HAP emissions from the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories
are low. The inhalation cancer MIR is below 1-in-1 million, the maximum
inhalation chronic noncancer HI is below 1, and the worst-case maximum
inhalation acute HQ is 4 (using the REL for formaldehyde). With regard
to multipathway risks, based on a Tier 2 screening assessment, we are
confident that the cancer risks due to multipathway exposures are lower
than 2-in-1 million and the noncancer HI is less than 1. Furthermore,
as described in our ample margin of safety analysis (see section IV.B
of this preamble), we concluded that risks are acceptable and the
current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public
health.
    We, therefore, solicit comment on whether revisions to the NESHAP
are ``necessary,'' as that term is used in CAA section 112(d)(6), in
situations such as this where the EPA has determined that CAA section
112(d) standards evaluated pursuant to CAA section 112(f) provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse
environmental effect. In other words, we solicit comment on the
conclusion that, if remaining risks associated with air emissions from
a source category have already been reduced to levels where we have
determined that further reductions are not necessary under CAA section
112(f), then it is not ``necessary'' to revise the standards based on
developments in technologies, practices, or processes under CAA section
112(d)(6). See CAA section 112(d)(6) (``The Administrator shall review,
and revise as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies), emissions standards promulgated
under this section no less often than every 8 years.'').
    Though we believe the results of the ample margin of safety
analysis may eliminate the need to revise the emissions standards based
on developments in technologies, practices, or processes, we
nonetheless conducted a technology review to determine whether any
developments to further reduce HAP emissions have occurred and to
consider whether the current standards should be revised to reflect any
such developments.
2. Sources of Emissions and the Information Considered in Our
Technology Review
    Sources of HAP emissions regulated by the NESHAP for the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories include
each blowing still, asphalt loading rack, and asphalt storage tank at
asphalt processing facilities and each coating mixer, coater,
saturator, wet looper, asphalt storage tank, and sealant and adhesive
applicator at asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities. Pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology review to determine
whether any developments have occurred since promulgation of the 2003
NESHAP that may warrant revisions to the current Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP.
    In conducting our technology review, we used and reviewed the RBLC
database, subsequent air toxic regulatory actions for other source
categories, information from site visits, and data submitted by
facilities in response to the CAA section 114 request (see sections
II.C and II.D of this preamble). The findings of our technology review
are described below. Further details are provided in the technical
memorandum titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Review for the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories,
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662, which is available in the docket
for this proposed rule.
3. Asphalt Loading Racks, Asphalt Storage Tanks, Coating Mixers,
Saturators (Including Wet Loopers), Coaters, Sealant Applicators, and
Adhesive Applicators
    After reviewing information from the aforementioned resources, we
did not find any developments (since promulgation of the original
NESHAP) in practices, processes, and control technologies that could be
applied to asphalt loading racks, asphalt storage tanks, coating
mixers, saturators (including wet loopers), coaters, sealant
applicators, or adhesive (laminate) applicators and that could be used
to reduce emissions from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities. We also did not identify any developments in
work practices, pollution prevention techniques, or process changes
that could achieve emission reductions from these emissions sources.
    We determined that the control technologies used to control stack
emissions from these emission sources have not changed since the EPA
promulgated the NESHAP on April 29, 2003 (68 FR 22975). In general,
facilities continue to use combustion technology to control organic HAP
emissions from asphalt loading racks and asphalt storage tanks in the
Asphalt Processing source category, and facilities in the Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing source category continue to use either combustion
technology or PM control devices to control organic HAP emissions from
coaters, saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, sealant and adhesive
applicators, and asphalt storage tanks.
    In light of the results of the technology review for asphalt
loading racks, asphalt storage tanks, coating mixers, saturators
(including wet loopers), coaters, sealant applicators, and adhesive
(laminate) applicators, we propose to conclude that no revisions to the
current standards are necessary for these emission sources pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6). For further details on the information,
assumptions, and methodologies used in this analysis, see the technical
memorandum titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Review for the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories,
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662. We solicit comment on our
proposed decision for these emission sources.
4. Blowing Stills
    The main HAP emitted from blowing stills are organic HAP (such as
formaldehyde, methylene chloride, phenol, POM, toluene) and HCl. We
evaluated potential developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies for these HAP.
    As previously discussed in the proposal for the original 40 CFR
part 63, subpart LLLLL, rulemaking standards (66 FR 58610), in asphalt
processing, heated asphalt flux is taken from storage and charged to a
heated blowing still where air is bubbled up through the flux. This
process raises the softening temperature of the asphalt. The blowing
process also decreases the penetration rate of the asphalt when applied
to the roofing substrate. Organic HAP volatilize and/or are formed
during asphalt processing because of the exothermic oxidation reactions
that occur in the blowing still. Facilities use thermal oxidizers to
control organic HAP emissions from these sources. We did not identify
any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies, nor
any developments in work practices, pollution prevention techniques, or
process changes to control organic HAP from blowing stills at asphalt
processing facilities.

    Some processing operations use a catalyst (e.g., ferric chloride,
phosphoric acid) in the blowing still that promotes the oxidation of
asphalt in the blowing still. The need to use a catalyst is primarily
driven by the type of feedstock used (i.e., certain feedstocks require
the catalyst to be used to attain desired product specifications). If
facilities use a chlorinated catalyst in the blowing still during
asphalt processing, then HCl emissions can result from (1) the
conversion of ferric chloride catalyst to ferrous chloride in the
blowing still, (2) HCl present in the ferric catalyst itself, (3) trace
amount of HCl present in the asphalt flux, and (4) oxidation of
chlorinated compounds by the blowing still thermal oxidizer.
    In addition to assessing developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for organic HAP emitted from blowing stills, the
EPA also elected to conduct a technology review for these HCl
emissions. Based on the responses to the EPA's CAA section 114 request
(see section II.C of this preamble for details about our CAA section
114 request), we determined that none of the 10 existing blowing stills
that use a chlorinated catalyst uses an air pollution control device
(APCD) to control HCl emissions. However, we identified two potential
HCl emission reduction options: (1) Installing a packed bed scrubber at
the outlet of the blowing still (or at the outlet of the combustion
device controlling organic HAP emissions) or (2) installing a dry
sorbent injection and fabric filter at the outlet of the blowing still.
Although the EPA previously considered (and rejected) the installation
of scrubbers to control HCl emissions from blowing stills under the
beyond-the-floor analysis for the original 2001 rulemaking proposal (66
FR 58610),\21\ we identified option 1 as a potential development in
practices, processes, and control technologies based on a response
received from the CAA section 114 request indicating that one facility
uses a caustic scrubber to control hydrogen sulfide (non-HAP) emissions
from one of their blowing stills. We believe that while the primary
purpose of the caustic scrubber is to reduce hydrogen sulfide
emissions, there is also likely a reduction in HCl emissions due to the
use of caustic as the scrubbing medium. We identified option 2 as a
potential development in practices, processes, and control technologies
because it reflects HCl control options used in EPA's New Source
Performance Standards and Emission Guidelines for Hospital/Medical/
Infectious Waste Incinerators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The EPA determined in the original 2001 proposal that no
facility was using scrubbers to control HCl emissions from blowing
stills, and scrubbers were not cost effective for controlling HCl
emissions from blowing stills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 of this preamble presents the nationwide impacts for the
two HCl emission reduction options considered for blowing stills. We
estimate the total capital costs for these controls would be about $7.4
million to $10.7 million with annualized costs of $1.4 million to $2.3
million. Based on available information, only three facilities in the
U.S. currently use the chlorinated catalyst. The cost estimates shown
in Table 3 reflect the total estimated costs for those three
facilities. Therefore, the average capital costs for option 1 would be
about $2,480,000 per facility, the average annualized costs would be
about $500,000 per facility, and the average HCl cost effectiveness
would be about $60,000 per ton. The costs for option 2 are higher.

  Table 3--Nationwide Emissions Reductions and Cost Impacts of Control Options Considered for Blowing Stills at
                                          Asphalt Processing Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                HCl cost
           Control option               Total capital     Total annualized     HCl emission    effectiveness ($/
                                        investment ($)      costs ($/yr)     reductions (tpy)         ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................          7,436,000          1,440,000                134             10,800
2...................................         10,719,000          2,337,000                127             18,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See the technical memorandum titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6)
Review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
Source Categories, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662 for details
regarding the information, assumptions, and methodologies used to
calculate these estimates. Given that the estimated risks due to HCl
emissions are low and based on the relatively high costs per facility
for each of the options, we propose to conclude that neither of these
options is necessary for reducing HCl emissions from blowing stills
that use chlorinated catalysts. In addition, we considered whether it
might be feasible for facilities that need to use a catalyst to use
non-chlorinated substitute catalysts. However, we did not identify a
viable non-chlorinated catalyst substitute. Therefore, in light of the
results of the technology review, we are proposing that it is not
necessary to promulgate an emissions standard in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart LLLLL, for blowing stills pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). We
solicit comment on our proposed decision.

D. What are the overall results of the risk and technology reviews?

    As noted in section IV.B of this preamble, we conclude that risks
are acceptable and that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of
safety to protect public health and prevents an adverse environmental
effect.
    Based on our technology review, we did not identify any
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that
warrant revisions to the NESHAP. Therefore, we propose that no
revisions to the NESHAP are necessary pursuant to sections 112(f) or
112(d)(6) of the CAA for HAP emitted from these source categories.

E. What other actions are we proposing?

    In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing
revisions to the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) provisions of
the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with the
Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement
to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission
standards during periods of SSM. We also are proposing revisions to
require electronic reporting of emissions test results and reports,
performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and Notification of
Compliance Status reports, to add an option for establishing the
maximum pressure drop across a control device used to comply with the
PM standards,

to add requirements for periodic performance testing, and to clarify
text or correct typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-
reference errors. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these
issues are discussed below.
1. SSM Requirements
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the
CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply
continuously.
a. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule,
which appears at 40 CFR 63.8685(a), as well as other provisions related
to that exemption as discussed below. Consistent with Sierra Club v.
EPA, we are proposing that the standards in this rule apply at all
times. We are proposing several revisions to Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL
of Part 63 (the General Provisions Applicability Table, hereafter
referred to as the ``General Provisions table to subpart LLLLL'') as is
explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing at 40 CFR
63.8685(c) to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions'
requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We are also proposing
to make 40 CFR 63.8691(d) no longer applicable beginning 181 days after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, which specifies
that deviations during SSM periods are not violations, and to remove
the portion of the ``deviation'' definition in 40 CFR 63.8698 that
specifically addresses SSM periods. We also are proposing to eliminate
and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to
the SSM exemption as further described below.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so. In proposing the removal of
the exemptions, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown
periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not proposed
alternate standards for those periods.
    We are proposing that startups and shutdowns are normal operation
for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source
categories; therefore, emissions from startup and shutdown activities
must be included when determining if all the standards are being
attained. We are proposing at 40 CFR 63.8685(a) that facilities must be
in compliance with the emission limitations (including operating
limits) in this subpart ``at all times,'' except during periods of
nonoperation of the affected source (or specific portion thereof)
resulting in cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies.
Similar language is also being proposed for 40 CFR 63.8690(b) and 40
CFR 63.8691(b) for monitoring and collecting data, and meeting
operating limits, respectively. We are proposing to clarify that the
standards and operating limits do not apply ``. . . during periods of
nonoperation of the affected source (or specific portion thereof)
resulting in cessation of the emissions . . .'' because industry
stakeholders requested this clarification in their responses to the CAA
section 114 request (see section II.C of this preamble), and this
language is used in other MACT standards (e.g., 40 CFR part 63, subpart
YY). Furthermore, based on the information we received for control
device operations from the responses to the CAA section 114 request
(see section II.C of this preamble), we concluded that control devices
can be operated normally during periods of startup or shutdown for
these source categories. Emission reductions from blowing stills,
storage tanks, saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, sealant
applicators, and adhesive applicators are typically achieved by routing
vapors to a combustion device (e.g., thermal oxidizer, flare, process
heater, or boiler) to meet a THC standard, or to a particulate control
device (e.g., high velocity air filter, electrostatic precipitator, or
fiberbed filter) to meet a PM standard. In some cases, the facility may
need to run a combustion device on supplemental fuel before there are
enough volatile organic compounds for the combustion to be (nearly)
self-sustaining. It is common practice to start a control device prior
to startup of the emissions source it is controlling, so the control
device would be operating before emissions are routed to it. We expect
control devices would be operating during startup and shutdown events
in a manner consistent with normal operating periods, and that these
control devices will be operated to maintain and meet the monitoring
parameter operating limits set during the performance test. We do not
expect startup and shutdown events to affect emissions from blowing
stills, storage tanks, saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, sealant
applicators, or adhesive applicators. Emissions generated during
startup and shutdown periods are the same or lower than during steady-
state conditions because the amount of feed materials (e.g., asphalt
flux or oxidized asphalt) introduced to the process during those
periods is lower compared to normal operations. Therefore, if the
emission control devices are operated during startup and shutdown, then
HAP emissions will be the same or lower than during steady-state
operating conditions.
    We are also proposing new related language in 40 CFR 63.8685(b) to
require that the owner or operator operate and maintain any affected
source, including air pollution control equipment and monitoring
equipment, at all times to minimize emissions. For example, in the
event of an emission capture system or control device malfunction for a
controlled operation, to comply with the proposed new language in 40
CFR 63.8685(b), the facility would need to cease the controlled
operation as quickly as practicable to ensure that excess emissions
during emission capture system and control device malfunctions are
minimized. See section IV.E.1.b.i of this preamble for further
discussion of this proposed revision.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards, and this
reading has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp.
v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions
standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level
``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source, and for existing
sources, generally, must be no less stringent than the average emission
limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of sources in
the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the
Agency to

consider malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved'' by the best
performing sources when setting emission standards. As the Court has
recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation achieved by the
best performing 12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how the
performance of the best units is to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of
Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards,
nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions
as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a
malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance
that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a
failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner,'' and
no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in
setting CAA section 112 standards.
    As the D.C. Circuit recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category, and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of
circumstances.''). As such, the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than
to `invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.' ''). See also,
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source
would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in
releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events
because we had information to determine that such work practices
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performing
sources. 80 FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will
consider whether circumstances warrant setting work practice standards
for a particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has
sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources
and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage
commenters to provide any such information.
    It is unlikely that a malfunction in the Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories would result in a
violation of the standard. Because a process malfunction could lead to
defective products, it would need to be corrected by the operators as
quickly as possible to minimize economic losses. Furthermore, a process
malfunction would not necessarily lead to an increase in the HAP
content of the asphalt flux or oxidized asphalt used in the process, or
the amount of HAP emitted from the process. Finally, a malfunction of
an emission capture system and control device in which the operator
responds by quickly ceasing the associated operation is also unlikely
to lead to a violation because compliance is based on a 3-hour average
compliance period.
    In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and
rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the
source's failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in
fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable, and was not
instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40
CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA's interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
CAA section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
b. Proposed Revisions Related to the General Provisions Applicability
Table
i. 40 CFR 63.8685(b) General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes''
in column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) would no longer
be applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register. Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty
to minimize

emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary
or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are
proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR
63.8685(b) that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while
eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The
current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general
duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM
exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations,
startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general
duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR
63.8685(b) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to
subpart LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) would be
no longer applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being
added at 40 CFR 63.8685(b).
ii. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 4 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require development
of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to make the current
provisions at 40 CFR 63.8685(c) requiring the SSM plan to no longer be
applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM
exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission
standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during
such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for
and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no
longer necessary.
iii. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) would no longer be
applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts
sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed
above, the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA vacated the exemptions contained
in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section
112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA,
the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all
times.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) would no longer be
applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts
sources from opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed
above, the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA vacated the exemptions contained
in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section
112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA
is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
iv. 40 CFR 63.8687 Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) would no longer be
applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register. We are also proposing to remove a similar
requirement at 40 CFR 63.8687(c). Section 63.7(e)(1) describes
performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a
performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.8687(b) applicable
beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. The performance testing requirements we are proposing to add
differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in
several respects. The proposed regulatory text does not include the
language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and
language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being
considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. The
proposed performance testing provisions will not allow performance
testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1),
performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted
during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often
not representative of normal operating conditions. 40 CFR 63.7(e)
requires that the owner or operator maintain records of process
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation. The EPA is proposing at 40 CFR
63.8687(b) to add language clarifying that the owner or operator must
make such records available to the Administrator upon request.
v. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing
the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and
(iii) would no longer be applicable beginning 181 days after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The cross-
references to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in those
subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other requirements of 40
CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR
63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control
program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
vi. 40 CFR 63.8694 Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes''
in column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) would no longer
be applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording
provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that
recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply
to startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions
applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown
plan, there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup
and shutdown periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) would
no longer be applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii)

describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction,
requiring a record of ``the occurrence and duration of each
malfunction.'' A similar recordkeeping requirement is already in 40 CFR
63.8694(a)(1), requiring owners and operators to retain a copy of each
compliance report; and we are proposing at 40 CFR 63.8693(d) that the
compliance report contain, amongst other data elements, a record of
``the date, time, and duration'' of each deviation from an emission
limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and visible emission limit. The
regulatory text we are proposing to add differs from the General
Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions requires the
creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of
each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment; however, the EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to
any failure to meet an applicable standard (e.g., any malfunction that
leads to a deviation from an emission limit, operating limit, opacity
limit, or visible emission limit) and is requiring that the source
record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the
``occurrence.'' For each deviation, the EPA is also proposing to add to
40 CFR 63.8693(d)(4) and (13) a requirement that sources include in
their compliance reports (and, therefore, keep records pursuant to 40
CFR 63.8694(a)(1)) a list of the affected source or equipment and
actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of
each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limitation for which
the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method
used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include
product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when
available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters.
The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this
information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the
EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to
provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to
minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable
standard.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the
``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) would
no longer be applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register. When applicable, the provision
requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions
were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.8693(d)(4) (i.e., the
requirement to include this information in each compliance report and
keep records pursuant to 63.8694(a)(1)).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes''
in column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) would no longer
be applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register. When applicable, the provision requires sources
to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken
were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    We are proposing to make the requirement in 40 CFR 63.8693(d)(4)
and at Table 6 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 that deviation records
specify whether deviations from a standard occurred during a period of
SSM (i.e., the requirement to include this information in each
compliance report and keep records pursuant to 40 CFR 63.8694(a)(1)) is
no longer applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register. This revision is being proposed due to
the proposed removal of the SSM exemption and because, as discussed
above in this section, we are proposing that deviation records must
specify the cause of each deviation, which could include a malfunction
period as a cause. We are also proposing to remove the requirement to
report the SSM records in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) by making
40 CFR 63.8694(a)(2) no longer applicable beginning 181 days after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
vii. 40 CFR 63.8693 Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) would no longer be
applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register. Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting
requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the
General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add
reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.8693. The replacement language
differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates
periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language
that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any
time to report the information concerning such events in the semi-
annual compliance report already required under this rule. The rule
currently requires reporting of the date and time of each deviation,
and a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations by cause. We
are clarifying in the rule that the cause of each deviation be
reported, and if the cause of a deviation from the standard is unknown,
this should be specified in the report. We are also proposing to make a
harmonizing change between provisions in the reporting section. In 40
CFR 63.8693(d)(1), (2), and (4), the current rule requires reporting of
the ``date and time'' of periods where a source deviates from a
standard; whereas 40 CFR 63.8693(d)(3) requires a record of the ``date,
time and duration'' of periods where a source deviates from a standard.
The EPA is proposing to change the terminology in 40 CFR 63.8693(d)(1),
(2), and (4) for periods where a source deviates from a standard, to
report the ``start date, start time, and duration'' of the deviation.
Note that ``date and time'' carries the same meaning as ``start date,
start time, and duration.'' We are proposing that the report must also
contain the number of deviations from the standard, a list of the
affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each
regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description
of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission
limitation for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, examples of
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment
based on known process parameters (e.g., asphalt HAP content and
application rates, and control efficiencies). The EPA is proposing this
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to

meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how
the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure
to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate (beginning 181 days after publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register) the requirement in paragraph 5.d at Table
6 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 and 40 CFR 63.8693(c)(4) that requires
reporting of whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including
required actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the cross
reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the
previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this
section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the
events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar
format and submittal requirements.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) would no longer be
applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register and remove the requirement in paragraph 6 at Table
6 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 for reasons discussed above; and because
40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable
standard but, did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require
owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan, because
plans would no longer be required.
    We are proposing to make the requirement in 40 CFR 63.8693(d)(4)
that deviation reports specify whether deviation from a standard
occurred during a period of SSM no longer applicable beginning 181 days
after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. This
revision is being proposed due to the proposed removal of the SSM
exemption and because, as discussed above in this section, we are
proposing that deviation reports must specify the cause of each
deviation, which could include a malfunction period as a cause.
Further, we are proposing to make the requirement in 40 CFR
63.8693(d)(6) that deviation reports must break down the total duration
of deviations into those that are due to ``startup'' and ``shutdown''
causes are no longer applicable beginning 181 days after publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register. These categories are no longer
needed because these periods are proposed to be considered normal
operation, as discussed in section IV.E.1.a of this preamble.
2. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that beginning 181 days
after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, owners and
operators of asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing
facilities submit electronic copies of required performance test
reports, performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and
Notification of Compliance Status reports through the EPA's Central
Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI). A description of the electronic data submission
process is provided in the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662. The proposed rule
requires that performance test results collected using test methods
that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as
listed on the ERT website \22\ at the time of the test be submitted in
the format generated through the use of the ERT, and that other
performance test results be submitted in portable document format (PDF)
using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance
evaluation results of continuous monitoring systems measuring relative
accuracy test audit pollutants that are supported by the ERT at the
time of the test must be submitted in the format generated through the
use of the ERT and other performance evaluation results be submitted in
PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For compliance reports, the proposed rule requires that owners and
operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit
information to CEDRI beginning 181 days after publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register. A draft version of the proposed template
for these reports is included in the docket for this rulemaking.\23\
The EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and
overall design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See
40_CFR_Part_63_Subpart_LLLLL_Asphalt_Processing_and_Asphalt_Roofing_M
anufacturing_Semiannual_Spreadsheet_Template_Draft.xlsm, available
at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance
in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the
reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The first
situation in which an extension may be warranted is due to outages of
the EPA's CDX or CEDRI that precludes an owner or operator from
accessing the system and submitting required reports is addressed in 40
CFR 63.8693(h). The second situation is due to a force majeure event,
which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by
circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its
contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to
submit a report electronically as required by this rule is addressed in
40 CFR 63.8693(i). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of
war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the
control of the facility.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements, and by facilitating the ability of delegated state,
local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is

consistent with the EPA's plan \24\ to implement Executive Order 13563
and is in keeping with the EPA's Agency-wide policy \25\ developed in
response to the White House's Digital Government Strategy.\26\ For more
information on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum
titled Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0662.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews,
August 2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \25\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \26\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Operating Limits for Control Devices Used To Comply With the
Particulate Standards
    As part of the CAA section 114 request (see section II.C of this
preamble), the EPA asked companies for suggestions to improve rule
implementation or facilitate compliance activities. In lieu of the
current requirement for facilities to set operating limits (i.e., the
maximum inlet gas temperature and maximum pressure drop across the
device) based on levels measured during a performance test for control
devices used to comply with the PM standards, several companies
requested that the EPA allow facilities to use manufacturers'
specifications to establish these site-specific operating limits. These
companies pointed out that the EPA allows owners and operators to use
manufacturers' specifications in the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing area source NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.11562(b)(3)(iii)
for control devices other than thermal oxidizers. These companies also
asserted that PM control devices achieve compliance with the PM
standards of the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
NESHAP across a broad range of temperatures and pressure drops, but it
is difficult to schedule testing dates that capture the maximum inlet
gas temperature and maximum pressure drop across the device (i.e., to
demonstrate compliance across the entirety of the effective ranges) due
to their dependence on ambient temperature and operating life of the
filter media.
    Based on this feedback, the EPA is proposing to add an option at 40
CFR 63.8689(d) and Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 to allow the use
of manufacturers' specifications to establish the maximum pressure drop
across the control device used to comply with the PM standards.
However, although the manufacturers' specification for temperature
would normally indicate proper operation of the control device, in this
rule PM is acting as a surrogate for organic emissions. The particulate
in question is condensed asphalt fumes, and formation of the PM and the
emissions of organic compounds are temperature dependent. Therefore,
instead of proposing the use of manufacturers' specifications for
temperature limits, but to still provide facilities some flexibility
with regard to an appropriate temperature range, the EPA is proposing
to add a footnote to Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 of the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP to allow owners and
operators to use the performance test average inlet temperature and
apply an operating margin of +20 percent to determine maximum inlet gas
temperature of a control device used to comply with the PM standards.
For example, during the three test runs conducted for an owner's or
operator's performance test that demonstrated compliance with the
emission limit, if the arithmetic average of the device inlet gas
temperature recorded was 100 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F), then under
this proposed option, the owner's or operator's maximum operating limit
for this control device would be 120 [deg]F, or +20 percent of 100
[deg]F. The +20 percent buffer addresses the high impact of ambient
conditions on the inlet temperature and removes some of the scheduling
uncertainty while still accounting for the temperature dependence of
emissions.
4. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations Using Periodic
Performance Testing
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance
demonstration requirements in the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP. Currently, the results of an initial
performance test are used to determine compliance with the standards;
however, the current NESHAP does not require on-going periodic
performance testing.
    As mentioned by the Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC) in
their comments on proposed revisions to the NESHAP General Provisions
(72 FR 69, January 3, 2007), ongoing maintenance and checks of control
devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions control technology
remains effective.\27\ To ensure ongoing compliance with the standards,
and given these comments from ICAC (suppliers of air pollution control
and monitoring technology) on the need for vigilance in maintaining
equipment to stem degradation, the EPA is proposing periodic
performance testing requirements at 40 CFR 63.8691(e) for each APCD
used to comply with the PM, THC, opacity, or visible emission
standards, in addition to the current one-time initial performance
testing and ongoing operating limit monitoring. We are proposing that
the performance tests must be conducted at least once every 5 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094-0173, available at
https://www.regulations.gov. A copy of the ICAC's comments on the
proposed revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For PM and THC standards, we are proposing that owners and
operators of asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing
facilities would conduct three 1-hour (or longer) test runs to measure
emissions according to 40 CFR 63.8687(d), and compliance would be
determined based on the average of the three test runs according to 40
CFR 63.7(e)(3). To measure PM, we are proposing at Table 3 to Subpart
LLLLL of Part 63 that owners and operators would use EPA Method 5A of
appendix A to 40 CFR part 60; and for THC emissions, we are proposing
at Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 that owners and operators would
use EPA Method 25A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 (with EPA Methods 3A
and 10 if owners and operators are complying with the combustion
efficiency standards or with EPA Methods 1-4 if meeting the THC
destruction efficiency standards), which are the methods currently
required for the initial compliance demonstration. To measure opacity,
we are proposing at Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 that owners and
operators would use EPA Method 9 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60; and
for visible emissions, we are proposing at Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of
Part 63 that owners and operators would use EPA Method 22 of appendix A
to 40 CFR part 60, which are also the methods currently required for
the initial compliance demonstration.
    Finally, we recognize some affected sources are used infrequently.
Therefore, we are proposing that owners and operators would not be
required to

restart an affected source for the sole purpose of complying with the
periodic performance testing. Instead, upon restart of the affected
source, we are proposing owners and operators conduct the first
periodic performance test within 60 days of achieving normal operating
conditions, but no later than 181 days from startup.
    See section IV.F of this preamble for a discussion of when we are
proposing that the first and subsequent periodic performance tests must
be performed.
    We estimated a cost for PM performance testing using EPA Test
Method 5A to be $16,500 for the first emission point, with an
additional cost of $11,100 for each additional emission point at a
facility. We estimated a cost for THC performance testing using EPA
Test Method 25A to range from $16,200 (if complying with the
concentration standard) to $20,750 (if complying with an efficiency
standard). We estimated a cost for opacity testing using EPA Test
Method 9 to be $1,500. Details of these cost estimates are included in
the memorandum titled Cost Impacts of Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing Risk and Technology Review Proposal in Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662. We solicit comment on our cost estimates for
conducting these tests.
5. Other Corrections
    There are several additional revisions that we are proposing to 40
CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL to clarify text or correct typographical
errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors. These proposed
editorial corrections and clarifications are summarized in Table 4 of
this preamble.

 Table 4--Summary of Proposed Editorial and Minor Corrections to 40 CFR
                         Part 63, Subpart LLLLL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Provision                        Proposed revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.8681(a) and (f), and      Remove duplicative cross-reference
 63.8683(c).                         to definition of major source and
                                     point directly to 40 CFR 63.2.
40 CFR 63.8683(d).................  Clarify which paragraphs of 40 CFR
                                     63.9 are applicable to be
                                     consistent with the General
                                     Provisions table to subpart LLLLL
                                     (Table 7).
40 CFR 63.8684....................  Revise heading to include ``and
                                     operating limits'' to clarify
                                     content of 40 CFR 63.8684.
40 CFR 63.8686....................  Revise heading to include
                                     ``initial'' to clarify content of
                                     40 CFR 63.8686.
40 CFR 63.8686(a).................  Clarify paragraph is applicable to
                                     initial performance tests.
40 CFR 63.8688(f) and               Clarify which paragraphs of 40 CFR
 63.8688(h)(1).                      63.8 are applicable to be
                                     consistent with the General
                                     Provisions table to subpart LLLLL
                                     (Table 7).
40 CFR 63.8688(h)(3)..............  Clarify which paragraphs of 40 CFR
                                     63.10 are applicable to be
                                     consistent with the General
                                     Provisions table to subpart LLLLL
                                     (Table 7). Also, for consistency,
                                     add references to reporting and
                                     recordkeeping sections of rule.
40 CFR 63.8691....................  Revise heading to ``How do I conduct
                                     periodic performance tests and
                                     demonstrate continuous compliance
                                     with the emission limits and
                                     operating limits?'' to clarify
                                     content of 40 CFR 63.8691.
40 CFR 63.8691(a).................  Replace the words ``test methods''
                                     with ``the procedures'' because
                                     Table 5 contains procedures not
                                     test methods.
40 CFR 63.8692(a).................  Delete the word ``of.''
40 CFR 63.8692(e).................  Clarify this paragraph is applicable
                                     to all compliance demonstrations
                                     (not just initial compliance
                                     demonstrations).
40 CFR 63.8693(d).................  Clarify paragraph applies to
                                     compliance reports.
40 CFR 63.8697(b)(1)..............  Clarify approval of alternatives to
                                     the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8684
                                     and 40 CFR 63.8685 are retained by
                                     the Administrator of U.S. EPA.
40 CFR 63.8698....................  Clarify definitions of ``adhesive
                                     applicator'' and ``sealant
                                     applicator'' that open pan-type
                                     applicators were part of the
                                     asphalt roofing manufacturing lines
                                     that were considered in the
                                     original MACT analysis, and, thus,
                                     subject to the emission
                                     limitations. See Docket Item No.
                                     EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0035-0009 titled
                                     Documentation of Existing and New
                                     Source Maximum Achievable Control
                                     Technology (MACT) Floors for the
                                     National Emission Standards for
                                     Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
                                     for Asphalt Processing and Roofing
                                     Manufacturing for descriptions of
                                     adhesive and sealant applicators.
Paragraph 1 of Table 1 to Subpart   Remove the duplicative reference to
 LLLLL of Part 63.                   Group 1 asphalt storage tanks at
                                     new and reconstructed asphalt
                                     roofing manufacturing lines and add
                                     the word ``asphalt'' to the
                                     phrasing ``roofing manufacturing
                                     lines.''
Footnote b of Table 1 to Subpart    Correct reference to paragraph 3.a
 LLLLL of Part 63.                   of Table 1 to Subpart LLLLL of Part
                                     63.
Paragraph 4 of Table 2 to Subpart   Clarify if owners and operators use
 LLLLL of Part 63.                   other control devices that are
                                     neither a combustion device or a
                                     control device used to comply with
                                     the PM emission standards, then row
                                     4 of Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of
                                     Part 63 applies.
Footnote a of Table 2 to Subpart    Correct reference to Table 2 to
 LLLLL of Part 63.                   Subpart LLLLL of Part 63.
Footnote c of Table 2 to Subpart    Replace the word ``of'' with ``to.''
 LLLLL of Part 63.
Paragraphs 11, 12, and 13 of Table  Clarify these paragraphs are
 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63.      applicable to all performance
                                     testing (not just initial
                                     performance testing).
Paragraph 13 of Table 3 to Subpart  Clarify if owners and operators use
 LLLLL of Part 63.                   other control devices that are
                                     neither a combustion device or a
                                     control device used to comply with
                                     the PM emission standards, then row
                                     13 of Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of
                                     Part 63 applies.
Footnote a of Table 3 to Subpart    Correct reference to alternative
 LLLLL of Part 63.                   option that allows results of a
                                     previously-conducted emission test
                                     to document conformance with the
                                     emission standards and operating
                                     limits of this subpart, and clarify
                                     this option is only applicable to
                                     initial performance testing.
Footnote c of Table 3 to Subpart    Replace the word ``of'' with ``to.''
 LLLLL of Part 63.

Table 4 to Subpart LLLLL of Part    Clarify table is applicable for both
 63.                                 initial and continuous compliance.
                                     Also, remove the word ``initial''
                                     in last column heading to clarify
                                     the requirements in the column are
                                     applicable to all performance
                                     testing (not just initial
                                     performance testing).
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Table 4 to    Correct reference to 40 CFR 63.8686.
 Subpart LLLLL of Part 63.
Paragraph 4 of Table 5 to Subpart   Clarify if owners and operators use
 LLLLL of Part 63.                   other control devices that are
                                     neither a combustion device or a
                                     control device used to comply with
                                     the PM emission standards, then row
                                     4 of Table 5 to Subpart LLLLL of
                                     Part 63 applies.
Footnote a of Table 5 to Subpart    Correct references to Tables 2 and
 LLLLL of Part 63.                   5, and references to 40 CFR 63.8690
                                     and 63.8(g)(1) through (4).
Footnote d of Table 5 to Subpart    Replace the word ``of'' with ``to.''
 LLLLL of Part 63.
Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL of Part    Correct typographical error to show
 63.                                 that 40 CFR 63.8(d) does apply.
                                     Note, the typographical error is
                                     inconsistent with 40 CFR
                                     63.8688(h)(2) which says 40 CFR
                                     63.8(d) applies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    For three of the proposed rule revisions--changes related to
removal of the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard
during SSM periods, changes related to removal of the requirement to
develop and implement an SSM plan, and addition of electronic reporting
requirements--we anticipate that facilities would need 180 days to
comply. This period of time will allow facilities to read and
understand the amended rule requirements, to evaluate their operations
to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup
and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments,
and to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary hardware and
software. The EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most
expeditious compliance period practicable for these source categories
and, thus, we are proposing that all affected sources must comply with
the revisions to the SSM provisions and electronic reporting
requirements no later than 181 days after the effective date of the
final rule, or upon startup, whichever is later. We specifically seek
comment on whether 180 days is enough time for owners and operators to
comply with these proposed amendments, and if the proposed time window
is not adequate, we request the commenter provide an explanation.
    Also, we are proposing new requirements to conduct on-going
periodic performance testing every 5 years (see section IV.E.4 of this
preamble). Establishing a compliance date earlier than 3 years for the
first periodic performance test can cause scheduling issues as affected
sources compete for a limited number of testing contractors.
Considering these scheduling issues, we are proposing that each
existing affected source, and each new and reconstructed affected
source that commences construction or reconstruction after November 21,
2001, and on or before [date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register] that uses an APCD to comply with the standards, must
conduct the first periodic performance test on or before [date 3 years
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] and
conduct subsequent periodic performance tests no later than 60 months
thereafter following the previous performance test. For each new and
reconstructed affected source that commences construction or
reconstruction after [date of publication of final rule in the Federal
Register] that uses an APCD to comply with the standards, we are
proposing that owners and operators must conduct the first periodic
performance no later than 60 months following the initial performance
test required by 40 CFR 63.8689 and conduct subsequent periodic
performance tests no later than 60 months thereafter following the
previous performance test. If owners and operators used the alternative
compliance option specified in 40 CFR 63.8686(b) to comply with the
initial performance test, then we are proposing that they must conduct
the first periodic performance no later than 60 months following the
date they demonstrated to the Administrator that the requirements of 40
CFR 63.8686(b) had been met.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

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

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The EPA estimates that annual HAP emissions from the eight asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities that are
subject to the NESHAP are approximately 255 tpy. Because we are not
proposing revisions to the emission limits, we do not anticipate any
air quality impacts as a result of the proposed amendments.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We estimate that the proposed amendments will result in a
nationwide net cost savings of $221,100 over the 5-year period
following promulgation of amendments. Because periodic performance
testing would be required every 5 years, we estimated and summarized
the cost savings over a 5-year period. The EPA believes that the eight
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities that
are known to be subject to the NESHAP can meet the proposed
requirements without incurring additional capital costs. Therefore, the
costs associated with the proposed amendments are related to
recordkeeping and reporting labor costs and periodic performance
testing. The proposed requirement for periodic testing of once every 5
years results in an estimated increase in costs of about $92,500 over
the 5-year period in addition to an estimated cost of about $3,300 for
reviewing the proposed amendments. However, the proposed changes to the
monitoring requirements

for PM control devices result in an estimated cost savings of about
$316,900 over the 5-year period. Therefore, overall, we estimate a net
cost savings of about $221,100 for the 5-year period. The proposed
amendments to the monitoring requirements are projected to alleviate
some need for asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities to have to
retest the PM control device for the sole purpose of reestablishing new
temperature and pressure drop operating limits, and to allow facilities
to extend filter replacement by 3 months. For further information on
the amendments being proposed, see section IV.E of this preamble. For
further information on the costs and cost savings associated with the
proposed amendments, see the memoranda, Cost Impacts of Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Risk and Technology Review
Proposal, and Economic Impact Analysis for Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP RTR Proposal, which are available
in the docket for this action. We solicit comment on these estimated
cost impacts.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    As noted earlier, we estimated a nationwide cost savings associated
with the proposed requirements over the 5-year period following
promulgation of these amendments. Therefore, we do not expect the
actions in this proposed rulemaking to result in business closures,
significant price increases, or substantial profit loss. For further
information on the economic impacts associated with the requirements
being proposed, see the memorandum, Economic Impact Analysis for
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP RTR
Proposal, which is available in the docket for this action.

E. What are the benefits?

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

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional
data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are
specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used
in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such
data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to
allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the
data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more
information on submitting data.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source categories
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP
emissions release point for the facilities in the source categories.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:
    1. Within the downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662 (through the method described in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
provided on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.

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

    This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The information
collection request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2029.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    We are proposing amendments that require periodic performance
testing, require electronic reporting, remove the malfunction
exemption, and impose other revisions that affect reporting and
recordkeeping for asphalt processing facilities and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities. This information would be collected to assure
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of asphalt
processing facilities and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart LLLLL).
    Estimated number of respondents: Eight (total).
    Frequency of response: Initial, semiannual, and annual.
    Total estimated burden: 69 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $53,800 (per year), which includes $46,300
annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs.
    The estimated costs described in this section of the preamble are
entirely offset by cost savings that are projected to alleviate some
need for asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities to have to retest a
PM control device for the sole purpose of reestablishing new

temperature and pressure drop operating limits; and allow facilities to
extend filter replacement by 3 months (see section V.C of this preamble
for details). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than June 3, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III.A and C and sections IV.A and B of this preamble, and are
further documented in the risk report, Residual Risk Assessment for the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories
in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule,
available in the docket for this action.

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

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

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

    This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems
Network Database managed by the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI). We also contacted voluntary consensus standards (VCS)
organizations and accessed and searched their databases. We conducted
searches for EPA Methods 3A, 5A, 9, 10, 22, and 25A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A. During the EPA's VCS search, if the title or abstract (if
provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and analytical
procedures that are similar to the EPA's reference method, the EPA
reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential
standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This
review requires significant method validation data that meet the
requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or
scientific, engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA
reference methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of
impracticality when additional information is available for particular
VCS.
    No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 5A and 22. The
following VCS were identified as acceptable alternatives to the EPA
test methods for the purpose of this rule.
    The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the VCS ASTM D7520-
2013 ``Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in
the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA
Method 9 with conditions. During the digital camera opacity technique
(DCOT) certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-
2013, you or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of
various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions
anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed
backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand). You must also have
standard operating procedures in place, including daily or other
frequency quality checks, to ensure the equipment is within
manufacturing specifications as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-
2013. You must follow the recordkeeping procedures outlined in 40 CFR
63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data sheets,
and all raw unaltered JPEG formatted images used for opacity and
certification determination. You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum
of four (4) independent technology users apply the software to
determine the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each
set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 15-percent opacity of any one
reading, and the average error must not exceed 7.5-percent opacity.
This approval does not provide or imply a certification or validation
of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain and verify
the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera, software, and
operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-2013 and this letter is on the
facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor. This method is available at
ASTM International, 1850 M Street NW, Suite 1030, Washington, DC 20036.
See https://www.astm.org/.

    Finally, the search identified 11 other VCS that were potentially
applicable for this rule in lieu of the EPA reference methods. After
reviewing the available standards, the EPA determined that 11 candidate
VCS identified for measuring emissions of pollutants or their
surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be
practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data,
and other important technical and policy considerations. Additional
information for the VCS search and determinations can be found in the
memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for
this action.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed
rulemaking, and, specifically, invites the public to identify
potentially applicable VCS, and to explain why the EPA should use such
standards in this regulation.

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

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: April 16, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:

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

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(95) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (95) ASTM D7520-13, Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity of a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved December
1, 2013. IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.1510(f), 63.1511(d),
63.1512(a), 63.1517(b) and 63.1625(b), and table 3 to subpart LLLLL.
* * * * *

Subpart LLLLL--[Amended]

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

Sec.  63.8681  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an
asphalt processing facility or an asphalt roofing manufacturing
facility, as defined in Sec.  63.8698, that is a major source as
defined in Sec.  63.2, or is located at, or is part of a major source
as defined in Sec.  63.2.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.8683 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.8683  When must I comply with this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its
potential to emit such that it becomes a (or part of a) major source as
defined in Sec.  63.2, then the following requirements apply.
    (d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec.  63.8692
according to the schedules in Sec. Sec.  63.8692 and 63.9(a) through
(f) and (h). Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are
required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.
0
5. Section 63.8684 is amended by revising the section heading to read
as follows:

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

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

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

    (a) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], you must be in compliance with the emission
limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at all times,
except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and
after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], you must be in compliance with the emission
limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at all times,
except during periods of nonoperation of the affected source (or
specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to
which this subpart applies.
    (b) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain your
affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring
equipment, according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i). On and
after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], at all times, you must operate and maintain any
affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment
and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good
air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general
duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further
efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable
standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is
operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements
will be based on information available to the Administrator that may
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance
records, and inspection of the affected source.
    (c) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], you must develop a written startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e)(3). On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE Federal

Register], a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.8686 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(3); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(4).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

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

    (a) For existing affected sources, you must conduct initial
performance tests no later than 180 days after the compliance date that
is specified for your source in Sec.  63.8683 and according to the
provisions in Sec.  63.7(a)(2).
    (b) As an alternative to the requirement specified in paragraph (a)
of this section, you may use the results of a previously-conducted
emission test to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations
in this subpart if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction
that:
    (1) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (3) The control device and process parameter values established
during the previously-conducted emission test are used to demonstrate
continuous compliance with this subpart; and
    (4) The previously-conducted emission test was completed within the
last 5 years.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.8687 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and removing
and reserving paragraph (c) to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (b) Each performance test must be conducted under normal operating
conditions and under the conditions specified in Table 3 to this
subpart. Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, or
nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions for purposes
of conducting a performance test. You may not conduct performance tests
during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information
that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and
explain why the conditions represent normal operation. Upon request,
you must make available to the Administrator such records as may be
necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.8688 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) and (h) to
read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (f) As an option to installing the CPMS specified in paragraph (a)
of this section, you may install a continuous emissions monitoring
system (CEMS) or a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) that
meets the applicable requirements in Sec.  63.8 according to Table 7 to
this subpart and the applicable performance specifications of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B.
* * * * *
    (h) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address
the following:
    (1) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii),
(c)(7), and (c)(8);
    (2) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d); and
    (3) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with Sec. Sec.  63.8693, 63.8694, and the general requirements of Sec.
63.10(e)(1) and (e)(2)(i).
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.8689 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (b) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, you must
establish each site-specific operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart
that applies to you according to the requirements in Sec.  63.8687 and
Table 3 to this subpart.
* * * * *
    (d) For control devices used to comply with the particulate matter
standards, you may establish the pressure drop across the control
device operating limit using manufacturers' specifications in lieu of
complying with paragraph (b) of this section.
0
11. Section 63.8690 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

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

* * * * *
    (b) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs,
and required quality assurance or control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required
intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating including
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction when the affected source
is operating. On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must monitor and collect data at all
times in accordance with Sec.  63.8685(b), except during periods of
nonoperation of the affected source (or specific portion thereof)
resulting in cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.8691 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (d); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (e).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

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

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating
limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the
procedures specified in Table 5 to this subpart, and you must conduct
performance tests as specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (b) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], you must report each instance in which you did not
meet each operating limit in Table 5 to this subpart that applies to
you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. These
instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart.
These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in
Sec.  63.8693. On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must report each instance in
which you did not meet each operating limit in Table 5 to this subpart
that applies to you, except during periods of nonoperation of the
affected source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of
the emissions to which this subpart applies.
* * * * *
    (d) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and
63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the

Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with
Sec.  63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will determine whether deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are
violations, according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e). On and after
[date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal
Register], this paragraph no longer applies.
    (e) For each control device used to comply with the PM, THC,
opacity, or visible emission standards of this subpart, you must
conduct periodic performance tests using the applicable procedures
specified in Sec.  63.8687 and Table 4 to this subpart to demonstrate
compliance with Sec.  63.8684(a), and to confirm or reestablish the
operating limits required by Sec.  63.8684(b). You must conduct
periodic performance tests according to the schedule specified in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, for
each existing affected source, and for each new and reconstructed
affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after
November 21, 2001 and on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], you must conduct the first periodic
performance test on or before [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] and conduct subsequent periodic
performance tests no later than 60 months thereafter following the
previous performance test.
    (2) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, for
each new and reconstructed affected source that commences construction
or reconstruction after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], you must conduct the first periodic performance no
later than 60 months following the initial performance test required by
Sec.  63.8689 and conduct subsequent periodic performance tests no
later than 60 months thereafter following the previous performance
test. If you used the alternative compliance option specified in Sec.
63.8686(b) to comply with the initial performance test, then you must
conduct the first periodic performance no later than 60 months
following the date you demonstrated to the Administrator that the
requirements of Sec.  63.8686(b) had been met.
    (3) If an affected source is not operating on the dates the
periodic performance test is required to be conducted as specified in
paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section, then you are not required to
restart the affected source for the sole purpose of complying with
paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section. Instead, upon restart of the
affected source, you must conduct the first periodic performance test
within 60 days of achieving normal operating conditions but no later
than 180 days from startup. You must conduct subsequent periodic
performance tests no later than 60 months thereafter following the
previous performance test.
0
13. Section 63.8692 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (e), and (f)
to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8692  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all the notifications in Sec. Sec.  63.6(h)(4)
and (5), 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f), and 63.9(b) through (f) and (h) that
apply to you by the dates specified.
* * * * *
    (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design
evaluation, opacity observation, visible emission observation, or other
compliance demonstration as specified in Table 3 or 4 to this subpart,
you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to Sec.
63.9(h)(2)(ii). You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status,
including the performance test results, before the close of business on
the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test
according to Sec.  63.10(d)(2). On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must submit
all subsequent Notification of Compliance Status reports to EPA via the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be
accessed through EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). If you claim some of the information required to be
submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI), then
submit a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to
EPA. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly
used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail
the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention:
Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd.,
Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted
to EPA via EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. You may
assert a claim of EPA system outage or force majeure for failure to
timely comply with this reporting requirement provided you meet the
requirements outlined in Sec. Sec.  63.8693(h) or (i), as applicable.
    (f) If you are using data from a previously-conducted emission test
to serve as documentation of conformance with the emission standards
and operating limits of this subpart as specified in Sec.  63.8686(b),
you must submit the test data in lieu of the initial performance test
results with the Notification of Compliance Status required under
paragraph (e) of this section.
0
14. Section 63.8693 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5), (d)(1) through (d)(4), and
(d)(6);
0
c. Adding paragraph (d)(13);
0
d. Revising paragraph (f); and
0
e. Adding paragraphs (g) through (i).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.8693  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must submit all compliance reports
to EPA via the CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report template
on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for
this subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed
on the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the deadline
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report
is submitted. If you claim some of the information required to be
submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a complete report, including
information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The report must be generated
using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML)
schema listed on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc,
flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as
described earlier in this paragraph. You may assert a claim of EPA
system outage or force majeure for failure to timely comply with this
reporting requirement

provided you meet the requirements outlined in Sec. Sec.  63.8693(h) or
(i), as applicable.
    (c) * * *
    (4) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], if you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction
during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your
SSMP, the compliance report must include the information in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(i). On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], this paragraph no longer
applies.
    (5) For each reporting period, you must include in the compliance
report the total number of deviations that occurred during the
reporting period. If there are no deviations from any emission
limitations (emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and
visible emission limit) that apply to you, then you must include a
statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations
during the reporting period.
    (d) * * *
    (1) The start date, start time, and duration of each malfunction.
    (2) For each instance that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks, the start date,
start time, and duration that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was inoperative;
the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS being
inoperative; and descriptions of corrective actions taken.
    (3) For each instance that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was out-of-
control as specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), the start date, start time,
and duration that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was out-of-control, including
the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (4) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], the start date, start time, and duration of
the deviation, and whether each deviation occurred during a period of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. On and
after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], the start date, start time, and duration of the
deviation including a description of the deviation and the actions you
took to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.8685(b). You
must also include:
    (i) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the
deviation occurred;
    (ii) The cause of the deviation (including unknown cause, if
applicable); and
    (iii) Any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to
its normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
    (6) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the
deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to
startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other
known causes, and other unknown causes. On and after [DATE 181 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], a
breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting
period into those that are due to control equipment problems, process
problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
* * * * *
    (13) On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission
limitation in Sec.  63.8684, you must include an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission
limitation in Sec.  63.8684, and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
    (f) On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register], within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test required by this subpart, you must
submit the results of the performance test following the procedures
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by EPA's Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on EPA's ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to EPA via the CEDRI, which can be accessed through
EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file
format generated through the use of EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may
submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on
EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by
EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. The
results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in
the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema
listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or
alternative file to EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) CBI. If you claim some of the information submitted under
paragraph (a)(1) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete
file, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The file must be
generated through the use of EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the
file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic
storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic
medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via
EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
    (g) On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register], within 60 days after the date of
completing each continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance
evaluation (as defined in Sec.  63.2) as specified in your site-
specific monitoring plan, you must submit the results of the
performance evaluation following the procedures specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by EPA's ERT as listed on
EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the results of
the performance evaluation to EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed
through EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file format
generated through the use of EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit
an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT
website.
    (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that
are not supported by EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the
time of the evaluation. The results of the performance evaluation must
be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the
ERT generated package or alternative file to EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) CBI. If you claim some of the information submitted under
paragraph (g)(1) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete
file, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The file must be
generated through the use of EPA's ERT or an alternate

electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT
website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (g)(1) of this
section.
    (h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (i) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for failure
to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of
force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs
(i)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
15. Section 63.8694 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8694  What records must I keep?

    (a) * * *
    (2) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], the records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through
(v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after [DATE
181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], this paragraph no longer applies.
* * * * *
    (e) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or EPA as part
of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
16. Section 63.8697 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.8697  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in Sec.  Sec.
63.8681, 63.8682, 63.8683, 63.8684, 63.8685, 63.8686, 63.8687, 63.8688,
63.8689, 63.8690, and 63.8691.
* * * * *
0
17. Section 63.8698 is amended by revising the definitions of
``Adhesive applicator,'' ``Deviation,'' and ``Sealant applicator'' to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.8698  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Adhesive applicator means the equipment that uses open pan-type
application (e.g., a roller partially submerged in an open pan of
adhesive) to apply adhesive to roofing shingles for producing laminated
or dimensional roofing shingles.
* * * * *
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this