[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 2, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63236-63266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-27946]
[[Page 63235]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area
Sources: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 2, 2009 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 63236]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0027; FRL-8983-6]
RIN 2060-AO94
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area
Sources: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating national emissions standards for the
control of emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from the asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category.
These final emissions standards for new and existing sources are based
upon EPA's final determination as to what constitutes the generally
available control technology or management practices (GACT) for the
source category.
DATES: This final rule is effective on December 2, 2009.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0027. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., confidential business information or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Public Reading Room
under the heading ``Area Source National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing.'' The Public Reading Room is located at EPA/DC,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC and is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202)
566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Warren Johnson, Outreach and
Information Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MC-
C404-05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5124; fax number:
(919) 541-0242; e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document?
C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information for This Final Rule
III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
IV. Summary of Final Standards
A. Do the Final Standards Apply to My Source?
B. When Must I Comply With the Final Standards?
C. What Are the Final Standards?
D. What Are the Initial and Continuous Compliance Requirements?
E. What are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
F. What Are the Title V Permit Requirements?
V. Summary of Comments and Responses
A. Source Category Listing
B. GACT Limits
C. Initial Compliance Requirements
D. Continuous Compliance Requirements
E. Title V Permitting
F. Definitions
G. Cost Impacts
H. Miscellaneous
VI. Summary of Impacts of the Final Standards
A. What Are the Air Impacts?
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy
Impacts?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by the
final standards include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category NAICS code \1\ entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refineries........... 324110 Area source facilities
that refine asphalt.
Asphalt Shingle and Coating 324122 Area source facilities
Materials Manufacturing. that manufacture
asphalt roofing
materials.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR
63.11559 of subpart AAAAAAA (NESHAP for Area Sources: Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing). If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your
EPA Regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A
(General Provisions).
B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly final or promulgated rules at the following
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
[[Page 63237]]
C. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
by February 1, 2010. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background Information for This Final Rule
Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to establish
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for
both major and area sources of HAP that are listed for regulation under
CAA section 112(c). A major source emits or has the potential to emit
10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more of
any combination of HAP. An area source is a stationary source that is
not a major source.
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least
30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas.
The EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air
Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in the
Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health
threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``30 urban
HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or
subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing
90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to
regulation. A primary goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent
reduction in cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted from
stationary sources.
Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of
generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT)
by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.''
Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate report on the
legislation (Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which
describes GACT as:
* * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.
Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and
economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important
when developing regulations for source categories, like this one, that
have a number of small businesses. Determining what constitutes GACT
initially involves considering the control technologies and management
practices that are generally available to the area sources in the
source category. We also consider the standards applicable to major
sources in the same industrial sector to determine if the control
technologies and management practices employed by those sources are
transferable and generally available to area sources. In appropriate
circumstances, we may also consider technologies and practices at area
and major sources in similar categories to determine whether such
technologies and practices could be considered generally available for
the area source category at issue. Finally, as noted above, in
determining GACT for a particular area source category, we consider the
costs and economic impacts of available control technologies and
management practices on that category.
We are promulgating these national emission standards in response
to a court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for
certain source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k)
by November 16, 2009 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01-1537, D.D.C.,
March 2006). An additional rulemaking will be published in a separate
Federal Register notice for the remaining source category due in
November 2009.
III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
The final rule contains several revisions and clarifications to the
proposed rule made in response to public comments. We explain the
reasons for the following changes in detail in the summary of comments
and responses (section V of this preamble):
Revised the emission limits for asphalt roofing
manufacturing lines using emissions data supplied by the industry;
Revised the initial compliance requirements to specify
that compliance tests must be conducted while manufacturing the product
with the greatest polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and
particulate matter (PM) emissions and to allow facilities to use
process knowledge to demonstrate initial compliance for saturator-only
lines;
Revised the initial compliance requirements to clarify
procedures for using previously-conducted emission tests to demonstrate
compliance;
Revised the equations for calculating asphalt charging
rate and clarified the procedures for determining production rate;
Revised the continuous compliance requirements to allow
for monitoring of parameter ranges (instead of maintaining the
parameter below a maximum value) and use of equipment manufacturer
specifications when establishing parameter values, and to remove the
option to use a continuous emissions monitor (CEMS);
Revised the continuous compliance requirements to allow
facilities to monitor the indicator light of electrostatic
precipitators (ESPs) as an option to monitoring voltage;
Defined PM as the material collected using EPA Method 5A;
and
Added definitions for ``built-up roof operation'' and
``hot-mix asphalt operation'' and clarified the definition of
``saturator'' with regard to impregnation vats.
IV. Summary of Final Standards
A. Do the Final Standards Apply to My Source?
The final subpart AAAAAAA standards apply to each existing and
[[Page 63238]]
new area source facility that processes asphalt and/or manufactures
roofing products using saturation and/or coating processes that apply
asphalt to a substrate. The standards do not apply to research or
laboratory facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA.
B. When Must I Comply With the Final Standards?
All existing area source facilities subject to this final rule are
required to comply with the rule requirements no later than December 2,
2010. New sources are required to comply with the rule requirements by
December 2, 2009 or upon startup of the facility, whichever is later.
Because the majority of existing sources in this category are
already well-controlled, we believe that one year is a reasonable
amount of time to allow existing sources to conduct compliance testing
and prepare compliance demonstrations showing compliance with the final
rule.
C. What Are the Final Standards?
As discussed in section II.C of this preamble, the two production
operations for which this category was listed are: (1) Asphalt
processing (refining) operations; and (2) roofing product manufacturing
operations.
For asphalt processing, the final standards require the owner or
operator to limit PAH emissions to 0.003 lb/ton of asphalt charged to
the asphalt refining (blowing still) operation. Alternatively, owners
or operators may comply with a PM emissions limit of 1.2 lb/ton of
asphalt charged to the asphalt refining operation. The alternative PM
limit ensures reductions in emissions of PAH that are at least
equivalent to those achieved through compliance with the PAH emission
limit. The final standards for new refining operations are the same as
for existing sources.
For asphalt roofing product manufacturing operations, we examined
the process operations and other factors and determined that it was
appropriate to establish subcategories that reflect the unique emission
characteristic profiles of the different process types (equipment
configurations). We developed three subcategories based upon the
various process types used in the industry: (1) Production lines that
use a coater only, (2) production lines that use a saturator only, and
(3) production lines that use both saturators and coaters.
For existing coater-only production lines, the final standards
require the owner or operator to limit PAH emissions from all coating
mixers and coaters to 0.0002 lb/ton of product manufactured.
Alternatively, owners or operators may choose to comply with a PM
emission limit of 0.06 lb/ton of product manufactured. The alternative
PM limit ensures reductions in emissions of PAH that are at least
equivalent to those achieved through compliance with the GACT-based PAH
emission limit.
For existing saturator-only production lines, the final standards
require the owner or operator to limit PAH emissions from all
saturators (and wet loopers) to 0.0007 lb/ton of product manufactured.
Alternatively, for saturator-only production lines, owners or operators
can comply with a PM emissions limit of 0.30 lb/ton of product
manufactured. The alternative PM limit ensures reductions in emissions
of PAH that are at least equivalent to those achieved through
compliance with the GACT-based PAH emission limit.
For existing combined saturator and coater production lines, the
final standards require the owner or operator to limit PAH emissions
from all saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, and coaters to 0.0009
lb/ton of product manufactured. The final standards for combined
saturator and coater production lines alternatively allow owners or
operators to comply with a PM emissions limit of 0.36 lb/ton of product
manufactured. The alternative PM limit ensures reductions in emissions
of PAH that are at least equivalent to those achieved through
compliance with the GACT-based PAH emission limit.
The final standards for new roofing product manufacturing
operations for all subcategories are the same as those for existing
sources.
D. What Are the Initial and Continuous Compliance Requirements?
The final standards require an initial compliance assessment of the
process emissions or control device outlet concentration to demonstrate
initial compliance with the applicable standard, and to establish
monitoring parameter values (e.g., temperature, pressure drop) for the
process or control device that will be monitored to demonstrate
continuous compliance. For PM control devices used on asphalt roofing
lines, the final rule allows owners or operators to establish
monitoring parameter operating ranges based upon equipment manufacturer
guarantees.
For existing sources, the final standards require owners or
operators to conduct the initial compliance assessment by May 31, 2011.
Owners or operators of new sources are required to conduct the initial
compliance assessment by June 1, 2010 or within 180 days after startup,
whichever is later.
For existing and new blowing stills and asphalt roofing
manufacturing lines, the final standards require owners or operators to
demonstrate initial compliance by conducting emission tests or by using
the results from an emission test conducted in the past five years that
meets the specified criteria in the final rule. Specifically, owners or
operators can use the results of the previously-conducted test only if
the emission measurements were made using the test methods specified in
Table 3 of the final rule. See 40 CFR 63.11562(d). Additionally, the
owner or operator must be able to demonstrate that no process changes
have been made since the date of the previous test, or that the results
of the emissions test reliably demonstrate compliance despite any
process changes. Id. For existing and new asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines that do not require a control
device to comply with the emission limits, the final rule allows owners
or operators to use process knowledge and engineering calculations,
instead of compliance test results, to demonstrate initial compliance.
For example, an owner or operator could use a mass-balance approach
(e.g., based upon asphalt throughput, asphalt content of the product
manufactured) to demonstrate that the emission limits would not be
exceeded.
Continuous compliance with the final emission limits is
demonstrated by monitoring parameters and process conditions
established during the initial compliance assessment. The final
standards require owners and operators to demonstrate continuous
compliance based upon a 3-hour averaging period. If a thermal oxidizer
is used to comply with the emission limits, the final standards require
that the 3-hour average combustion zone temperature of each affected
thermal oxidizer be maintained at or above the operating limit
established during the initial compliance assessment. For PM control
devices, the final standards require that the average 3-hour pressure
drop and inlet gas temperature values be maintained within the range of
established values. As an alternative to monitoring temperature and
pressure drop, the final rule allows owners or operators to use a leak
detection system for a filtration-based PM control device. If an ESP is
used as the PM control device, the final standards require that the 3-
hour average ESP voltage be maintained at or above the operating value
established during the initial
[[Page 63239]]
compliance test. As an alternative to monitoring the ESP voltage, the
final rule allows owners or operators to monitor the device's indicator
and warning lights on the device that signify when the ESP must be
cleaned. For other types of control devices, the final standards allow
the owner or operator to establish approved monitoring parameters and
to maintain the value of those parameters within the operating values
established during the initial compliance assessment. In cases where
add-on control devices are not needed to comply with the final
standards, owners or operators are required to establish a range of
operating values for process parameters based upon written equipment
manufacturer specifications, verify that the equipment is operating
within that range during the initial compliance assessment, and
maintain the 3-hour average of those parameters within the established
values. During periods of startup and shutdown, the final standards
require owners and operators to demonstrate compliance over a 24-hour
averaging period. As is explained below, the final rule does not
establish separate standards for malfunctions and the 3-hour averaging
period applies during such events. Thus, consistent with Sierra Club v.
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), the emission standards of this rule
apply at all times.
E. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
Affected new and existing sources are required to comply with
certain requirements set forth in the General Provisions (40 CFR part
63, subpart A), as identified in Table 5 of this final rule. The
General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications,
recordkeeping, and reporting. Among other requirements, each facility
is required to submit an initial notification that complies with the
requirements in 40 CFR 63.9(b) of the General Provisions within 120
days of the effective date of the final rule and a notification of
compliance status that complies with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9(h)
within 60 days after completion of the compliance assessment.
Facilities are also required to submit semi-annual compliance summary
reports.
F. What Are the Title V Permitting Requirements?
This final rule exempts the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing area source category from title V permitting requirements
unless the affected source is otherwise required by law to obtain a
title V permit. For example, sources that have title V permits because
they are major sources under the criteria pollutant program would
maintain those permits.
V. Summary of Comments and Responses
We received a total of six comment letters from industry trade
associations, an environmental advocacy group, State/local regulatory
agency groups, and a control device equipment vendor on the proposed
rule during the comment period. One commenter, an industry trade
association, expressed support for the following provisions in the
proposal package:
The roofing line subcategory designations;
The definition of the affected source for asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing operations;
The PAH and PM GACT emission standards for new and
existing sources;
The definitions of ``asphalt flux,'' ``asphalt processing
operation,'' and ``blowing still;''
The use of PM emissions as a surrogate for PAH emissions;
The use of certain previously-conducted emission tests to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations; and
The exemption from title V permitting requirements.
We acknowledge the commenter's support for these provisions.
Sections V.A. through V.H. contain summaries of the remaining comments
that we received and our responses to those comments.
A. Source Category Listing
Comment. One commenter asserted that the Agency used inaccurate PAH
emissions data for 1990 to list asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing area sources under CAA section 112(c)(3). The commenter
asserted that urban area source PAH emissions in the industry in that
baseline year were significantly lower than EPA's estimates and
provided a copy of a report previously submitted to the Agency that the
commenter contended supports that assertion. The commenter's report
concludes that, by combining asphalt roofing manufacturing and asphalt
processing into a single source category and using the outdated data,
the EPA's PAH emissions estimate for the two categories is overstated
by nearly two orders of magnitude. Based upon this information, the
commenter stated that EPA should not be issuing GACT standards for
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area sources under
CAA section 112(c)(3).
Response. We listed the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing source category under CAA section 112(c)(3) in one of a
series of amendments (November 22, 2002, 67 FR 70427) to the original
source category list included in the 1999 Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy. As explained in more detail below, we included this source
category on the section 112(c)(3) area source category list based upon
emissions data for the 1990 baseline year. The asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing manufacturing source category was listed for its
contributions toward meeting the requirement that we list sufficient
categories and subcategories of area sources to ensure that area
sources representing 90 percent of area source emissions of PAH are
subject to regulation under CAA section 112.
While Congress required EPA to list sufficient categories or
subcategories of area sources to ensure that areas sources representing
90 percent of the area source emissions of the 30 Urban HAP are subject
to regulation under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, it left it to
EPA's discretion to determine which categories and subcategories of
sources to include on the list. As explained in the Integrated Urban
Air Toxics Strategy, EPA based its listing decisions on the baseline
National Toxics Inventory (NTI) that the Agency compiled for purposes
of implementing its air toxics program after the 1990 CAA Amendments
(64 FR 38706, 38711, n.10). The baseline NTI reflected HAP emissions
from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area sources
in 1990. EPA listed the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing area
source category on the basis of that emissions data. EPA continues to
believe that it was reasonable to rely on that data and that it acted
appropriately in including the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
area source category on the list on the basis of that data.
There is nothing in the comments that persuades EPA that the
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source
category should not be included in the source category list. The report
submitted along with the comments clearly reflects the Commenter's
preference that a different source category, asphalt concrete
manufacturing, be included on the list instead of asphalt processing
and asphalt roofing manufacturing and that the inclusion of that source
category would have also resulted in a cumulative percentage
contribution in excess of 90 percent. This, however, misses the point.
As stated above, Congress left it to EPA's discretion to
[[Page 63240]]
determine which categories and subcategories to include on the list.
Congress did not require EPA to establish a rank order of such
categories and subcategories and then move from the highest ranking
source category or subcategory to lower ranking categories or
subcategories until a cumulative total of 90 percent was reached. Thus,
as long as EPA had some basis for including a particular category or
subcategory of area sources on the list, which is the case here, it can
choose to include that category or subcategory even if there are other
potential source categories or subcategories that arguably may
contribute more to cumulative emissions.
In this particular instance, EPA questions the accuracy of the
emission factors used in the report submitted by the commenter.
Specifically, the emissions factors in the commenter's report are based
primarily on emissions data from 1998 and 1999 (with some reliance on
1994 data). The report takes these emission factors that are based on
post-1990 data and applies them to 1990 production rates. As the
commenter points out in its comments, PAH emissions in the asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing industry have declined
since 1990. As a result, emission factors developed using emissions
data from years after 1990 are likely to underestimate actual emissions
in 1990.
Moreover, even if EPA were to accept, for argument's sake, the
revised emissions estimates set forth in the report submitted by the
commenter, it would, for the reasons described below, continue to
believe that the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing
category belongs on the 112(c)(3) source category list. First, EPA
believes that it is most appropriate to consider asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing manufacturing as a single source category rather than
two separate source categories, as the commenter contends, because a
single facility often includes both types of operations. Indeed, 90
percent of the facilities affected by the final rule conduct both
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing operations at the
same site. We also believe that asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing operations are closely linked, regardless of co-location,
because the purpose of blow stills at asphalt processing operations is
to prepare asphalt flux, obtained from refineries, for use in
manufacturing roofing products (e.g., shingles, roll roofing). Second,
while the commenter contends that asphalt concrete manufacturing should
be included on the list instead of asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing, the fact is that, on a per facility basis, the
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing sources are larger
PAH emissions sources than the asphalt concrete industry sources. As a
result, EPA's regulation of the 75 sources in the asphalt processing
and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category is far more cost
efficient and far more feasible from an implementation perspective than
regulating the 3600 facilities engaged in asphalt concrete
manufacturing. Finally, as explained above, Congress afforded EPA
discretion in selecting the source categories to regulate to meet the
90 percent requirement in section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B). Without the
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing source category,
we will not meet this requirement. In conclusion, Congress required EPA
to list sufficient categories and subcategories of sources of area
sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the area
source emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to regulation under
CAA section 112. EPA has discretion to identify the categories and
subcategories on the list and properly included asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing manufacturing on the list. Nothing in the comments
contradicts this.
B. GACT Limits
Comment. One commenter noted that EPA stated in the proposal notice
that ``[w]e believe that all asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities will be able to meet the proposed standards
using existing controls * * *'' and that ``* * * no additional air
pollution control devices would be required.'' The commenter was
concerned that such proposals are merely paperwork exercises and are
not responsive to Congress' intent in establishing the area source
program under the Clean Air Act which the commenter believed should
result in reductions in emissions from area sources of hazardous air
pollution. Moreover, the commenter recommended that, ``* * * in this
rule and in future area source proposals, EPA incorporate provisions
that will provide additional public health protection from the adverse
effects of emissions of hazardous air pollutants from area sources.''
Response. The commenter does not challenge any aspect of EPA's
proposed GACT determination for this area source category. Instead, the
commenter makes a blanket assertion that EPA is not acting consistently
with the purposes of the area source provisions in the CAA (i.e.,
sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B)), because it is not requiring
emission reductions beyond the level that is currently being achieved
from this well-controlled source category. In support of this
assertion, the commenter compares the requirements in the proposed rule
to the area source category's current emission and control status. Such
a comparison is flawed.
Congress promulgated the relevant CAA area source provisions in
1990 in light of the level of area source HAP emissions at that time.
Congress directed EPA to identify not less than 30 HAP which, as a
result of emissions from area sources, present the greatest threat to
public health in the largest number of urban areas, and to list
sufficient area source categories to ensure that sources representing
90 percent of the 30 HAP listed are subject to regulation. As explained
in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, EPA based its listing
decisions on the baseline National Toxics Inventory (NTI) that the
Agency compiled for purposes of implementing its air toxics program
after the 1990 CAA Amendments (64 FR 38706, 38711, n.10). The baseline
NTI reflected HAP emissions from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing area sources in 1990. Thus, contrary to the commenter's
suggestion, the relevant emission level for comparison is the emission
level reflected in our baseline NTI, not the current emission level.
Furthermore, in promulgating the area source provisions in the CAA,
Congress did not require EPA to issue area source standards that must
achieve a specific level of emission reduction. Rather, Congress
authorized EPA to issue standards under section 112(d)(5) for area
sources that reflect GACT for the source category. As Congress itself
recognized, to qualify as being generally available, a GACT-based
standard would most likely be based upon an existing control technology
or management practice: ``[A]n equipment standard would require
neighborhood dry cleaning establishments to employ the commercially
available systems associated with the lowest measured emissions * * *
S. Rep. 101-128, at 171-172 (emphasis added). Thus, it is both
reasonable and consistent with Congressional intent that the GACT-based
standards being finalized today codify the use of the existing
effective PAH control approach being used by sources in the category.
For all of these reasons, this final rule is consistent with sections
112(c)(3), 112(k)(3)(B), and 112(d)(5).
Comment. One commenter asserted that, although section 112(d)(5)
does
[[Page 63241]]
authorize EPA to issue GACT standards in lieu of MACT standards, the
Agency's decision to do so is subject to familiar administrative law
requirements. The commenter maintained that to be non-arbitrary, the
decision must--at a minimum--be supported by a rational explanation.
The commenter stated that EPA has provided no explanation whatsoever
for its apparent decision to issue GACT standards pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT standards pursuant to section
112(d)(2) and (3) and, for this reason alone, its decision is arbitrary
and capricious.
The commenter also claimed that the proposed standards are based
solely on cost and are thus unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter
asserted that CAA section 112(d)(5) does not direct EPA to set
standards based on what is cost effective; rather, according to the
commenter EPA must establish GACT based on the ``methods, practices and
techniques which are commercially available and appropriate for
application by the sources in the category considering economic
impacts.'' The commenter stated that because cost effectiveness is not
relevant under CAA section 112(d)(5), the reliance on cost
effectiveness as the sole determining factor in establishing GACT
renders the proposed standards unlawful.
Response. As the commenter acknowledged, in section 112(d)(5),
Congress gave EPA explicit authority to issue alternative emission
standards for area sources. Specifically, section 112(d)(5), which is
titled ``Alternative standard for area sources,'' provides:
With respect only to categories and subcategories of area
sources listed pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, the
Administrator may, in lieu of the authorities provided in paragraph
(2) and subsection (f) of this section, elect to promulgate
standards or requirements applicable to sources in such categories
or subcategories which provide for the use of generally available
control technologies or management practices by such sources to
reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants. See CAA section
112(d)(5).
There are two critical aspects to section 112(d)(5). First, section
112(d)(5) applies only to those categories and subcategories of area
sources listed pursuant to section 112(c). The commenter does not
dispute that EPA listed the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing area source category pursuant to section 112(c). Second,
section 112(d)(5) provides that for area sources listed pursuant to
section 112(c)(3), EPA ``may, in lieu of'' the authorities provided in
section 112(d)(2) and 112(f), elect to promulgate standards pursuant to
section 112(d)(5).
Section 112(d)(2) provides that emission standards established
under that provision ``require the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions'' of HAP (also known as maximum available control technology
(MACT)). Section 112(d)(3), in turn, defines what constitutes the
``maximum degree of reduction in emissions'' for new and existing
sources. See section 112(d)(3). Webster's dictionary defines the phrase
``in lieu of'' to mean ``in the place of'' or ``instead of.'' See
Webster's II New Riverside University (1994). Thus, section 112(d)(5)
authorizes EPA to promulgate standards under section 112(d)(5) that
provide for the use of GACT, instead of issuing MACT standards pursuant
to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). The statute does not set any condition
precedent for issuing standards under section 112(d)(5) other than that
the area source category or subcategory at issue must be one that EPA
listed pursuant to section 112(c), which is the case here.
The commenter argues that EPA must provide a rationale for issuing
GACT standards under section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT standards. The
commenter is incorrect. Had Congress intended that EPA first conduct a
MACT analysis for each area source category, Congress would have stated
so expressly in section 112(d)(5). Congress did not require EPA to
conduct any MACT analysis, floor analysis or beyond-the-floor analysis
before the Agency could issue a section 112(d)(5) standard. Rather,
Congress authorized EPA to issue GACT standards for area source
categories listed under section 112(c), and that is precisely what EPA
has done in this rulemaking.
Although EPA need not justify its exercise of discretion in
choosing to issue a GACT standard for an area source listed pursuant to
section 112(c)(3), EPA still must have a reasoned basis for the GACT
determination for the particular area source category. The legislative
history supporting section 112(d)(5) provides that GACT is to
encompass:
* * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.
See Senate Report on the 1990 Amendments to the Act (S. Rep. No. 101-
228, 101st Cong. 1st session. 171-172). The discussion in the Senate
report clearly provides that EPA may consider costs in determining what
constitutes GACT for the area source category.
Congress plainly recognized that area sources differ from major
sources, which is why Congress allowed EPA to consider costs in setting
GACT standards for area sources under section 112(d)(5), but did not
allow that consideration in setting MACT floors for major sources
pursuant to section 112(d)(3). This important dichotomy between section
112(d)(3) and section 112(d)(5) provides further evidence that Congress
sought to do precisely what the title of section 112(d)(5) states--
provide EPA the authority to issue ``[a]lternative standards for area
sources.''
Notwithstanding the commenter's claim, EPA properly issued
standards for the area source category at issue here under section
112(d)(5) and in doing so provided a reasoned basis for its selection
of GACT for this area source category. As explained in the proposed
rule and below, EPA evaluated the control technologies and management
practices that reduce PAH emissions at asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing facilities. In its evaluation, EPA used
information from an industry survey, discussed options for controlling
PAH emissions with the industry trade associations, and reviewed
operating permits to identify the emission controls and management
practices that are currently used to control PM and PAH emissions.
In our evaluation, we determined that all blow stills used to
process asphalt are currently controlled using thermal oxidation. We
also found that the majority of roofing manufacturing lines were
controlled using some type of PM control device (e.g., fiber-bed
filters). Additionally, we determined that, due to market-driven
process changes, the majority of roofing manufacturing facilities no
longer use organic felt as the substrate for roofing materials. This
process change significantly reduced the amount of asphalt used to
manufacture a given quantity of roofing products.
EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertions that EPA based its
GACT determination solely on its estimate of cost effectiveness and
that cost effectiveness is not relevant in determining what constitutes
GACT. The Agency's consideration of cost effectiveness in establishing
GACT and the Agency's views on what is a cost-effective requirement
under section 112(d)(5) are relevant. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
DC Circuit has stated that cost effectiveness is a reasonable measure
of cost as long as the statute does not mandate a specific method of
determining cost. See Husqvarna AB v.
[[Page 63242]]
EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 201 (DC Cir. 2001) (finding EPA's decision to
consider costs on a per-ton-of-emissions removed basis is reasonable
because CAA section 213 did not mandate a specific method of cost
analysis). Further, we did not base our GACT determination solely on
our estimate of cost effectiveness. Rather, we first carefully
evaluated the methods, practices and techniques that are commercially
available and appropriate for application by sources in the asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category. Only
then did we consider costs and economic impacts to determine what
constitutes GACT for the source category. In doing so, we determined
that, because sources in the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing area source category currently have relatively low
emissions of PAH based upon the use of existing controls, requiring
additional controls would result in very high costs for only a modest
incremental improvement in control. Finally, we believe the
consideration of costs and economic impacts is especially important for
determining GACT for the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing area source category because of the number of existing
sources that would need to retrofit controls on asphalt roofing
manufacturing operations if the existing controls on those operations
were determined inadequate.
Even though we are not required to provide a specific rationale for
why we chose to establish GACT-based standards, rather than MACT-based
standards, EPA did in fact provide a rationale for doing so in the
proposed rule. In the proposal, we explained that the facilities in the
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source
category are already well controlled for PAH, the urban HAP for which
the source category was listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3). See 74 FR
32826-32828. Consideration of costs and economic impacts is especially
important when an area source category is comprised of sources that are
already well-controlled. In such circumstances, a MACT floor
determination, where costs cannot be considered, could result in very
high costs for only a modest incremental improvement in control
efficiency for sources in the area source category. EPA concluded that
this would be the case were it to establish MACT-based emission
standards for the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing
area source category.
Comment. One commenter stated that EPA did not provide an
explanation for its decision to narrowly focus the proposed rule on
just PAH emissions. The commenter went on to make the following points.
The commenter noted that in the 2003 NESHAP for the asphalt processing
and asphalt roofing manufacturing major source category, the EPA stated
that the major source category emits a variety of HAP. The commenter
added that the preamble to the 2003 major source NESHAP (68 FR 22976,
22976 (Apr. 29, 2003)) stated that approximately 98 percent of
emissions from the processing of asphalt and the manufacture of asphalt
roofing consist of formaldehyde, hexane, hydrochloric acid (HCl),
phenol and toluene. A combination of several different organic HAP
comprise the remaining two percent of the total HAP emissions. The
commenter said that in 2003, the EPA found that exposure to these HAP
could result in both ``chronic health disorders (e.g., irritation of
the lung, skin, and mucous membranes, effects on the central nervous
system, and damage to the blood and liver) and acute health disorders
(e.g., respiratory irritation and central nervous system effects such
as drowsiness, headache, and nausea).'' Id. The commenter also noted
that EPA classified two of the HAP (formaldehyde and polycyclic organic
matter (POM)) as probable human carcinogens.
The commenter stated that Section 112(d) requires that emission
standards be developed for each HAP listed in section 112(b). Assuming
arguendo that the Agency does not have to set separate standards for
each HAP when issuing standards under section 112(d)(5), the commenter
stated that the Agency still has an obligation to address all the HAP
that a category emits when it sets GACT standards. Thus, the commenter
asserted that EPA had an obligation to address the HAP emitted by
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing sources beyond
PAH, especially in light of the fact that PAH is such a limited
component of the HAP emitted by the source category. Further, the
commenter added that the Agency's failure to even consider non-PAH HAP
and to explain its failure to address these HAP is arbitrary and
capricious.
The commenter also noted that EPA failed to address all sources of
HAP emissions in the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing source category. The commenter pointed out that EPA noted
in the 2003 major source NESHAP that, in addition to the blowing stills
and roofing manufacturing operations addressed in the proposed rule,
asphalt storage and process tanks, asphalt loading racks, sealant
applicators, and adhesive applicators are also sources of HAP
emissions. The commenter stated that the Agency's failure to
acknowledge these emission sources and consider commercially available
technology for reducing emissions from these sources was unlawful.
Response. Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify
at least 30 HAP emitted from area sources that pose the greatest threat
to public health in the largest number of urban areas (the ``Urban
HAP'') and identify the area source categories emitting such pollutants
that are or will be listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3). Section
112(c)(3), in relevant part, provides:
The Administrator shall * * *, pursuant to subsection (k)(3)(B)
of this section, list, based on actual or estimated aggregate
emissions of a listed pollutant or pollutants, sufficient categories
or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources
representing 90 percent of the area source emissions of the 30
hazardous air pollutants that present the greatest threat to public
health in the largest number of urban areas are subject to
regulation under this section.
Thus, section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or
subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing
90 percent of the area source emissions of the 30 Urban HAP are subject
to regulation. Section 112(d)(1) requires the Administrator to
promulgate regulations establishing emissions standards for each area
source category of HAP listed for regulation pursuant to section
112(c).
EPA identified the 30 Urban HAP that posed the greatest threat to
public health in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (Strategy).
In the Strategy and subsequent Federal Register notices, EPA listed the
area source categories necessary to meet the 90 percent requirement in
section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), and one of those categories was the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing area source
category.
We have interpreted sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B) together to
require EPA to regulate only those Urban HAP emissions for which an
area source category is listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3), not all
urban HAP or all section 112(b) HAP emitted from a listed area source
category. As stated above, section 112(k)(3)(B) addresses the strategy
to control HAP from area sources in urban areas and the focus of the
strategy as it relates to control of area sources is on the 30 HAP that
pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of
urban areas. Section 112(c)(3) specifically references section
112(k)(3)(B) as the basis for selecting area sources for listing to
satisfy the Agency's responsibility for regulating urban HAP emissions
from area sources.
[[Page 63243]]
Under these provisions, area sources categories are listed because they
emit one or more of the 30 listed Urban HAP and the Agency has
identified the category as one that is necessary to satisfy the
requirement to subject area sources representing 90 percent of the area
source emissions of the 30 Urban HAP to regulation.
EPA listed the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
area source category pursuant to sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B),
based on the category's emissions of PAH, which is an urban HAP. Thus,
consistent with the requirements of sections 112(c)(3) and
112(k)(3)(B), we must regulate the PAH emissions from the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing area source category, as
these are the urban HAP emissions for which the category was listed to
meet the 90 percent requirement in sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B).
See 112(c)(3) (EPA must ``ensure that area sources representing 90
percent of the area source emissions of the 30 hazardous air pollutants
* * * are subject to regulation.''). We recognize that the source
category emits other section 112(b) HAP, including other urban HAP;
however, as stated above, sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B) do not
require the Agency to regulate the area source category for any HAP
other than those for which the category was listed. As to the other
urban HAP emitted from this category, we have identified other area
source categories that emit these urban HAP and subjecting those area
source categories to regulation will satisfy the requirement to subject
to regulation area sources that account for 90 percent of the area
source emissions of those urban HAP.
While the Agency is not required to regulate all section 112(b) HAP
from area sources listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and
112(k)(3)(B), section 112 of the CAA does not preclude EPA from
regulating other HAP from these area sources at our discretion and in
appropriate circumstances. Section 112(d)(5) states that for area
sources listed pursuant to section 112(c), the Administrator may, in
lieu of section 112(d)(2) ``MACT'' standards, promulgate standards or
requirements ``applicable to sources'' which provide for the use of
GACT or management practices ``to reduce emissions of hazardous air
pollutants.'' This provision does not limit EPA's authority to regulate
only those urban HAP emissions for which the category is needed to
achieve the 90 percent requirement in sections 112(k)(3)(B) and
112(c)(3). In fact, in two other area source rules, in addition to
regulating the urban HAP that were necessary to satisfy the 90 percent
requirement in sections 112(k)(3)(B) and 112(c)(3), we regulated
additional section 112(b) HAP. Specifically, in the chemical
manufacturing area source rule and the paint and allied products area
source rule, although not required, we exercised our discretion to
regulate other section 112(b) HAP beyond the urban HAP for which the
categories were listed under section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), including
non-urban section 112(b) HAP. The chemical manufacturing area source
rule and the paints and allied products area source rule both involve
specific circumstances which EPA believes justify regulating organic
and metal section 112(b) HAP in addition to the specific urban HAP
needed to meet the 90 percent requirement in section 112(c)(3) and
(k)(3)(B), which served as the basis for the listing of the categories.
In the chemical manufacturing area source rule, which establishes
standards for 9 area source categories, we regulated such HAP because
the emission standards designed to control the urban HAP for which the
categories were listed were equally effective at removing other urban
and non-urban metal and organic HAP, and demonstrating compliance for
total HAP was less burdensome than demonstrating compliance for
speciated HAP for those sources required to install add-on controls. In
the paint and allied products area source rule, we included emission
standards for HAP beyond the urban HAP for which the category was
listed because the emission standards designed to control those urban
HAP would also control other urban and non-urban metal and organic HAP.
As noted above, the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing area source category was listed solely due to emissions
of PAH. By contrast, both the chemical manufacturing and the paint and
allied products area source categories were listed for multiple urban
HAP (i.e., 1,3-butadiene; methylene chloride; 1,3-dichloropropene;
hexachlorobenzene; acetaldehyde; hydrazine; chloroform; quinoline;
ethylene dichloride; and HAP metal compounds (arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel) for chemical manufacturing, and
benzene, methylene chloride, and compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead,
and nickel for paint and allied products). For sources in these area
source categories, it was reasonable to develop emission limits for
non-urban HAP in part because the cost of estimating compliance for
each urban HAP for which the categories were listed was overly
burdensome. However, this same rationale is not appropriate in this
rule because EPA listed the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing source category based on the emissions of a single HAP
(PAH). The co-control scenario also plays out differently in the
context of the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing
area source category. Specifically, where an add-on control device like
those used by facilities complying with the major source NESHAP (e.g.,
a thermal oxidizer or a fiber-bed filter) is needed to comply with the
final standards for the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing area source category, the control device will achieve co-
control of certain HAP other than PAH. For example, a thermal oxidizer
will effectively control total HAP, total hydrocarbon (THC) and PM
emissions and a fiber-bed filter will effectively control PM emissions.
An emission limit based on the use of a thermal oxidizer (e.g., a limit
on total HAP or total THC) would, however, necessitate all emissions
from regulated operations being routed to a thermal oxidizer or similar
control device. At present, based on the available information,
facilities only use thermal oxidizers to control emissions from asphalt
processing operations. Thermal oxidizers are not currently used to
control emissions from asphalt roofing manufacturing operations. As a
result, such limits would require facilities to retrofit to route
emissions from asphalt roofing manufacturing operations to a thermal
oxidizer or similar control device. Such retrofits would increase the
cost of complying with the standards to a level that is unacceptable
for a GACT-based standard. We estimate that 29 existing facilities
currently have a thermal oxidizer and the remaining 46 would need to
install new controls. Even when assuming a best case scenario, whereby
facilities would only need to install new ductwork to route emissions
to an existing thermal oxidizer, we estimate that such facilities would
have an estimated initial capital cost of $58,000 and annual
maintenance costs adding up to $11,000. We believe that these estimates
are unrealistically low, however, because the existing thermal
oxidizers would also require supplemental fuel, and, in many cases, an
upgrade of the control unit, in order to handle the increased emissions
loading. We estimate that it would cost an average facility in excess
of $1 million to install new thermal oxidation controls, with annual
costs of just over
[[Page 63244]]
$910,000 per year per facility for fuel and maintenance. In actuality,
though, the costs could be much greater depending on the configuration
of the facility.
These cost concerns are further exacerbated by the fact that the
benefits arising from co-control will be realized without EPA
establishing specific emission limits for the co-controlled HAP. We
therefore believe that we have appropriately exercised our discretion
in regulating only the PAH emissions from the asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category.
The commenter further asserts that we failed to regulate all
sources of HAP emissions. For the reasons described above, this rule
establishes emissions standards for PAH only. To the extent the
commenter is asserting that we failed to address all sources of PAH
emissions, we disagree. We are required to regulate only those sources
of PAH emissions that formed the basis of our listing decision. EPA
based the listing of the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing area source category solely on emissions from asphalt
blowing (processing) and saturation of felt (using saturators, wet
loopers, and coaters). Based on our review of the record supporting the
listing decision, the record does not include emissions from asphalt
loading racks, asphalt storage tanks, adhesive storage tanks, adhesive
applicators, sealant storage tanks or sealant applicators. As a result,
we did not establish PAH emission limits for those sources, as these
emission sources were not part of the listed source category.
Comment. One commenter stated that a significant problem with the
proposal is that it would establish GACT standards that are actually
more stringent--and significantly so--than the MACT standards for the
industry. The commenter stated that they know of no other GACT
standards that are more stringent than the corresponding MACT standards
for the same industry. The commenter asserted that it makes no sense to
have smaller area sources subject to more stringent standards than
larger major sources. The commenter added that the very term ``maximum
achievable control technology'' on its face indicates that the CAA
section 112(d)(2) standards should be more stringent--they are the
``maximum achievable'' standards in contrast to the CAA section
112(d)(5) standards that are merely ``generally available.''
The commenter stated that for MACT, CAA section 112(d)(3) provides
minimum levels of stringency, also known as the MACT ``floor'' levels.
Thus, according to the commenter, the MACT standard for existing
sources must be at least as stringent as the performance achieved by
the average of the best performing 12 percent of sources in the
category. The commenter stated that for new sources, the standard must
be at least as stringent as that achieved by the best controlled
similar source. In the subpart LLLLL asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing MACT rulemaking, the commenter noted that EPA
concluded only six years ago that the average of the best performing 12
percent (i.e., the 94th percentile of performance) was equivalent to
the subpart UU NSPS limits. 66 FR 58617-20 (Nov. 21, 2001) (subpart
LLLLL MACT proposal). The commenter stated that there have not been
changes in the industry since publication of the final MACT standards
in 2003 that would be expected to have rendered the assumptions for the
MACT standards invalid. Thus, the commenter asserted that there is no
basis for determining that any standards more stringent than the NSPS
or MACT standards are ``generally available.''
The commenter stated that ``The legislative history is replete with
support for the proposition that GACT standards are to be less
stringent than MACT standards. The Senate Report for the 1990 CAA
Amendments states that ``[t]he Administrator may require area sources
to install MACT, but also has the option to impose less stringent
emissions limitations reflecting generally available control
technology.'' Senate Report 101-228, in Congressional Research Service,
A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (``A
Legislative History'') 8338, 8490 (emphasis added). See also floor
statement of Sen. Moynahan (``Clearly, this [GACT] requirement is less
demanding than the maximum achievable control technology required for
major point sources'') (April 3, 1990 Senate floor debate on S. 1630,
in A Legislative History 6946, 7083); House Energy and Commerce
Committee Markup of H.R. 3030 (The Waxman amendment requires EPA to
regulate 90 percent of the area source emissions of each hazardous air
pollutant. EPA may elect to establish controls based on ``generally
available control technology'' in lieu of the more stringent controls
based on ``maximum achievable control technology'' that would apply to
major sources.'' (Apr. 12, 1990 Clean Air Facts description of
committee markup, in A Legislative History 2446, 2561).
Another commenter added that the preamble did not contain any
explanation for EPA's decision to impose more stringent requirements on
smaller, lower-emitting facilities than on major sources. The commenter
also cited rationale in Senate Report 101-228 that indicates the
Congress intended GACT standards for area sources to be less stringent
than MACT standards for major sources. The commenter also noted that
EPA has taken the position that GACT is a less stringent standard in
the preamble to the area source rulemaking for perchloroethylene dry
cleaning facilities (58 FR 49354, 49356).
Response. As described in detail below, we disagree with the
commenters' basic premise that a GACT-based standard will always be
less stringent than a previously-promulgated MACT-based standard,
particularly in circumstances such as those here where the relevant
MACT-based standard is more than 6 years old. Further, in this
particular instance, the major source MACT-based NESHAP and the area
source GACT-based standards are not directly comparable because they
regulate different pollutants and different collections of process
equipment. The MACT standards regulate total HAP with no speciation.
The MACT also covers additional process equipment (i.e., asphalt,
adhesive, and sealant storage tanks, and adhesive and sealant
applicators) that are not covered under the GACT-based standards.
In assessing what constitutes GACT for the asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category, we evaluated the
control technologies and management practices that reduce PAH emissions
at the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities
that compose the source category. In our evaluation, we used
information from an industry survey, discussed options for controlling
PAH emissions with the industry trade association, and reviewed
operating permits to identify the emission controls and management
practices that are currently used to control PM and PAH emissions. In
our evaluation, we determined that all of the blow stills used by
facilities in the source category to process asphalt are currently
controlled using thermal oxidation. We also found that the majority of
roofing manufacturing lines was controlled using some type of PM
control devices (e.g., fiber-bed filters). Additionally, we determined
that due to market-driven process changes, the majority of roofing
manufacturing facilities no longer use organic felt as the substrate
for roofing materials. The process change of no longer using organic
felt as a substrate has significantly reduced the amount of
[[Page 63245]]
asphalt used to manufacture a given quantity of roofing products. For
all of these reasons, it is understandable that the GACT standard for
this category is different than the MACT standard. After considering
all of this information, we then considered costs and economic impacts
in order to determine what actually constitutes GACT for the asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category.
While MACT-based standards for a given source category would most
likely be more stringent than GACT-based standards for the same sources
if the standards were developed at the same point in time, that is not
the case here. Here, the GACT standards are based upon more recent
process equipment, control device, and emissions data that were
analyzed to support development of these standards, specifically. In
contrast, the MACT standards were based upon data collected in 1995.
Additionally, the GACT-based standards focus on the HAP (PAH) and
processes (blowing stills and saturators, wet loopers, coaters, and
coating mixers) for which this area source category was listed. The
MACT-based standards were developed using a floor analysis for total
HAP over a wider span of process equipment. Under such circumstances,
the previously established MACT standard cannot reasonably be
considered dispositive of the question of what constitutes GACT.
Rather, as with any GACT determination, in determining what constitutes
GACT for the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area
source category, we first carefully evaluated the methods, practices
and techniques that are commercially available and appropriate for
application by sources in the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing area source category. We then considered costs and
economic impacts to determine what constitutes GACT. The GACT-based
standards in this final rule reflect the Agency's determination, based
on this evaluation, of GACT for the asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing area source category.
Comment. One commenter did not believe that the proposed standards
represent a GACT level of control because EPA used unrepresentative
data, did not account for variability in establishing the emission
limits, and determined the emission limits using the average.
In developing the proposed GACT standards, the commenter noted that
EPA used data from only one source in each source category. The
commenter also stated that not only is the data too sparse, but it is
not representative of GACT because the data were collected to support a
MACT rulemaking (i.e., the data were collected at the best-controlled
sources in the industry). The commenter submitted PM emissions data
from member companies for coater-only lines, saturator-only lines, and
lines containing coaters and saturators. The commenter noted that there
are numerous subpart UU NSPS compliance tests available documenting PM
emissions from industry sources. The commenter added that, because the
PM data have been collected to demonstrate compliance with air permits
and the subpart UU NSPS, the data would meet the quality assurance and
quality control standards required by State air pollution control
agencies.
The commenter stated that the standards should consider the
variability in emissions due to: operational distinctions between
different facilities or units (i.e., roofing lines); between-test
variability (i.e., variability in measurements made at the same
facility or unit at different times); and within-test variability
(i.e., measurement variations in individual test runs).
The commenter stated that EPA and the courts have recognized the
importance of using representative data and accounting for such
variability between facilities, processes, and test results. In Sierra
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 665 (DC Cir. 1999), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the DC Circuit stated in a MACT case (under CAA section
129): ``It is reasonable to suppose that if an emissions standard is as
stringent as `the emissions control that is achieved in practice' by a
particular unit, then that particular unit will not violate the
standard. This only results if `achieved in practice' is interpreted to
mean `achieved under the worst foreseeable circumstances.' ''
The commenter stated that, in approving EPA's decision to account
for variability in a CAA section 112 case by not setting the standards
based upon the lowest emission limits, the court correctly pointed out
that ``even the best performing sources occasionally have spikes.''
Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 372 F.3d 1232, 1242 (DC Cir.
2004). Similarly, the commenter noted that, under the technology-based
NSPS, the DC Circuit's decisions ``evince a concern that variables be
accounted for, that the representativeness of test conditions by [sic]
ascertained, that the validity of tests be assured and the statistical
significance of results determined.'' National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 627
F.2d 416, 452-53 (DC Cir. 1980). See also Portland Cement Ass'n v.
Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 396 (DC Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S.
921 (1974) (remanding NSPS in part due to ``the lack of any indication
of statistical reliability'' in test results used to set standards).
Moreover, the commenter asserted that a single test almost by
definition cannot be representative of conditions found throughout an
industry. The commenter said that the DC Circuit has held under CAA
section 111, ``a uniform standard must be capable of being met under
most adverse conditions which can reasonably be expected to recur * *
*'' National Lime Ass'n, 627 F.2d at 431 n.46. See also Portland Cement
Ass'n, 486 F.2d at 396 (noting industry point that ``a single test
offered a weak basis'' for inferring that plants could meet the
standards). Without accounting for variation among different emissions
tests, the commenter stated that it cannot be determined with a
significant degree of statistical confidence that even a single unit
will not be able to meet the standard over a reasonable period of time,
when one can expect adverse conditions to be present.
The commenter noted that the courts have recognized this same basic
principle in reviewing technology-based effluent standards under the
Clean Water Act. As the Fifth Circuit stressed in reviewing ``best
practicable technology'' or ``BPT'' standards under Clean Water Act
section 304(b)(1):
The same plant using the same treatment method to remove the
same toxic does not always achieve the same result. Tests conducted
one day may show a different concentration of the same toxic than
are shown by the same test on the next day. This variability may be
due to the inherent inaccuracy of analytical testing, i.e.,
``analytical variability,'' or to routine fluctuations in a plant's
treatment performance.
Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 228 (5th Cir.
1989). The commenter said that the Fifth Circuit upheld the standards
because EPA expressly stated that they should be achievable ``at all
times apart from instances of upsets,'' and because the Clean Water Act
contains an ``upset defense.'' Id. at 230. See also American Petroleum
Institute v. EPA, 540 F.2d 1023, 1035-36 (10th Cir. 1976) (``Even in
the best treatment systems, changes occur in ability to treat wastes *
* * [V]ariability factors present[] a practical effort to accommodate
for variations in plant operations''); FMC Corp. v. Train, 539 F.2d
973, 985 (4th Cir. 1976) (variability factors account for ``the fact
that even in the best treatment systems changes continually occur in
the treatability of wastes''). See also 47 FR 24534, 24546 (1982) (in
setting general
[[Page 63246]]
pH effluent limitation under the Clean Water Act, EPA pointed out that
it ``traditionally has recognized that it must take variability into
account in establishing effluent limitations, and in recognition that
100 percent compliance is theoretically impossible, the Agency has
generally set daily effluent limitations which would be met
approximately 99 percent of the time'').
The commenter noted that EPA pointed out in its brief in the Sierra
Club v. EPA MACT case under CAA section 129 (discussed above), that
simply trying to set a technology-based emission standard by
considering a very limited dataset ``ignores the critical distinction
between an emission level that is `observed' on a particular occasion
versus an emission level the Administrator determines is `achieved in
practice' through performance because it is capable of being met
continuously under the range of operating conditions that can
reasonably be expected.'' EPA brief at 35. Limited test results--the
``observed'' emissions levels--bear no relationship at all to what a
variety of differently configured plants (or even a single unit) can
achieve on a continuous basis. This is because each test produces a
very limited sample of data. It does not provide a full enumeration of
the available data for the unit's performance over a long period of
time. See Natrella, Environmental Statistics, supra, chapter 1.
The commenter stated that EPA inappropriately ignored basic
statistical principles for environmental standard-setting. The
commenter said that in any normally distributed set of data, 50 percent
of the data points will be higher than the mean. Even assuming that the
data were representative, a standard that 50 percent of sources do not
meet would lead to a level of control more stringent than that
generally available.
The commenter stated that the use of the average uncontrolled
emissions derived from a single test at a saturator/wet looper and a
single test at a coater/coating mixer at one facility (the Tamko
Frederick, MD facility) is inappropriate for setting standards. The
commenter further stated that even assuming this is actually a median
data point, 50 percent of the emission sources will have emissions
higher than this source.
The commenter noted that a paper published in a peer-reviewed
journal showed that the emissions from uncontrolled coaters are
variable (the standard deviation was 169 percent of the mean). The
commenter stated that if the assumption is made that the data are
distributed according to the t-Density function, this means that more
than 33 percent of sources would be expected to have uncontrolled
emissions of greater than 0.83 pounds/ton of product. To meet the 0.03
pound PM/ton of product standard, the commenter said that the cleanest
of these sources (at 0.83 lbs/ton) would have to have unvarying
emissions, and continuous control efficiencies of greater than 96
percent efficiency.
The commenter also stated that EPA has inappropriately used average
values in converting the emissions data to pounds of PM emitted per ton
of product manufactured and in assessing the removal performance of
high-efficiency air filter (HEAF) in calculating the proposed
standards.
The commenter suggested that a valid and reasonable approach to
calculate representative emissions for such a small data set is to add
two standard deviations to the mean (x) of the 3 stack testing runs.
Assuming data are normally distributed, the commenter said that
approximately 97.8 percent of sources in a normally distributed
population would fall below this x + 2 standard deviations envelope.
The commenter stated that because of EPA's flawed analysis, the
proposed PAH and PM GACT emission standards for asphalt roofing
manufacturing are too stringent and that EPA's assertion that the GACT
standards can be met is incorrect.
Response. We agree with the commenter that, as a general matter, it
is desirable to have as robust a data set as possible when establishing
emission limits. We also note, however, that EPA must often work with
the data it has even though we might prefer to have additional data. We
had a reasonable set of data upon which to base the proposed rule and
it is within our discretion to determine whether it is appropriate to
seek additional data before proposing to take a particular action. See,
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (Recognizing that it is within EPA's discretion to determine when
it is appropriate to rely on existing data rather than exercising its
authority under section 114 of the Clean Air Act to obtain additional
or new data.) In addition to actually having sufficient data upon which
to base the proposed rule, we faced time constraints that precluded
obtaining even more data due to the fact that we were trying to meet a
court-ordered deadline for issuing the proposed rule. Finally, the
rulemaking process itself is one of the primary ways in which EPA
obtains relevant information.
We agree with the commenter that additional roofing line emissions
data would be helpful in establishing the GACT-based limits for this
area source category. We also agree that variability in emissions is
one of several important factors that need to be considered in
establishing the GACT limits and that we had a less than desirable
amount of data with which to consider statistical variability at
proposal. The additional data provided with the industry comments, in
combination with the data EPA relied on in developing the proposed
rule, provides a robust data set for use in assessing both the actual
performance of sources and the variability in that performance with the
result that the final emission limits will be more statistically sound
than those contained in the proposed rule. Consequently, the final
GACT-based limits have been revised to take into account the additional
data submitted by the commenter for asphalt roofing lines.
Additionally, we considered the standard deviation of the data in
establishing the revised emission limits. We are adding one standard
deviation to the average of the data to account for variability. We
considered adding two standard deviations to the average but we did not
believe this approach was representative of GACT because the resulting
emission limits were above the limits that most facilities already
achieve. For the combined coater/saturator roofing lines, we are
establishing the emission limits as the sum of the emissions limits for
the coater-only and saturator-only lines. We used this approach for the
combined coater/saturator roofing lines because the emissions are
additive (i.e., the process units are in series).
The revised GACT limits for new and existing coater-only production
lines are 0.0002 lb PAH/ton of product manufactured (or 0.06 lb PM/ton
of product manufactured). For new and existing saturator-only
production lines, the revised GACT limit is 0.0007 lb PAH/ton of
product manufactured (or 0.30 lb PM/ton of product manufactured). For
new and existing combined saturator and coater production lines, the
revised GACT limit is 0.0009 lb PAH/ton of product manufactured (or
0.36 lb PM/ton of product manufactured).
C. Initial Compliance Requirements
Comment. One commenter contended that EPA proposed a very short
compliance deadline for existing sources--only one year from issuance
of the final rule. See section 63.11560(a). The commenter noted that
the proposed one-year compliance deadline is premised upon EPA's
assumption that sources will not have to install or modify air
pollution control equipment
[[Page 63247]]
to meet the standards. The commenter stated that this assertion is not
true; however, as shown by the subpart UU NSPS test data in a report
submitted by the commenter, a number of facilities have been operating
above the proposed PM standards in the GACT proposal. Thus, according
to the commenter, contrary to the proposal's justification, if the
final standards are anywhere near the level of the proposed standards,
the commenter stated that a number of facilities will need to make
significant improvements to and/or reconstruct existing PM control
equipment or install new equipment altogether to meet the proposed GACT
limits.
The commenter stated that NSPS subpart UU and MACT Method 5A
testing data show that 20--50 percent of the potential GACT regulated
sources surveyed by EME Solutions would be in non-compliance with the
proposed GACT limits. Given that these sources will have to perform
engineering testing(s) to assess compliance status, analyze results,
design/develop solutions to the reason(s) for potential noncompliance,
fabricate and install the solutions, and then perform compliance
testing; eighteen months is much too short a time period.
The commenter noted that the proposal also recognizes that there
are uncontrolled sources in the industry. For example, many coating
mixers are not currently controlled. Even if a facility has existing PM
control equipment, the commenter contended that it will be necessary to
install ducting to vent the currently-uncontrolled affected sources to
the controls.
The commenter also noted that many States require a construction
permit to make modification to emissions control technology already in
place. The permitting alone can take 9 months or longer.
In addition, the commenter stated that the subpart LLLLL MACT
standards provided a 3-year compliance date for existing sources, even
though they were less stringent than the proposed GACT standards. The
commenter said that there is no logical rationale for having a three-
year compliance date for the MACT standards yet only a one-year
compliance date for more stringent GACT standards. The commenter stated
that for all these reasons, the final rule should provide that a
facility has three years from the date of issuance of that rule to
comply with the GACT standards.
For all these reasons, the commenter believed that a three-year
compliance deadline is appropriate, and that the proposed section
63.11560(a) should be amended by substituting the term ``three years''
where ``one year'' is currently found in the bracketed language.
Response. We disagree with both the commenter's basic premise that
existing sources will need three years to comply with the final
standards and the assumptions underlying that premise. The commenter
assumes that either new control devices will need to be installed, or
existing controls upgraded, to comply with the PAH or PM emission
limits. We believe that this assumption is incorrect. In this final
rule, we revised the emission limits based on our assessment of
additional data and to account for variability. As a result, we believe
that no new add-on controls will be needed to comply with the final
GACT standards. Consequently, we believe that the proposed compliance
deadline of one year is adequate. If an owner or operator believes that
additional time beyond the one year compliance period is needed to
install controls, the owner or operator can request a compliance
extension from the Administrator (or a State with an approved title V
permit program), as authorized by CAA section 112(i)(3)(B) and
specified in section 63.6(i)(4)(i)of the NESHAP General Provisions.
Comment. One commenter noted that the deadline for conducting
performance tests for existing sources stated in the proposal preamble
was incorrect because it said that the performance test must be
conducted within 180 days after publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register, rather than 180 days after the compliance date as
specified in the regulatory text. The commenter said that the preamble
to the final rule should clarify that the preamble to the proposal was
in error because the rule language specifies that existing facilities
must demonstrate initial compliance within 180 calendar days after the
compliance date.
The commenter also noted that EPA uses multiple terms for the same
requirement (i.e., ``performance testing,'' ``compliance testing'').
The commenter asserted that the use of multiple terms for the same
requirement can cause confusion when interpreting the regulatory
requirements. The commenter recommended that EPA refer to this testing
as ``compliance testing'' throughout the final GACT rule.
Response. We agree with the commenter and have corrected the
inconsistencies in the final rule.
Comment. One commenter stated that either one or both of the
asphalt density calculations have been improperly derived. The
commenter said that either the calculations in English units or in
metric units are inaccurate; as they do not give the same answer after
the unit conversions are made. The commenter requested that EPA revise
these equations as appropriate.
Response. We agree with the commenter and we have corrected the
English-unit values for the constants K1 and K2
in the asphalt density equations of the final rule.
Comment. One commenter believed that the requirement in the
proposed rule (section 63.11562(h)(1)) to conduct the compliance tests
under conditions that represent normal operation and not during periods
of startup, shutdown, or malfunction is overly broad. The commenter
stated that there can be a significant range of ``normal operation,''
and the requirement as stated can lead to confusion among regulators
and the regulated community.
The commenter added that some asphalt roofing manufacturing
facilities would find it impossible to meet the proposed requirement to
manufacture a certain product during compliance testing because they do
not manufacture such products. The commenter noted that the proposal
also differs from the approach taken in the subpart LLLLL MACT rule.
The commenter suggested that the final rule require that the test be
performed while manufacturing the roofing product that is expected to
result in the greatest amount of HAP emissions.
Response. We agree with the commenter's suggestion that compliance
tests be performed while manufacturing the roofing product that is
expected to result in the greatest amount of PAH emissions. As a
result, the final rule specifies that initial and subsequent compliance
tests must be conducted while manufacturing the product that has the
highest PAH and PM emissions. We have also eliminated the requirement
that compliance tests be conducted under conditions that represent
normal operation and not during periods of startup, shutdown or
malfunction. We believe that this change addresses both aspects of the
comment. Requiring that the compliance test be conducted while
manufacturing the product that has the highest PAH and PM emissions
eliminates the need to specifically reference normal operating
conditions. We are appropriately requiring compliance testing during
those periods when the facility is manufacturing the product that has
the highest PAH and PM emissions.
Comment. One commenter stated that it would be helpful if EPA
explained how the production rate is determined. The commenter
questioned if the production rate was based on actual
[[Page 63248]]
daily production, monthly production, the daily average of monthly
production or some other calculation. The commenter also questioned how
the production rate would be determined in plants that run
continuously, so that production spans more than one calendar day.
Response. The production rate to be used in determining compliance
with the asphalt roofing manufacturing emission limits is the
production rate at which the roofing line was operating during the
compliance test. If a facility is demonstrating initial compliance with
the emission limits using the average of three 1-hour emission tests,
the production rate used for the compliance demonstration would be the
average rate over the 3-hour period (in terms of pounds of product
manufactured). The final rule clarifies that the production rate used
for determining compliance must be the average production rate utilized
during the compliance test.
Comment. One commenter supported EPA's decision to set the PM
standards based upon filterable PM emissions, as is clear from the
choice of Method 5A to measure PM emissions. The commenter noted that
the data upon which the standards were based were of filterable PM
emissions, so it would be inappropriate to include condensable
particulate for compliance purposes. The commenter asserted that doing
so would be inconsistent with the basis of the standards.
The commenter believed that the preamble to the final rule should
make it clear that in measuring PM emissions, the rule contemplates
only filterable PM (the ``front half''), and that it would be
inappropriate to also require measurement of condensable PM (the ``back
half''). The commenter also recommended adding a definition for PM to
section 63.11566. The commenter said that the definition should state
that ``Particulate matter (PM) means the filterable particulate matter
as measured using the front half of Method 5A.'' Should States require
that the front half and back half meet these stringent standards, this
would result in a regulation far stricter than that mandated by the
CAA. The commenter stated that facilities might be required to install
thermal oxidizers to comply, a decision that would result in increased
emissions of greenhouse gases to reduce already low emissions of PAH.
Response. The data upon which the alternative PM emission limits
are based were collected using EPA Method 5A of Appendix A of 40 CFR 60
(Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions from the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Industry). Using Method 5A, PM in vent
gas samples taken from the source is collected on a glass fiber filter
maintained at a temperature of 42 10 [deg]C (108 18 [deg]F). The PM mass, which includes any material that
condenses at or above the filtration temperature, is determined
gravimetrically after the removal of uncombined water. Consequently, we
agree with the commenter that it would be inappropriate to establish
emission limits that include contributions from PM that is captured in
the sampling train downstream of the Method 5A filter since we do not
have data that reflect those contributions. Therefore, for purposes of
this final rule, we are defining PM to include any material determined
gravimetrically using EPA Method 5A--Determination of Particulate
Matter Emissions From the Asphalt Processing And Asphalt Roofing
Industry (40 CFR 60, Appendix A).
Comment. One commenter noted that the proposal allows the use of
the results of performance testing conducted during the past five years
to show compliance and indicates that a source must be able to
demonstrate that ``the results of the performance test, with or without
adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite any process
changes.'' The commenter requested further explanation of this
provision, because it is likely that most process adjustments would
trigger a re-test.
Another commenter stated that the rule should specify that only
emission increases resulting from a process change that is above a de
minimis level would prevent a previous test from being used.
Response. We clarified the final rule preamble by removing the term
``with or without adjustment'' because that language was unclear. While
we agree that there are many types of process changes that could
increase PAH and PM emissions such that the previously-conducted test
would not be valid, we believe that some changes would not invalidate
the results of the previously-conducted test.
We included the option to use existing tests to provide flexibility
to the affected facilities. We intend that it is the responsibility of
the owner or operator to demonstrate that the process adjustment or
change did not invalidate the results of the previously-conducted test.
Consequently, we are not including de minimis emissions levels in the
final rule.
Comment. One commenter noted that some facilities have conducted
required PM compliance testing under various state-managed air permit
programs. The commenter said that, in some cases, the methodologies
used in these tests are somewhat different than Method 5A. However, the
commenter noted that in all cases the methods are approved by a State
agency prior to use and typically are carefully evaluated by state
experts. The commenter asserted that preventing a facility from using a
legitimate, accepted test previously used to establish compliance will
result in unnecessary costs and potential conflicts with existing,
state-issued, air permit terms and conditions. The commenter asserted
that in this scenario requiring the prior test to conform exactly to
Method 5A does not provide any additional benefit to the environment,
and it merely adds cost, uncertainty and confusion.
Response. We disagree with the commenter that the final rule should
provide a blanket allowance for the use of state-approved test methods
in lieu of EPA Method 5A. The final rule, through reference to the
NESHAP General Provisions, allows owners or operators to petition the
Administrator to use alternative test methods and procedures. The EPA
retains the authority to approve alternative test methods based on
site-specific information. This mechanism can be used to obtain
approval to use the results of a previously conducted test, as well as
to obtain approval to use an alternative test method in the future.
Comment. One commenter supported EPA's decision to allow facilities
to use ``process knowledge and engineering calculations'' in lieu of a
performance test to demonstrate initial compliance at a roofing line
that does not include a saturator. The commenter noted that companies
often have the necessary information and data to show that they will be
in compliance with the emission standards if they operate their plants
in such a way as to meet specified parameters. However, the commenter
questioned why the option was limited to roofing lines that do not
include a saturator. The commenter noted that the proposal offers no
explanation for this limitation. The commenter asserted that the same
principles apply to roofing lines with saturators and asphalt
processing operations.
Response. In the proposal, we limited the option to use process
knowledge and engineering calculations because we believed that a
coater-only line was the only equipment configuration that could
potentially demonstrate compliance without using an add-on control
device. However, we agree with the commenter that the technical basis
for allowing the option does not
[[Page 63249]]
preclude application of the option to lines containing saturators.
Therefore, the final rule does not limit to coater-only lines the use
of process knowledge and engineering calculations, in lieu of an
emissions test, to demonstrate initial compliance. However, we are
clarifying that the option is applicable only to roofing lines that do
not need a control device to comply with the GACT limits.
D. Continuous Compliance Requirements
Comment. Two commenters stated that the pressure drop monitoring
requirement for control devices in the final rule should specify that
the pressure drop must be maintained in the range established during
the initial compliance test, rather than below a maximum limit. The
commenters noted that if the filter develops a tear or it is removed
after the initial test, the pressure drop would decrease. In this
scenario, the commenters said that the filter removal or tear would not
cause a violation of the operating limit but the air pollution control
device would not be operating properly. A third commenter noted that
filters become more efficient and remove more particulates as their
differential pressure increases.
Another commenter stated that as long as the ability of the blower
to move air is not impeded (i.e., as long as the operating limit of the
technology is not exceeded), increased pressure drop actually improves
PM removal efficiency. The commenter said that the key to PM filtration
technology is not the pressure drop but the velocity of air moving
through the capture and control system. The commenter said that
pressure drop is actually a surrogate for air flow measurement. The
commenter stated that the design maximum pressure drop is based on the
ability of the blower providing air flow for capture of the emissions
at the source (the air flow captures the PM emissions and transports
the PM to the filtration). The commenter noted that the proposed
approach of maintaining the pressure drop below a maximum level is
contrary to the way filtration-based PM control technology used in
asphalt roofing lines works.
Response. We agree with the commenters that requiring that the
pressure drop be maintained within a predetermined range and monitored
to ensure that this is the case is a better indicator of control system
performance than requiring the pressure drop be maintained below a
maximum level. The final rule, therefore, specifies that the pressure
drop and temperature must be maintained within the range established by
the initial compliance assessment.
Comment. One commenter recommended that the pressure drop
temperature compliance parameters be based upon the specifications of
the manufacturer of the filtration technology. The commenter said that
many years of Method 5A compliance testing has demonstrated that as
long as the inlet emissions stream does not exceed the manufacturer's
temperature and pressure drop limits, and the control technology is
operated as specified by the manufacturer, the technology will remove
the PM from the stream as guaranteed. The commenter stated that many
States have recognized the validity of this approach to deliver
compliance with PM emissions limits by requiring that, in both
construction and operating permits, emissions sources operate control
technologies as per manufacturing requirements. The commenter said that
language in the permit either incorporates or references the
manufacturer's written operating requirements as compliance parameters.
The commenter stated that limiting the allowable pressure drop to
levels below manufacturer's guaranteed performance limits will force
facilities to replace and dispose of expensive filtration media well
before the end of its guaranteed performance which would result in the
increased generation and disposal of solid wastes, with no net increase
in reduction of PM and PAH emissions. Also, the commenter said that if
the compliance test did not occur late in the expected life of the
filter media, the pressure drop measured will be low because the
pressure drop is lower for new filtration media than for old filtration
media.
The commenter added that the inlet temperature to the filtration
technology is dominated by ambient conditions (e.g., when outside
temperatures are high, the inlet temperatures of emissions stream to
the filtration technology will be high). Thus, the commenter said that
if a facility cannot time the compliance test to occur during the
hottest time of the year, the source will surely experience higher
inlet temperatures during high temperature time periods. The commenter
stated that member companies have already experienced this problem in
operating under the subpart LLLLL asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing MACT. The commenter noted that facilities in the
industry have received notices of violations for inlet temperatures
that exceeded those measured during the performance test, then re-
tested at the elevated temperature. The commenter said that these re-
tests showed that they still did not exceed the MACT PM emission
limits. The commenter also provided a graphical figure that shows a
consistent correlation between temperature and emissions does not
exist.
The commenter recommended that facilities be allowed two options
for establishing and monitoring pressure drop and temperature in the
final rule. Under the commenter's first option, the parameters would be
based upon manufacturer's specifications. The source would conduct an
initial compliance test. The PM emissions from the control device would
need to be shown to be below the final GACT limits. As long as the
pressure drop was below the manufacturer's requirements, the source
would be considered to be in compliance with the pressure drop
compliance parameter. Under the commenter's second option, the
parameter values would be established as under the proposal, but a
measurement that did not exceed that value by a certain percent would
not be considered to be a deviation (the commenter suggested 30 percent
for pressure drop and 10 percent for temperature). The commenter stated
that EPA has allowed a similar buffer over parameters measured during
the performance test in existing MACT standards, including Subpart N
for Chromium Electroplating, at section 63.343, allowing a buffer on
differential pressure, and Subpart NNN for Wool Fiberglass, at section
63.1382, allowing production rate to exceed 20 percent above the tested
rate for up to 10 percent of the operating time in a semiannual period.
Another commenter, a control device equipment vendor, asserted that
filters will perform adequately when operated within the design and
pressure limits imposed by the manufacturer. The commenter added that
filtration equipment will operate adequately at temperatures within the
limits specified by the equipment manufacturer.
Response. We agree with the commenters that equipment manufacturer
specifications for filter media performance are appropriate for use in
establishing monitoring parameter ranges, particularly considering the
difficulty in conducting emission tests that capture the performance of
the control device at the high and low end of its operating range.
Consequently, we are adopting the commenter's first option in that the
final rule allows owners or operators to use equipment manufacturer
performance specifications for filter media in establishing monitoring
parameters.
[[Page 63250]]
Comment. One commenter was very concerned about the way the
proposal would have facilities set their compliance parameter limits
for pressure drop and temperature through an initial compliance test.
The commenter believed that EPA's proposed approaches lack a technical
basis and would result in numerous potential violations of the
operating limits even when PM and PAH emissions are well below the
emission standards. The commenter suggested alternative methodologies
that are more appropriate for establishing parameter limits.
The commenter noted that the proposal would treat all
``deviations'' from the operating parameter limits (i.e., all
exceedances of parameter limits) as potential violations of the
emission standards. The commenter thought that this approach was
excessively harsh, particularly because several factors make it almost
certain that established operating parameter limits will be exceeded at
times even when a facility is not exceeding the GACT emission
standards, and is operating its processes and control equipment well.
For example, the commenter stated that an exceedance of a
temperature parameter limit does not mean that a facility is exceeding
the emission standard; the ambient temperature has a significant effect
on the temperature monitored and the amount of emissions is actually
controlled by the temperature of the asphalt in the coating mixer,
coater, and/or saturator. For that reason, the commenter noted that the
preamble to the Subpart UU (NSPS for asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing) states that ``periods of temperature excursions
* * * would not, of themselves, constitute a violation of the numerical
emission limits. The commenter noted that even if the temperature is
measured at the coater or saturator, an exceedance of the temperature
parameter limit does not mean that the source is exceeding the
standards.
The commenter asserts that the same is true for deviations from a
set pressure drop parameter limit. As discussed above, it would not be
at all surprising for a roofing line to exceed its pressure drop limit
but still emit fewer PM or PAH emissions than the actual emission
standard allows.
Consequently, the commenter stated that EPA should follow an
approach similar in some ways to one that EPA established in its
subpart NNN fiberglass MACT standards. The subpart NNN wool fiberglass
standards consider whether an affected source is operating outside of
its parameter limits for more than 5 percent of the time during a 6-
month block reporting period. The commenter believes that EPA should
borrow from this approach, and require that the facility conduct a new
compliance test if a roofing line has operated outside of the
established parametric limits, as we have proposed them, for more than
5 percent of the time in any semiannual reporting period. The commenter
said that this would essentially be a combination of the approaches
taken by the wool fiberglass MACT standards and the subpart UU NSPS for
asphalt roofing manufacturing. If the re-test shows the line to be
emitting more PAH or PM than the standard allows, commenter said that
the facility could be judged to be in violation of the GACT standard.
If the re-test shows that emissions do not exceed the standard,
commenter said that there would be no violation.
Response. We acknowledge the difficulty in establishing appropriate
monitoring parameter ranges for filtration-based PM control devices. As
noted in earlier responses to comments above, the final rule allows
owners or operators to establish a range of parameter values for
monitoring using manufacturer performance specifications. The EPA
believes that allowing the use of manufacturer specifications provides
owners or operators sufficient flexibility in establishing appropriate
parameter ranges. Consequently, we are not including a re-test
provision in the final rule. The parameter ranges established by the
facility and approved by the delegated authority are not-to-exceed
values. A parameter exceedance would be a violation of the monitoring
requirements but not necessarily a violation of the emission limits.
Additionally, we are not including the re-test provision because we do
not believe it is possible in all cases to replicate the conditions
that caused the exceedance during a re-test.
Comment. One commenter noted that some of the ESP units currently
in operation in the industry are not provided with voltage meters, nor
are they easily modified to add meters for the voltage reading. The
commenter said that such ESPs are typically provided with a green
indicating light. The commenter said that this light is used to assess
the operation of the unit and determine when cleaning is needed. The
commenter added that the light burns a solid green during normal
operation and the light flashes as the cells gradually become dirty;
the dirty cells are then replaced with clean spares.
The commenter stated that contractors have been contacted to
provide proposals to modify the existing units to add the required
voltage indicators. The commenter said that current estimates are
around $50,000 to modify the exiting units to add voltage meters and
another $25,000 to $50,000 to add controls to automatically provide the
3-hour average voltage (cost varies depending upon the current
automation capability of a facility). The commenter said that the high
cost of these modifications is not reasonable, given that the use of
the indicating light ensures that the ESP will operate properly. The
commenter therefore believed that routine monitoring and logging of the
ESP monitoring light is the only reasonable method to verify the
operation of an ESP that does not have voltage meters and that EPA
should allow this method of compliance.
Response. We agree with the commenter that requiring retrofits for
voltage monitors is not cost efficient. We also believe that monitoring
the ESP instrumentation (e.g., indicator light) provides sufficient
monitoring of the ESP performance. Therefore, the final rule allows
owners or operators to monitor the ESP instrumentation as an option to
monitoring voltage. Additionally, the final rule specifies that failure
to service the ESP within one hour of the potential problem is an
exceedance of the monitoring standards, which is consistent with
previously promulgated area source rules (e.g., area source NESHAP for
iron and steel foundries, and area source NESHAP for aluminum, copper
and other nonferrous foundries).
Comment. One commenter stated that CEMs are not suitable for
asphalt fumes for continuous sampling of PM. The commenter noted that
EPA Method 5A is used for stack PM sampling of asphalt fumes and Method
5A requires that the emission stream be cooled to allow the fume
aerosols to condense and this PM portion is then recovered from the
sample train with an after test solvent wash. The commenter stated that
a continuous analyzer does not exist that will perform this PM
sampling.
Response. We agree with the commenter and the CEMS option has been
removed from the final rule.
Comment. One commenter supported the proposed provision that, for
periods of startup and shutdown, would allow owners and operators to
demonstrate compliance with the emission standard over a 24-hour
averaging period. The commenter advocated, however, that EPA adopt a
similar 24 hour averaging approach for determining compliance with the
temperature requirements of the rule. Another commenter expressed
concerns with the proposed provision
[[Page 63251]]
that, for periods of startup and shutdown, allows owners and operators
to demonstrate compliance with the emission standard over a 24-hour
averaging period. Specifically, the commenter expressed concern
regarding the public health impacts of excess emissions during SSM
episodes.
Response. We appreciate the one commenter's support of the
provision that, for periods of startup and shutdown, allows owners and
operators to demonstrate compliance with the emission standard over a
24-hour averaging period. However, we reject the commenter's suggestion
that the 24-hour averaging period be extended to temperature. As stated
elsewhere in this preamble, we have modified the rule to require that
the owner/operator establish a temperature range for the inlet gas
temperature to the PM control device during the initial compliance
assessment and to then maintain the 3-hour average inlet gas
temperature within that range during operations. We believe that these
changes, which allow the owner/operator to establish a temperature
range, obviate any need for a longer averaging time for temperature.
We proposed the use of a 24-hour averaging period for determining
compliance with the emission standards to account for emissions
generated during periods of startup and shutdown based on the format we
chose for the emission standards, i.e., lbs of emissions per ton of
product produced. During periods of startup and shutdown, the process
will continue to produce emissions. Even though emissions during such
periods will be less than those that occur during normal operations
when measured on an hourly basis, i.e., pounds of emissions per hour of
operation, production during such periods will be very limited. As a
result, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate
compliance with a standard stated in terms of pounds of emissions per
ton of product produced if a 3-hour averaging period is used.
Specifically, emissions generated during periods of startup and
shutdown will be less on an hourly basis than those generated during
normal operations for a number of reasons. First, during periods of
startup, the temperature of the asphalt is raised until it reaches the
optimal temperature for use when producing product. Similarly, during
periods of shutdown, the temperature of the asphalt is being reduced
from the temperature which is optimal for production. As the
temperature of the asphalt increases, the rate of volatilization also
increases, resulting in increased PAH emissions as measured on a pounds
per hour basis. As a result, during startup, PAH emissions, as measured
on a pounds per hour basis, increase until the temperature of the
asphalt reaches the optimal temperature for production after which the
temperature is maintained at a steady state. During shutdown, the
reverse process occurs, i.e., as the process is shut down, the asphalt
cools, the rate of volatilization decreases and hourly PAH emissions
decrease. Second, during startup and shutdown, the asphalt usage rate,
and hence the hourly PAH emission rate, fluctuates. During startup, the
asphalt usage rate gradually increases until it reaches the rate
present during normal production. As a result, during startup, the
hourly PAH emission rate gradually increases until it reaches the rate
that exists during periods of normal production. During shutdown, the
reverse occurs, i.e., the hourly asphalt usage rate gradually decreases
from the rate present during normal production. Thus, except for the
very start of the shut-down period, the hourly PAH emission rate is
lower than during periods of normal production. The rate of production,
i.e., the amount of product produced on an hourly basis, also
fluctuates during periods of startup and shutdown. At the commencement
of startup, no product is being produced as the asphalt is being
brought up to the proper temperature for normal production. The rate of
production then gradually increases until the process reaches, and is
maintained at, the rate of normal production. During shutdown, the rate
of production is gradually reduced from its normal rate to zero. Thus,
in light of the production-based format of the standard and the
emission characteristics described above that occur during startup and
shutdown at asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing
facilities, we concluded that it was appropriate to provide a longer
averaging period for determining compliance during periods of startup
and shutdown. We chose a 24-hour averaging period because, based on the
exercise of our best engineering judgment, we determined that this was
an appropriate period since the record indicates that the startup and
shutdown processes can take up to 9 hours to complete. We also
considered establishing a 16-hour averaging period as this represents
two normal 8-hour shifts, but concluded that this would not provide
adequate time for conditions to normalize. The final rule, therefore,
allows sources to determine compliance with the emission standard based
on a 24-hour averaging period, as opposed to a 3 hour period.
We acknowledge the one comment regarding the health concerns
associated with emissions that are generated during start-up and shut-
down events; however, the GACT standards are technology-based standards
as opposed to health- or risk-based standards. For the reasons
described above, we think a 24-hour averaging period during periods of
startup and shutdown is reasonable and the commenter has provided no
evidence to the contrary.
In the proposed rule, we proposed to also apply the 24-hour period
for measuring compliance to malfunction events. We are not adopting
this approach in the final rule. Rather, the final rule requires
compliance with the standard based on a 3-hour average at all times,
except as explained above, for periods of startup and shutdown, in
which case the rule provides that owners and operators demonstrate
compliance with the standard over a 24-hour averaging period. In re-
examining the record for this rulemaking, we recognized that the data
in the record supporting a longer averaging period related solely to
startup and shutdown events. Moreover, in contrast to startup and
shutdown events which are routine and distinct operating modes, a
malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment,
process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner *
* *'' 40 CFR 63.2. As discussed above, EPA has properly accounted for
different periods of operation, including periods of startup and
shutdown, in establishing the standards in this rule. Since a
malfunction is not a distinct operating mode, malfunction emissions do
not need to be factored into the development of CAA section 112(d)
standards, which, once promulgated, apply at all times. Sierra Club v.
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008). Thus, the final rule does not
establish a different averaging period for use in measuring compliance
during malfunction events. Further, even if malfunctions were
considered a distinct operating mode, we believe it would be
impracticable to take into account malfunctions in setting CAA section
112(d) standards. Because, by definition, malfunctions are sudden and
unexpected events, it would be difficult to set a standard that would
account for the myriad of different emissions that could occur during
malfunctions. In addition, the type, frequency, and duration of the
malfunctions may differ significantly between sources. Finally, setting
an emissions standard that accounts for all
[[Page 63252]]
different potential types of malfunctions would allow a source to emit
excessive quantities of uncontrolled pollution and would not provide an
incentive for sources to minimize the occurrence of malfunctions.
E. Title V Permitting
Comment. One commenter argued that the Agency's proposal to exempt
the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source
category from title V requirements is unlawful and arbitrary. The
commenter stated that section 502(a) of the CAA authorizes EPA to
exempt area source categories from title V permitting requirements if
the Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is
``impracticable, infeasible or unnecessarily burdensome.'' 42 U.S.C.
section 7661a(a). The commenter noted that EPA did not claim that title
V requirements are impracticable or infeasible for any of the source
categories it proposes to exempt, but that EPA instead relied entirely
on its claim that title V would be ``unnecessarily burdensome.''
Response. Section 502(a) of the CAA states, in relevant part, that:
* * * [t]he Administrator may, in the Administrator's discretion
and consistent with the applicable provisions of this chapter,
promulgate regulations to exempt one or more source categories (in
whole or in part) from the requirements of this subsection if the
Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on such
categories, except that the Administrator may not exempt any major
source from such regulations. See 42 U.S.C. section 7661a(a).
The statute plainly vests the Administrator with discretion to
determine when it is appropriate to exempt non-major (i.e., area)
sources of air pollution from the requirements of title V. The
commenter correctly noted that EPA based the proposed exemptions solely
on a determination that title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' and
did not rely on whether the requirements of title V are
``impracticable'' or ``infeasible'', which are alternative bases for
exempting area sources from title V.
To the extent the commenter is asserting that EPA must determine
that all three criteria in CAA section 502 are met before an area
source category can be exempted from title V, the commenter misreads
the statute. The statute expressly provides that EPA may exempt an area
source category from title V requirements if EPA determines that the
requirements are ``impracticable, infeasible or unnecessarily
burdensome.'' See CAA section 502 (emphasis added). If Congress had
wanted to require that all three criteria be met before a category
could be exempted from title V, it would have stated so by using the
word ``and,'' in place of ``or.'' For the reasons explained in the
preamble to the proposed rule, we believe that it is appropriate to
exempt sources in the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing area source category, which are not otherwise required to
have a title V permit, from title V permitting and, on that basis, have
retained the exemption in the final rule.
Comment. One commenter stated that in order to demonstrate that
compliance with title V would be ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' EPA must
show, among other things, that the ``burden'' of compliance is
unnecessary. According to the commenter, by promulgating title V,
Congress indicated that it viewed the burden imposed by its
requirements as necessary as a general rule. The commenter maintained
that the title V requirements provide many benefits that Congress
viewed as necessary. Thus, in the commenter's view, EPA must show why,
for any given category, special circumstances make compliance
unnecessary. The commenter believed that EPA has not made that showing
for any of the categories it proposes to exempt.
Response. The EPA does not agree with the commenter's
characterization of the demonstration required for determining that
title V is unnecessarily burdensome for an area source category. As
stated above, the CAA provides the Administrator discretion to exempt
an area source category from title V if he determines that compliance
with title V requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or
unnecessarily burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section
502(a). In December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the
term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and developed a
four-factor balancing test for determining whether title V is
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category, such
that an exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320,
December 19, 2005 (``Exemption Rule''). In addition to interpreting the
term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' and developing the four-factor
balancing test in the Exemption Rule, EPA applied the test to certain
area source categories.
The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for
determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome on a particular
area source category include: (1) Whether title V would result in
significant improvements to the compliance requirements, including
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area
source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V permitting would
impose significant burdens on the area source category and whether the
burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the sources may have in
obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 FR 75324); (3)
whether the costs of title V permitting for the area source category
would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in
compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); and (4)
whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that
are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP for the area source
category, without relying on title V permits (70 FR 75326).
In discussing the above factors in the Exemption Rule, we explained
that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to which one or
more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for a given
source category, and then we assessed whether considered together those
factors demonstrated that compliance with title V requirements would be
`unnecessarily burdensome' on the category, consistent with section
502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, we concluded that not all
of the four factors must weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to
determine that title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a particular
area source category. Instead, the factors are to be considered in
combination and EPA determines whether the factors, taken together,
rather than on an individual basis, support an exemption from title V
for a particular source category.
The commenter asserts that ``EPA must show * * * that the
``burden'' of compliance is unnecessary.'' This is not, however, one of
the four factors that we developed in the Exemption Rule in
interpreting the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502,
but rather a new test that the commenter maintains EPA ``must'' meet in
determining what is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' under CAA section 502.
The EPA did not re-open its interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' in CAA section 502 in the July 9, 2009 proposed rule for
the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source
category. Rather, we applied the four-factor balancing test articulated
in the Exemption Rule to the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing area source category and, on that basis, proposed to
exempt the
[[Page 63253]]
category from title V. Had we sought to re-open our interpretation of
the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and modify it
from what was articulated in the Exemption Rule, we would have stated
so in the July 9, 2009 proposed rule and solicited comments on a
revised interpretation, which we did not do. Accordingly, we reject the
commenter's attempt to create a new test for determining what
constitutes ``unnecessarily burdensome'' under CAA section 502, as that
issue falls outside the purview of this rulemaking. (See 74 FR 30386).
Moreover, if the comment was framed as a request to reopen our
interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section
502, which it is not, we would deny such request because we have a
court-ordered deadline to complete this rulemaking by November 16,
2009. In any event, although the commenter espouses a new
interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section
502 and attempts to create a new test for determining whether the
requirements of title V are ``unnecessarily burdensome'' for an area
source category, the commenter does not explain why EPA's
interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is arbitrary,
capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law. We maintain that
our interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in section
502, as set forth in the Exemption Rule, is reasonable.
Comment. One commenter stated that exempting a source category from
title V permitting requirements deprives both the public generally and
individual members of the public who would obtain and use permitting
information from the benefit of citizen oversight and enforcement that
Congress plainly viewed as necessary. According to the commenter, the
text and legislative history of the CAA provide that Congress intended
ordinary citizens to be able to get emissions and compliance
information about air toxics sources and to be able to use that
information in enforcement actions and in public policy decisions on a
State and local level.
The commenter stated that Congress did not think that enforcement
by States or other government entities was enough; if it had, Congress
would not have enacted the citizen suit provisions, and the legislative
history of the CAA would not show that Congress viewed citizens' access
to information and ability to enforce CAA requirements as highly
important both as an individual right and as a crucial means to
ensuring compliance. According to the commenter, if a source does not
have a title V permit, it is difficult or impossible--depending on the
laws, regulations and practices of the State in which the source
operates--for a member of the public to obtain relevant information
about its emissions and compliance status. The commenter stated that
likewise, it is difficult or impossible for citizens to bring
enforcement actions.
The commenter continued that EPA does not claim--far less
demonstrate with substantial evidence, as would be required--that
citizens would have the same ability to obtain compliance and emissions
information about sources in the categories it proposes to exempt
without title V permits. The commenter also added that likewise, EPA
does not claim--far less demonstrate with substantial evidence--that
citizens would have the same enforcement ability. Thus, according to
the commenter, the exemptions EPA proposes plainly eliminate benefits
that Congress thought necessary. The commenter claimed that to justify
its exemptions, EPA would have to show that the informational and
enforcement benefits that Congress intended title V to confer--benefits
which the commenter argues are eliminated by the exemptions--are for
some reason unnecessary with respect to the categories it proposes to
exempt.
The commenter concluded that EPA does not even acknowledge these
benefits of title V, far less explain why they are unnecessary, and
that for this reason alone, EPA's proposed exemptions are unlawful and
arbitrary.
Response. Once again, the commenter attempts to create a new test
for determining whether the requirements of title V are ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' on an area source category. Specifically, the commenter
argues that EPA does not claim or demonstrate with substantial evidence
that citizens would have the same access to information and the same
ability to enforce under the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing area source rule, absent title V. The commenter's
position represents a significant revision of the fourth factor that
EPA developed in the Exemption Rule in interpreting the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502. For all of the reasons
explained above, the commenter's attempt to create a new test for EPA
to meet in determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome''
on an area source category cannot be sustained. This rulemaking did not
re-open EPA's interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome''
in CAA section 502. The EPA reasonably applied the four factors to the
facts of the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area
source category, and the commenter has not identified any flaw in EPA's
application of the four factor test.
Moreover, as explained in the proposal, we considered
implementation and enforcement issues in evaluating the fourth factor
of the four-factor balancing test. Specifically, the fourth factor of
EPA's unnecessarily burdensome analysis provides that EPA will consider
whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that
are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP without relying on
title V permits. See 70 FR 32829-32830.
In applying the fourth factor here, EPA determined that there are
adequate enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the
CAA. As stated in the proposal, we believe that State-delegated
programs are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP and that
EPA retains authority to enforce this NESHAP under the CAA. See 74 FR
32822, 32829. We also indicated that States and EPA often conduct
voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs to
assist sources and that these additional programs will supplement and
enhance the success of compliance with this NESHAP. See 74 FR 32822,
32829-32830. The commenter does not challenge the conclusion that there
are adequate State and Federal programs in place to ensure compliance
with and enforcement of the NESHAP. Instead, the commenter provides an
unsubstantiated assertion that information about compliance by area
sources with this NESHAP will not be as accessible to the public as
information provided to a State pursuant to title V. In fact, the
commenter does not provide any information that States will treat
information submitted under this NESHAP differently than information
submitted pursuant to a title V permit.
Even accepting the commenter's assertions that it is more difficult
for citizens to enforce the NESHAP absent a title V permit, which we
dispute, in evaluating the fourth factor in EPA's balancing test, EPA
concluded that there are adequate implementation and enforcement
programs in place to enforce the NESHAP. The commenter has provided no
information to the contrary or explained how the absence of title V
actually impairs the ability of citizens to enforce the provisions of
the NESHAP. Furthermore, the fourth factor is one factor that we
evaluated in
[[Page 63254]]
determining if the title V requirements were unnecessarily burdensome.
As explained above, we considered that factor together with the other
factors and determined that it was appropriate to finalize the proposed
exemptions for the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing
source category.
Comment. One commenter explained that title V provides important
monitoring benefits, and, according to the commenter, EPA assumes that
title V monitoring would not add any monitoring requirements beyond
those required by the regulations for the asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category. The commenter
stated that in its proposal EPA proposed ``using parametric
monitoring'' of either process changes or add-on controls. 74 FR at
32828.'' The commenter further stated that ``EPA argues that its
proposed standard, by including these requirements, provides monitoring
``sufficient to assure compliance'' with the proposed rule. Id. at
32829.'' The commenter maintains that EPA made conclusory assertions
and that the Agency failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that
the proposed monitoring requirements will assure compliance with the
NESHAP for the exempt sources. The commenter stated that, for this
reason as well, its claim that title V requirements are ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' is arbitrary and capricious, and its exemption is unlawful
and arbitrary and capricious.
Response. The EPA used the four-factor test described above to
determine if title V requirements were unnecessarily burdensome for the
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source
category. In the first factor, EPA considers whether imposition of
title V requirements would result in significant improvements to the
compliance requirements that are proposed for the area source category.
See 70 FR 75323. It is in the context of this first factor that EPA
evaluates the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of
the proposed NESHAP to determine the extent to which those requirements
are consistent with the requirements of title V. See 70 FR 75323.
The commenter asserts that ``EPA argues that its proposed standard,
by including these requirements, provides monitoring `sufficient to
assure compliance' with the proposed rule,'' and that ``EPA has failed
to provide any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that the monitoring
requirements in [the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing area source category rule] `assure' compliance.''
However, the commenter does not provide any evidence that contradicts
the conclusion that the proposed monitoring requirements are sufficient
to assure compliance with the standards in the rule.
We considered whether title V monitoring requirements would lead to
significant improvements in the monitoring requirements in the proposed
NESHAP and determined that they would not. We believe that the
monitoring requirements in this area source rule can assure compliance.
Compliance with the emission limits is determined during the initial
assessment and continuous compliance with the final emission limits is
demonstrated by monitoring parameters and process conditions
established during the initial compliance assessment. For the reasons
described above and in the proposed rule, the first factor supports
exempting this area source category from title V requirements. Assuming
for argument's sake that the first factor alone is not sufficient to
support the exemption, i.e., that a single factor cannot alone support
the exemption, a proposition that EPA rejects, the four factors when
considered in combination do support the exemption. As we explained in
the preamble to the proposed rule, the four-factor balancing test
requires EPA to examine the factors in combination and determine
whether the factors, viewed together, weigh in favor of exemption. See
74 FR 32828. As explained above, we determined that the factors,
weighed together, support exemption of the area source categories from
title V.
Comment. According to one commenter EPA argued that compliance with
title V would not yield any gains in compliance with underlying
requirements in the relevant NESHAP (74 FR 32829). The commenter stated
that EPA's conclusory claim could be made equally with respect to any
major or area source category. According to the commenter, the Agency
provides no specific reasons to believe--with respect to the asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category--that
the additional informational, monitoring, reporting, certification, and
enforcement requirements that exist in title V, but not in the proposed
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source
category NESHAP, would not provide additional compliance benefits. The
commenter also stated that the only basis for EPA's claim is,
apparently, its beliefs that those additional requirements never confer
additional compliance benefits. According to the commenter, by
advancing such argument, EPA merely seeks to elevate its own policy
judgment over Congress' decisions reflected in the CAA's text and
legislative history.
Response. The commenter takes out of context certain statements in
the proposed rule concerning the factors used in the balancing test to
determine if imposition of title V permitting requirements is
unnecessarily burdensome for the source category. The commenter also
mischaracterizes the first of the four-factor balancing test with
regard to determining whether imposition of title V would result in
significant improvements in compliance. In addition, the commenter
mischaracterizes the analysis in the third factor of the balancing test
which instructs EPA to take into account any gains in compliance that
would result from the imposition of the title V requirements.
First, EPA nowhere states, nor does it believe, that title V never
confers additional compliance benefits as the commenter asserts. While
EPA recognizes that requiring a title V permit can generally offer
additional compliance options, for the asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing area source category, EPA concluded that
requiring title V permits would be unnecessarily burdensome because the
final rule already contains provisions sufficient to assure compliance.
Second, the commenter mischaracterizes the first factor by
asserting that EPA must demonstrate that title V will provide no
additional compliance benefits. The first factor calls for a
consideration of ``whether title V would result in significant
improvements to the compliance requirements, including monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area source
category.'' Thus, contrary to the commenter's assertion, the inquiry
under the first factor is not whether title V will provide any
compliance benefit, but rather whether it will provide significant
improvements in compliance requirements.
The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the
rule are sufficient to assure compliance with the requirements of this
rule and are sufficient to allow the public the opportunity to obtain
knowledge about the source, consistent with the goal in title V
permitting. For example, in the Initial Notification, the source must
identify its size, whether it must meet any of the GACT requirements in
the rule, and how it plans to comply with the rule requirements. Also,
in the notification of compliance status, the
[[Page 63255]]
source must certify how it is achieving compliance and that it has
complied with all of the requirements of the final rule. The source
must keep records to document on going compliance with the emission
standards finalized in this rule. The source must also submit semi-
annual compliance reports to the delegated authority. This information
is available to the public once the source has filed the reports with
the delegated authority.
The EPA believes that these requirements in the rule itself,
including the requirement to provide information about the source's
compliance that is available to the public, provide sufficient basis to
assure compliance, and that the title V requirements, if applicable to
these sources, would not offer significant improvements in the
compliance of the sources with the rule.
Third, the commenter incorrectly characterizes our statements in
the proposed rule concerning our application of the third factor. Under
the third factor, EPA evaluates ``whether the costs of title V
permitting for the area source category would be justified, taking into
consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to occur for
such sources.'' Contrary to what the commenter alleges, EPA did not
state in the proposed rule that compliance with title V would not yield
any gains in compliance with the underlying requirements in the
relevant NESHAP, nor does factor three require such a determination.
Instead, consistent with the third factor, we considered whether the
costs of title V are justified in light of any potential gains in
compliance. In other words, EPA must evaluate whether any improvement
in compliance above what the rule requires justifies the costs
associated with title V permitting requirements. The EPA reviewed the
area source category at issue and determined that approximately 30 of
the 75 sources that would be subject to the rule currently have a title
V permit. As stated in the proposal (74 FR 32829), EPA estimated that
the average cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit was
$65,700 per source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. See
Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit
Regulations, 72 FR 32290, June 12, 2007, EPA ICR Number 1587.07. Based
on this information, EPA determined that there is a significant cost
burden to the industry to require title V permitting for all the
sources subject to the rule. In addition, in analyzing factor one, EPA
found that imposition of the title V requirements offers no significant
improvements in compliance. In considering the third factor, we stated
in part that, ``Because the costs, both economic and non-economic, of
compliance with title V are high for any small entity, and the
potential for gains in compliance is low, title V permitting is not
justified for this source category. Accordingly, the third factor
supports title V exemptions for this area source category.'' See 74 FR
32829.
Most importantly, EPA considered all four factors in the balancing
test in determining whether title V was unnecessarily burdensome on the
area source category. The EPA found it reasonable, after considering
all four factors, to exempt the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing area source category from the permitting requirements in
title V. This rulemaking did not re-open EPA's interpretation of the
term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502. Because the
commenter's statements do not demonstrate a flaw in EPA's application
of the four-factor balancing test to the specific facts of the asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category, the
comments provide no basis for the Agency to reconsider its proposal to
exempt the category from title V.
Comment. According to one commenter, ``[t]he agency does not
identify any aspect of any of the underlying NESHAP showing that with
respect to these specific NESHAP--unlike all the other major and area
source NESHAP it has issued without title V exemptions--title V
compliance is unnecessary.'' Instead, according to the commenter, EPA
merely pointed to existing State requirements and the potential for
actions by States and EPA that are generally applicable to all
categories (along with some small business and voluntary programs). The
commenter stated that, absent a showing by EPA that distinguishes the
sources it proposes to exempt from other sources, however, the Agency's
argument boils down to the generic and conclusory claim that it
generally views title V requirements as unnecessary. The commenter
stated that, while this may be EPA's view, it was not Congress' view
when Congress enacted title V, and a general view that title V is
unnecessary does not suffice to show that title V compliance is
unnecessarily burdensome.
Response. The commenter again takes issue with the Agency's test
for determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome, as
developed in the Exemption Rule. Our interpretation of the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' is not the subject of this rulemaking. In
any event, as explained above, we believe the Agency's interpretation
of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is a reasonable. In addition,
our determination to exempt the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing area source category from title V is specific to this
rule, and is not, as the commenter suggests, reflective of a general
view that title V requirements are unnecessary. We review the facts of
each area source category individually in determining whether to exempt
the category, or a portion of the category, from the requirements of
title V pursuant to section 502. To the extent the commenter asserts
that our application of the fourth factor is flawed, we disagree. The
fourth factor involves a determination as to whether there are
implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to
assure compliance with the rule without relying on the title V permits.
In discussing the fourth factor in the proposal, EPA states that prior
to delegating implementation and enforcement to a State, EPA must
ensure that the State has programs in place to enforce the rule. The
EPA believes that these programs will be sufficient to assure
compliance with the rule. The EPA also retains authority to enforce
this NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. The EPA also
noted other factors in the proposal that together are sufficient to
assure compliance with this area source standard.
The commenter argues that EPA cannot exempt these area sources from
title V permitting requirements because ``t]he agency does not identify
any aspect of any of the underlying NESHAP showing that with respect to
these specific NESHAP--unlike all the other major and area source
NESHAP it has issued without title V exemptions--title V compliance is
unnecessary.'' As an initial matter, EPA cannot exempt major sources
from title V permitting. 42 U.S.C. 502(a). The application of the
standard that the commenter proposes--that EPA must show that ``title V
compliance is unnecessary''--in determining whether to exempt an area
source category from title V is not consistent with the standard the
Agency established in the Exemption Rule and applied in the proposed
rule in determining if title V requirements are unnecessarily
burdensome for the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing
area source category.
Furthermore, we disagree that the basis for excluding the asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category
[[Page 63256]]
from title V requirements is generally applicable to any source
category. As explained in the proposal preamble and above, we balanced
the four factors considering the facts and circumstances of the source
category at issue in this rule.
Comment. One commenter stated that EPA concedes that the
legislative history of the CAA shows that Congress did not intend EPA
to exempt source categories from compliance with title V unless doing
so would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment, citing 74 FR 32830. Nonetheless, according to the
commenter, EPA does not make any showing that its exemptions would not
have adverse impacts on health, welfare and the environment. The
commenter stated that, instead, EPA offered only the conclusory
assertion that ``the level of control would remain the same'' whether
title V permits are required or not (74 FR 32830).
The commenter continued by stating that EPA relied entirely on the
conclusory arguments advanced elsewhere in its proposal that compliance
with title V would not yield additional compliance with the underlying
NESHAP. The commenter stated that those arguments are wrong for the
reasons provided earlier in its comments, and that, therefore, EPA's
claims about public health, welfare and the environment are wrong too.
The commenter also stated that Congress enacted title V for a reason:
``to assure compliance with all applicable requirements and to empower
citizens to get information and enforce the CAA.'' The commenter stated
that those benefits--of which EPA's proposed rule deprives the public--
would improve compliance with the underlying standards and thus have
benefits for public health, welfare and the environment. According to
the commenter, EPA has not demonstrated that these benefits are
unnecessary with respect to any specific source category, but again
simply rests on its own apparent belief that they are never necessary.
The commenter concluded that, for the reasons given above, the
attempt to substitute EPA's judgment for Congress' is unlawful and
arbitrary.
Response. Congress gave the Administrator the authority to exempt
area sources from compliance with title V if, in his or her discretion,
the Administrator ``finds that compliance with [title V] is
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome.'' See CAA
section 502(a). The EPA has interpreted one of the three justifications
for exempting area sources, ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' as requiring
consideration of the four factors discussed above. The EPA applied
these four factors to the area source category subject to this rule and
concluded that requiring title V for this area source category would be
unnecessarily burdensome.
In addition to determining that title V would be unnecessarily
burdensome on the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing
area source category, as in the Exemption Rule, EPA also considered
whether exempting the area source category would adversely affect
public health, welfare or the environment. As explained in the proposal
preamble, we concluded that exempting the asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category from title V would
not adversely affect public health, welfare or the environment because
the level of control would be the same even if title V applied. We
further explained in the proposal preamble that the title V permit
program does not generally impose new substantive air quality control
requirements on sources, but instead requires that certain procedural
measures be followed, particularly with respect to determining
compliance with applicable requirements. The commenter has not provided
any information that exemption of the asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing area source category from title V will adversely
affect public health, welfare or the environment.
F. Definitions
Comment. Two commenters noted that the definition of saturator in
the proposed rule implies that an impregnator vat is a saturator. The
commenters noted that the distinction is important because emission
limits in Table 2 of the proposed rule are different for coater-only
lines and saturator-only lines. Consequently, the commenters said that
EPA should clarify the definition of saturator. One of the commenters
also noted that it would be helpful if EPA further explained what is
meant by ``hot mix asphalt plant operations used in hardstand,''
``operations where asphalt may be used in the fabrication of a built-up
roof,'' ``asphalt roofing facility'' and ``wet looper.''
Response. We agree with the commenters and the final rule clarifies
the definition of saturator with regard to impregnation vats and wet
looper, and adds definitions for ``hot mix asphalt plant operations,''
``built-up roofing operations,'' and ``asphalt roofing facility.''
G. Cost Impacts
Comment. One commenter stated that the EPA's assertions that all
facilities will be able to meet the proposed standards using existing
controls, that only 50 percent of facilities would need to install
monitoring equipment, that the only additional costs would be for
reporting and recordkeeping, and that the proposed rule would not
impose a significant adverse impact on any facilities, large or small
are not supported by information collected by the commenter.
Although it may be possible for some sources to modify existing
control equipment to meet the emission limits, the commenter stated
that it is unlikely that every source, especially the 11 small
businesses, will be able to meet the standards under the worst
foreseeable circumstances, the standard that is required for continuous
compliance. (See Section V of these comments for a discussion of
variability and Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 665 (DC Cir. 1999).
For the proposed GACT standards, the commenter noted that EPA
estimated an average cost of $3000 per facility. The commenter believed
that the compliance cost will be at least an order of magnitude greater
than the EPA cost estimates. Accordingly, the commenter developed a
cost estimate by assuming that 25 percent of existing lines will need
to install controls equivalent to those EPA identified in 2001 as
``beyond the MACT floor.'' The commenter's industry-wide cost
estimates, not adjusted for inflation, are:
$12,921,000 in capital costs (19 lines x $680,000 in
capital costs),
$11,951,925 in installation costs (19 lines x $629,000 in
installation costs),
$6,971,011.33 in annual operating costs (19 lines x
$367,000 in annual operating costs), and
$234,000 (EPA's estimate of annual cost of $3000 per
facility for monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting for 78 lines).
In addition, the commenter noted that facilities will bear the
costs of performance testing. Under the proposal, the commenter said
that facilities would have to continue re-testing until they conduct a
test on one of the hottest days of the year. The commenter stated that
these performance test costs will be significant--approximately $10,000
per test.
The commenter noted that these costs will not be incurred by
individual facilities as ``industry-wide average costs.'' The commenter
said that some facilities will bear only the $3000
[[Page 63257]]
annual recordkeeping and reporting costs; others will incur the
$1,310,000 in capital costs and $367,000 in operating costs for each
line at the facility and a further $3000 in monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting costs. In addition, the commenter said that most
facilities will incur costs of at least $10,000 for each performance
test required. The commenter stated that EPA did not account for these
costs for performance testing.
Response. The commenter's assertions regarding control cost
estimates are based upon the assumption that new control devices will
be needed to comply with the GACT standards which we believe is not the
case. Considering that all asphalt processing operations and the vast
majority or asphalt roofing manufacturing operations are currently
controlled, and considering the revised GACT emissions limits (which
incorporate both the additional data provided by the commenter and the
variability in the underlying emissions data) and the allowance for
owners or operators to use manufacturer specifications when
establishing monitoring parameter ranges for roofing lines in the final
rule, we continue to believe that no new add-on control devices will be
needed to comply with the GACT standards. Therefore, we do not believe
that it is necessary to revise our approach for estimating control
device costs. Additionally, we disagree with the commenter with regard
to consideration of the costs of conducting compliance tests. We took
into account the cost of conducting compliance tests in developing the
final standards. In the Information Collection Request (ICR) prepared
for this rulemaking, we assumed that 25 percent of the industry would
need to conduct a new test (at a cost of $6,000) to demonstrate
compliance with the GACT emission limits. We believe that this approach
is reasonably conservative.
H. Miscellaneous
Comment. One commenter stated that in order for these rules to be
implemented properly, EPA should provide sufficient additional funds to
State and local clean air agencies. The commenter stated that in recent
years, Federal grants for State and local air programs have amounted to
only about one-third of what they should be, and budget requests for
the last two years have called for additional cuts. According to the
commenter, additional area source programs, which are not eligible for
title V fees, will require significant increases in resources for State
and local air agencies beyond what is currently provided. The commenter
claims that without increased funding, some State and local air
agencies may not be able to adopt and enforce additional area source
rules.
Response. State and local air programs are an important and
integral part of the regulatory scheme under the CAA. As always, EPA
recognizes the efforts of State and local agencies in taking
delegations to implement and enforce CAA requirements, including the
area source standards under section 112. We understand the importance
of adequate resources for State and local agencies to run these
programs; however, the issue of funding for these resources is beyond
the purview of today's rulemaking. The EPA today is promulgating
standards for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
area source category that reflect what constitutes GACT for the Urban
HAP for which the source category was listed. GACT standards are
technology-based standards. The level of State and local resources
needed to implement these rules is not a factor that we consider in
determining what constitutes GACT. Although the resource issue cannot
be resolved through today's rulemaking for the reason stated above, EPA
remains committed to working with State and local agencies to implement
this rule. State and local agencies that receive grants for continuing
air programs under CAA section 105 should work with their project
officer to determine what resources are necessary to implement and
enforce the area source standards. The EPA will continue to provide the
resources appropriated for section 105 grants consistent with the
statute and the allotment formula developed pursuant to the statute.
VI. Summary of Impacts of the Final Standards
A. What Are the Air Impacts?
Since 1990, in addition to a lessening of air impacts due to the
increased use of add-on controls in response to Federal and State
permitting requirements, the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing industry has further reduced its air impacts by reducing
the amount of asphalt used to manufacture roofing products
(reformulation), largely through the use of inorganic substrates which
do not require the asphalt-intensive step of saturating the substrate.
These process improvements have reduced the generation rate of PAH
emissions by approximately 0.0015 lbs/ton of product manufactured
before controls are applied. In addition to the PAH emission
reductions, the process improvements undertaken by the industry since
1990 have resulted in reductions of approximately 0.02 lbs of total
HAP, 0.29 lbs of THC, and 0.58 lbs of PM per ton of product
manufactured.
We believe that the final standards codify, and thereby lock in,
the reductions in PAH emissions, and the concomitant reductions in
total HAP, THC, and PM emissions resulting from co-control, that have
been achieved by the asphalt refining and asphalt roofing manufacturing
industry since 1990 by requiring compliance with the level of control
that can be achieved via the use of current GACT as applied to the
reduced amount of asphalt used by the industry to produce asphalt
roofing products.
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
While some asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing
facilities may need to conduct emissions tests to demonstrate
compliance with the final standards, based on the available
information, we believe that all asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities will be able to meet the final standards using
existing controls. Therefore, no additional air pollution control
devices would be required. We have assumed that 38 facilities (50
percent) will need to install a pressure drop monitoring system for
existing controls. Compliance with the final rule will not require any
other capital expenditures. We do not expect compliance with the final
rule to result in any new control device operational and maintenance
costs because, absent any data to demonstrate otherwise, we have
assumed that existing facilities are already following the
manufacturer's instructions for operating and maintaining air pollution
control devices and systems.
The annual cost of monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping for
this final rule is estimated at approximately $3,000 per facility per
year for the first 3 years following promulgation. The costs are
expected to be less than 1 percent of revenues. The annual cost
estimate includes 8 hours per facility per year for preparing
semiannual compliance reports.
The annual cost estimate includes 12,442 labor hours for the first
3 years following promulgation. This total includes 173 hours industry-
wide for preparation of the Initial Notification in the first year and
173 hours industry-wide for preparation of the Notification of
Compliance Status in the first year. The average total labor hour
burden in the first year is 71 hours per facility,
[[Page 63258]]
which include 15 hours per facility for monitoring activities.
Information on our cost impact estimates on the sources expected to
be subject to the final rule is available in the docket for this final
rule. (See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0027).
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
The only measurable costs attributable to these final standards are
associated with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. These final standards are estimated to impact a total of
75 area source facilities. We estimate that 11 of these facilities are
owned by small businesses. Our analysis indicates that this final rule
would not impose a significant adverse impact on any facilities, large
or small, because, even for the smallest sources, these costs are less
than 1 percent of the individual company revenues.
D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?
No detrimental secondary impacts are expected to occur from the
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing sources complying
with the final rule because all facilities are currently achieving the
GACT level of control. No additional solid waste would be generated as
a result of the PAH and PM emissions collected and there are no
additional energy impacts associated with the operation of control
devices or monitoring systems for the asphalt refining and asphalt
roofing manufacturing sources. We expect no increase in the generation
of wastewater or other water quality impacts. None of the control
measures considered for this final rule generate a wastewater stream.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because OMB
determined that it may raise novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly,
EPA submitted this action to the OMB for review under EO 12866 and any
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in
the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this final rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this final rule are
based on the requirements in EPA's NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in
the General Provisions are mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the CAA
(42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than emissions data submitted
to EPA pursuant to the information collection requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to CAA
section 114(c) and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part
2, subpart B.
This final NESHAP would require asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing area sources to submit an Initial Notification
and a Notification of Compliance Status, and to conduct continuous
parametric monitoring and submit semi-annual compliance reports
according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the General Provisions
(subpart A). The annual burden for this information collection averaged
over the first three years of this ICR is estimated to be a total of
4,147 labor hours per year at a total cost of $224,085 or approximately
$3,000 per facility. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. EPA displays OMB control numbers
various ways. For example, EPA lists OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR part 9, which we amend periodically.
Additionally, we may display the OMB control number in another part of
the CFR, or in a valid Federal Register notice, or by other appropriate
means. The OMB control number display will become effective the
earliest of any of the methods authorized in 40 CFR part 9.
When this ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a Federal
Register notice announcing this approval and displaying the OMB control
number for the approved information collection requirements contained
in this final rule. We will also publish a technical amendment to 40
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to consolidate the display of the
OMB control number with other approved information collection
requirements.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of the final asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source NESHAP on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small
businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 750 for NAICS 324122);
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district, or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule is estimated to impact all new and existing asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing manufacturing area source facilities. We estimate that
11 facilities are owned by small entities. Although some small entities
may incur capital costs to install additional monitoring equipment
(e.g., a pressure drop monitoring system for existing controls), we
have determined that small entity compliance costs, as assessed by the
facilities' cost-to-sales ratio, are expected to be less than 1 percent
of revenues for any individual facility. The costs are so small that
the impact is not expected to be significant. Although this final rule
contains requirements for new area sources, we are not aware of any new
area sources being constructed now or planned in the next year, and
consequently, we did not estimate any impacts for new sources.
This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities; however, EPA has, nonetheless,
tried to reduce the impact of this final rule on small entities. The
standards represent practices and controls that are common throughout
the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing industry. The
standards also require only the essential monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting needed to demonstrate and verify compliance. These final
standards were developed based, in part, on information concerning
small businesses included in the data provided by ARMA, as well as
[[Page 63259]]
information obtained through online permit database searches,
consultation with small business representatives on the state and
national level, and consultation with industry representatives that are
affiliated with small businesses.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result
in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
The total annual cost of the rule is estimated at $224,085/yr. This
final rule is not expected to impact State, local, or Tribal
governments. Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
This final rule is also not subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This final rule
contains no requirements that apply to such governments, imposes no
obligations upon them, and would not result in expenditures by them of
$100 million or more in any one year or any disproportionate impacts on
them.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This final rule does not impose any
requirements on state and local governments and therefore creates no
substantial direct effects on the states. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this action. Although section 6 of Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this action, EPA did solicit comment from State
program officials. A summary of these comments and EPA's response to
these comments is provided in section V of this preamble.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This final
action imposes no requirements on Tribal governments; thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies
to any rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant,''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology
performance. It is also not ``economically significant''.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. We have concluded that this final rule
will not likely have any significant adverse energy effects because no
additional pollution controls or other equipment that consume energy
will be needed to comply with the final rule.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable VCS.
This final rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA has
decided to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4,
5A, and 23 in conjunction with the final rule. Consistent with the
NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards
in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus
standards were identified.
Under Sec. Sec. 63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative
test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any
required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures in
the final rule.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, any disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their
programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-
income populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this final
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. A
``major rule'' cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published
in the Federal Register. This
[[Page 63260]]
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This
final rule will be effective December 2, 2009.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 16, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is to be amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
0
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart AAAAAAA to read as follows:
Subpart AAAAAAA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing
Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec.
63.11559 Am I Subject to this Subpart?
63.11560 What are my Compliance Dates?
Standards and Compliance Requirements
63.11561 What are my Standards and Management Practices?
63.11562 What are my Initial Compliance Requirements?
63.11563 What are my Monitoring Requirements?
63.11564 What are my Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
Other Requirements and Information
63.11565 What General Provisions Sections Apply to this Subpart?
63.11566 What Definitions Apply to this Subpart?
63.11567 Who Implements and Enforces this Subpart?
Tables
Table 1 of Subpart AAAAAAA--Emission Limits for Asphalt Processing
Operations
Table 2 of Subpart AAAAAAA--Emission Limits for Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing Operations
Table 3 of Subpart AAAAAAA--Test Methods
Table 4 of Subpart AAAAAAA--Operating Limits
Table 5 of Subpart AAAAAAA--Applicability of General Provisions to
Subpart AAAAAAA
Subpart AAAAAAA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing
Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec. 63.11559 Am I Subject to this Subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an
asphalt processing operation and/or asphalt roofing manufacturing
operation that is an area source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions, as defined in Sec. 63.2.
(b) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source as
defined in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
(1) Asphalt processing. The affected source for asphalt processing
operations is the collection of all blowing stills, as defined in Sec.
63.11566, at an asphalt processing operation.
(2) Asphalt roofing manufacturing. The affected source for asphalt
roofing manufacturing operations is the collection of all asphalt
coating equipment, as defined in Sec. 63.11566, at an asphalt roofing
manufacturing operation.
(c) This subpart does not apply to hot mix asphalt plant operations
that are used in the paving of roads or hardstand, or operations where
asphalt may be used in the fabrication of a built-up roof.
(d) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced
construction or reconstruction after July 9, 2009.
(e) An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the criteria as
defined in Sec. 63.2.
(f) An affected source is an existing source if it is not new or
reconstructed.
(g) This subpart does not apply to research or laboratory
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act.
(h) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required
to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a).
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with
the provisions of this subpart.
Sec. 63.11560 What are my Compliance Dates?
(a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must be
in compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart no later
than December 2, 2010. As specified in Sec. 63.11562(f), you must
demonstrate initial compliance within 180 calendar days after December
2, 2010.
(b) If you own or operate a new affected source, you must be in
compliance with the provisions in this subpart on or before December 2,
2009 or upon startup, whichever date is later. As specified in Sec.
63.11562(g), you must demonstrate initial compliance with the
applicable emission limits no later than 180 calendar days after
December 2, 2009 or within 180 calendar days after startup of the
source, whichever is later.
Standards and Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.11561 What are my Standards and Management Practices?
(a) For asphalt processing operations, you must meet the emission
limits specified in Table 1 of this subpart.
(b) For asphalt roofing manufacturing lines, you must meet the
applicable emission limits specified in Table 2 of this subpart.
(c) These standards apply at all times.
Sec. 63.11562 What are my Initial Compliance Requirements?
(a) For asphalt processing operations, you must:
(1) Demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits
specified in Table 1 of this subpart by:
(i) Conducting emission tests using the methods specified in Table
3 of this subpart; or
(ii) Using the results of a previously-conducted emission test as
specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) Establish the value or range of values of the operating
parameters specified in Table 4 of this subpart:
(i) Using the operating parameter data recorded during the
compliance emission tests; or
(ii) Using the operating parameter data recorded during a
previously-conducted emission test.
(b) For asphalt roofing manufacturing lines that use a control
device to comply with the emission limits in Table 2 of this subpart,
you must:
(1) Demonstrate initial compliance by:
(i) Conducting emission tests using the methods specified in Table
3 of this subpart; or
(ii) Using the results of a previously-conducted emission test as
specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) Establish the value of the operating parameter specified in
Table 4 of this subpart for thermal oxidizers:
(i) Using the operating parameter data recorded during the
compliance emission tests; or
(ii) Using the operating parameter data recorded during a
previously-conducted emission test.
(3) Establish the value or range of values of the operating
parameters
[[Page 63261]]
specified in Table 4 of this subpart for control devices other than
thermal oxidizers:
(i) Using the operating parameter data recorded during the
compliance emission tests;
(ii) Using the operating parameter data recorded during a
previously-conducted emission test; or
(iii) Using manufacturer performance specifications.
(c) For asphalt roofing manufacturing lines that do not require a
control device to comply with the emission limits in Table 2 of this
subpart, you must:
(1) Demonstrate initial compliance by:
(i) Conducting emission tests using the methods specified in Table
3 of this subpart,
(ii) Using the results of a previously-conducted emission test as
specified in paragraph (d) of this section; or
(iii) Using process knowledge and engineering calculations as
specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
(2) Establish the value or range of values of the operating
parameters specified in Table 4 of this subpart:
(i) Using the operating parameter data recorded during the
compliance emission tests;
(ii) Using the operating parameter data recorded during a
previously-conducted emission test; or
(iii) Using process knowledge and engineering calculations as
specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
(d) If you are using a previously-conducted emission test to
demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations in this subpart
for existing sources, as specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii),
(b)(1)(ii), or (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the following conditions
must be met:
(1) The emission test was conducted within the last 5 years;
(2) No changes have been made to the process since the time of the
emission test;
(3) The operating conditions and test methods used for the previous
test conform to the requirements of this subpart; and
(4) The data used to establish the value or range of values of the
operating parameters, as specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii),
(b)(2)(ii), or (c)(2)(ii) of this section, were recorded during the
emission test.
(e) If you are using process knowledge and engineering calculations
to demonstrate initial compliance as specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)
of this section, you must prepare written documentation that contains
the data and any assumptions used to calculate the process emission
rate that demonstrate compliance with the emission limits specified in
Table 2 of this subpart.
(f) If you are using process knowledge and engineering calculations
to establish the value or range of values of operating parameters as
specified in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section, you must prepare
written documentation that contains the data and any assumptions used
to show that the process parameters and corresponding parameter values
correlate to the process emissions.
(g) For existing sources, you must demonstrate initial compliance
no later than 180 calendar days after December 2, 2010.
(h) For new sources, you must demonstrate initial compliance no
later than 180 calendar days after December 2, 2009 or within 180
calendar days after startup of the source, whichever is later.
(i) For emission tests conducted to demonstrate initial compliance
with the emission limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this subpart,
you must follow the requirements specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through
(i)(4) of this section.
(1) You must conduct the tests while manufacturing the product that
generates the greatest PAH and PM emissions to the control device
inlet, or exiting the process if you are not using a control device to
comply with the emissions limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this
subpart.
(2) You must conduct a minimum of three separate test runs for each
compliance test specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (b)(1)(i), and
(c)(1)(i) of this section according to the requirements specified in
Sec. 63.7(e)(3). The sampling time and sample volume of each test run
must be as follows:
(i) For asphalt processing operations, the sampling time and sample
volume for each test run must be at least 90 minutes or the duration of
the coating blow or non-coating blow, whichever is greater, and 2.25
dscm (79.4 dscf).
(ii) For asphalt coating operations, the sampling time and sample
volume for each test run must be at least 120 minutes and 3.00 dscm
(106 dscf).
(3) For asphalt processing operations, you must use the following
equations to calculate the asphalt charging rate (P).
(i) P = (Vd)/(K' [Theta])
Where:
P = asphalt charging rate to blowing still, Mg/hr (ton/hr).
V = volume of asphalt charged, m\3\ (ft\3\).
d = density of asphalt, kg/m\3\ (lb/ft\3\).
K' = conversion factor, 1000 kg/Mg (2000 lb/ton).
[Theta] = duration of test run, hr.
(ii) d = K1-K2Ti
Where:
d = Density of the asphalt, kg/m\3\ (lb/ft\3\)
d = K1-K2Ti
K1 = 1056.1 kg/m\3\ (metric units)
= 66.6147 lb/ft\3\ (English Units)
K2 = 0.6176 kg/(m\3\ [deg]C) (metric units)
= 0.02149 lb/(ft\3\ [deg]F) (English Units)
Ti = temperature at the start of the blow, [deg]C
([deg]F)
(4) You must use the following equation to demonstrate compliance
with the emission limits specified in Table 2 of this subpart:
E = [(C)*(Q)/(P)*(K)]
Where:
E = emission rate of particulate matter, kg/Mg (lb/ton).
C = concentration of particulate matter, g/dscm (gr/dscf).
Q = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
P = the average asphalt roofing production rate or asphalt charging
rate over the duration of the test, Mg/hr (ton/hr).
K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg [7000 (gr/lb)].
Sec. 63.11563 What are my Monitoring Requirements?
(a) You must maintain the operating parameters established under
Sec. 63.11562(a)(2), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (c)(2) as specified in Table
4 of this subpart.
(b) If you are using a control device to comply with the emission
limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this subpart, you must develop
and make available for inspection by the delegated authority, upon
request, a site-specific monitoring plan for each monitoring system
that addresses the following:
(1) Installation of the CPMS probe or other interface at a
measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that
the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions
(e.g., on or downstream of the last control device);
(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the probe or
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer,
and the data collection and reduction system; and
(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations).
(i) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address
the following:
(A) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii),
(c)(7), and (c)(8);
(B) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d); and
(C) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
[[Page 63262]]
(c) If you are using a control device to comply with the emission
limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this subpart, you must install,
operate, and maintain a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS)
as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section.
(1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period.
(2) To determine the 3-hour average, you must:
(i) Have a minimum of four successive cycles of operation to have a
valid hour of data.
(ii) Have valid data from at least three of four equally spaced
data values for that hour from a CPMS that is not out-of-control
according to your site-specific monitoring plan.
(iii) Determine the 3-hour average of all recorded readings for
each operating day, except as stated in paragraph (g) of this section.
You must have at least two of the three hourly averages for that period
using only hourly average values that are based on valid data (i.e.,
not from out-of-control periods).
(3) You must record the results of each inspection, calibration,
and validation check of the CPMS.
(d) For each temperature monitoring device, you must meet the CPMS
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section and
the following requirements:
(1) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a
representative temperature.
(2) For a noncryogenic temperature range, use a temperature sensor
with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2.8 [deg]C or 1.0 percent of
the temperature value, whichever is larger.
(3) If a chart recorder is used, the recorder sensitivity in the
minor division must be at least 20 [deg]F.
(4) Perform an accuracy check at least semiannually or following an
operating parameter deviation:
(i) According to the procedures in the manufacturer's
documentation; or
(ii) By comparing the sensor output to redundant sensor output; or
(iii) By comparing the sensor output to the output from a
calibrated temperature measurement device; or
(iv) By comparing the sensor output to the output from a
temperature simulator.
(5) Conduct accuracy checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature range or install
a new temperature sensor.
(6) At least quarterly or following an operating parameter
deviation, perform visual inspections of components if redundant
sensors are not used.
(e) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the CPMS
requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(6) of this section and
the following requirements:
(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in, or as close as possible, to a
position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure.
(2) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.12
kiloPascals or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 5
percent of the pressure range.
(3) Check pressure tap for blockage daily. Perform an accuracy
check at least quarterly or following an operating parameter deviation:
(i) According to the manufacturer's procedures; or
(ii) By comparing the sensor output to redundant sensor output.
(4) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a
new pressure sensor.
(5) At least monthly or following an operating parameter deviation,
perform a leak check of all components for integrity, all electrical
connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage.
(6) At least quarterly or following an operating parameter
deviation, perform visible inspections on all components if redundant
sensors are not used.
(f) For each electrostatic precipitator (ESP) used to control
emissions, you must install and operate a CPMS that meets the
requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section to
provide representative measurements of the voltage supplied to the ESP.
(j) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CPMS in
accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
(k) You must operate and maintain the CPMS in continuous operation
according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
(l) If you are not using a control device to comply with the
emission limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this subpart, you must
develop and make available for inspection by the delegated authority,
upon request, a site-specific monitoring plan. The plan must specify
the process parameters established during the initial compliance
assessment and how they are being monitored and maintained to
demonstrate continuous compliance.
(m) If you would like to use parameters or means other than those
specified in Table 4 of this subpart to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emission limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this
subpart, you must apply to the Administrator for approval of an
alternative monitoring plan under Sec. 63.8(f). The plan must specify
how process parameters established during the initial compliance
assessment will be monitored and maintained to demonstrate continuous
compliance.
(n) At all times the owner or operator must operate and maintain
any affected source, including associated air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The
general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or
operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels
required by this standard have been achieved. Determination of whether
such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based
on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection
of the source.
Sec. 63.11564 What are my Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
(a) You must submit the notifications specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(6) of this section.
(1) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec. 63.5(b),
63.7(b); 63.8(e) and (f); 63.9(b) through (e); and 63.9(g) and (h) that
apply to you by the dates specified in those sections.
(2) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you have an existing
affected source, you must submit an Initial Notification not later than
120 calendar days after December 2, 2009.
(3) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(4) and (5), if you have a new
affected source, you must submit an Initial Notification not later than
120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.
(4) You must submit a notification of intent to conduct a
compliance test at least 60 calendar days before the compliance test is
scheduled to begin, as required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
(5) You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according
to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii). You must submit the Notification of Compliance
Status, including the compliance test results, before the close of
business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the
compliance test according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
(6) If you are using data from a previously-conducted emission test
to serve as documentation of compliance with the emission standards and
[[Page 63263]]
operating limits of this subpart, you must submit the test data in lieu
of the initial compliance test results with the Notification of
Compliance Status required under paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
(b) You must submit a compliance report as specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section.
(1) If you are using a control device to comply with the emission
limits, the compliance report must identify the controlled units (e.g.,
blowing stills, saturators, coating mixers, coaters). If you are not
using a control device to comply with the emission limits, the
compliance report must identify the site-specific process operating
parameters monitored to determine compliance with the emission limits.
(2) During periods for which there are no deviations from any
emission limitations (emission limit or operating limit) that apply to
you, the compliance report must contain the information specified in
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of this section.
(i) Company name and address.
(ii) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the
reporting period.
(iv) A statement that there were no deviations from the emission
limitations during the reporting period.
(v) If there were no periods during which the CPMS was out-of-
control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were
no periods during which the CPMS was out-of-control during the
reporting period.
(3) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit
and operating limit), you must include the information in paragraphs
(b)(3)(i) through (b)(3)(xii) of this section.
(i) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped.
(ii) The date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(iii) The date, time and duration that each CPMS was out-of-
control, including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(iv) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period.
(v) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(vi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(vii) A summary of the total duration of CPMS downtime during the
reporting period and the total duration of CPMS downtime as a percent
of the total source operating time during that reporting period.
(viii) An identification of each air pollutant that was monitored
at the affected source.
(ix) A brief description of the process units.
(x) A brief description of the CPMS.
(xi) The date of the latest CPMS certification or audit.
(xii) A description of any changes in CPMS or controls since the
last reporting period.
(4) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report
specified in paragraph (b) of this section according to the following
dates:
(i) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.11560 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the first calendar half after the
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.11560.
(ii) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the
first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for
your affected source in Sec. 63.11560.
(iii) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(iv) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(c) You must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(10) of this section.
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(2) Copies of emission tests used to demonstrate compliance and
performance evaluations as required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(3) Documentation that shows that the following conditions are true
if you use a previously-conducted emission test to demonstrate initial
compliance as specified in Sec. 63.11562(a)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(ii), and
(c)(1)(ii):
(i) The test was conducted within the last 5 years;
(ii) No changes have been made to the process since the time of the
emission test;
(iii) The operating conditions and test methods used for the
previous test conform to the requirements of this subpart; and
(iv) The data used to establish the value or range of values of the
operating parameters, as specified in Sec. 63.11562(a)(2)(ii),
(b)(2)(ii), or (c)(2)(ii), were recorded during the emission test.
(4) Documentation that identifies the operating parameters and
values specified in Table 4 of this subpart and that contains the data
used to establish the parameter values as specified in Sec.
63.11562(a)(2), (b)(2), (b)(3), or (c)(2).
(5) Copies of the written manufacturers performance specifications
used to establish operating parameter values as specified in Sec.
63.11562(b)(3)(iii).
(6) Documentation of the process knowledge and engineering
calculations used to demonstrate initial compliance as specified in
Sec. 63.11562(e).
(7) Documentation of the process knowledge and engineering
calculations used to establish the value or range of values of
operating parameters as specified in Sec. 63.11562(f).
(8) A copy of the site-specific monitoring plan required under
Sec. 63.11563(b) or (l).
(9) A copy of the approved alternative monitoring plan required
under Sec. 63.11563(m), if applicable.
(10) Records of the operating parameter values required in Table 4
of this subpart to show continuous compliance with each operating limit
that applies to you.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.11565 What General Provisions Sections Apply to this Subpart?
You must comply with the requirements of the General Provisions (40
CFR part 63, subpart A) according to Table 5 of this subpart.
Sec. 63.11566 What Definitions Apply to this Subpart?
Asphalt coating equipment means the saturators, coating mixers, and
coaters
[[Page 63264]]
used to apply asphalt to substrate to manufacture roofing products
(e.g., shingles, roll roofing).
Asphalt flux means the organic residual material from distillation
of crude oil that is generally used in asphalt roofing manufacturing
and paving and non-paving asphalt products.
Asphalt processing operation means any operation engaged in the
preparation of asphalt flux at stand-alone asphalt processing
facilities, petroleum refineries, and asphalt roofing facilities.
Asphalt preparation, called ``blowing,'' is the oxidation of asphalt
flux, achieved by bubbling air through the heated asphalt, to raise the
softening point and to reduce penetration of the oxidized asphalt. An
asphalt processing facility includes one or more asphalt flux blowing
stills.
Asphalt roofing manufacturing operation means the collection of
equipment used to manufacture asphalt roofing products through a series
of sequential process steps. The equipment configuration of an asphalt
roofing manufacturing process varies depending upon the type of
substrate used (i.e., organic or inorganic). For example, an asphalt
roofing manufacturing line that uses organic substrate (e.g., felt)
typically would consist of a saturator (and wet looper), coating mixer,
and coater (although the saturator could be bypassed if the line
manufacturers multiple types of products). An asphalt roofing
manufacturing line that uses inorganic (fiberglass mat) substrate
typically would consist of a coating mixer and coater.
Blowing still means the equipment in which air is blown through
asphalt flux to change the softening point and penetration rate of the
asphalt flux, creating oxidized asphalt.
Built-up roofing operations means operations involved in the on-
site (e.g., at a commercial building) assembly of roofing system
components (e.g., asphalt, substrate, surface granules).
Coater means the equipment used to apply amended (filled or
modified) asphalt to the top and bottom of the substrate (typically
fiberglass mat) used to manufacture shingles and rolled roofing
products.
Coating mixer means the equipment used to mix coating asphalt and a
mineral stabilizer, prior to applying the stabilized coating asphalt to
the substrate.
Hot-mix asphalt operation means operations involved in mixing
asphalt cement and aggregates to produce materials for paving roadways
and hardstand (e.g., vehicle parking lots, prepared surfaces for
materiel storage).
Particulate matter (PM) means, for the purposes of this subpart,
includes any material determined gravimetrically using EPA Method 5A--
Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions From the Asphalt
Processing And Asphalt Roofing Industry (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-3).
Responsible official is defined in Sec. 63.2.
Saturator means the equipment used to impregnate a substrate
(predominantly organic felt) with asphalt. Saturators are predominantly
used for the manufacture of rolled-roofing products (e.g., saturated
felt). For the purposes of this subpart, the term saturator includes
impregnation vat and wet looper.
Wet looper means the series of rollers typically following the
saturator used to provide additional absorption time for asphalt to
penetrate the roofing substrate.
Sec. 63.11567 Who Implements and Enforces this Subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), or a delegated authority
such as your State, local, or Tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA
Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or Tribal
agency, then that agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the
authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact
your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if implementation and
enforcement of this subpart is delegated.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or Tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the following authorities are retained by the Administrator
of U.S. EPA:
(1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in Sec. Sec.
63.11559, 63.11560, 63.11561, 63.11562, and 63.11563.
(2) Approval of major changes to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and
as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Tables
Table 1 of Subpart AAAAAAA of Part 63--Emission Limits for Asphalt
Processing (Refining) Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following emission
For * * * limits * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Blowing stills............ a. Limit PAH emissions to 0.003 lb/ton of
asphalt charged to the blowing stills;
or
.........................................
b. Limit PM emissions to 1.2 lb/ton of
asphalt charged to the blowing stills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 of Subpart AAAAAAA of Part 63--Emission Limits for Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing (Coating) Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Coater-only production a. Limit PAH emissions to 0.0002 lb/ton
lines. of asphalt roofing product manufactured;
or
b. Limit PM emissions to 0.06 lb/ton of
asphalt roofing product manufactured.
2. Saturator-only production a. Limit PAH emissions to 0.0007 lb/ton
lines. of asphalt roofing product manufactured;
or
b. Limit PM emissions to 0.30 lb/ton of
asphalt roofing product manufactured.
3. Combined saturator/coater a. Limit PAH emissions to 0.0009 lb/ton
production lines. of asphalt roofing product manufactured;
or
b. Limit PM emissions to 0.36 lb/ton of
asphalt roofing product manufactured.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63265]]
Table 3 of Subpart AAAAAAA of Part 63--Test Methods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For * * * You must use * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Selecting the sampling EPA test method 1 or 1A in appendix A to
locations \a\ and the number part 60.
of traverse points.
2. Determining the velocity EPA test method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G,
and volumetric flow rate. as appropriate, in appendix A to part
60.
3. Determining the gas EPA test method 3, 3A, 3B, as
molecular weight used for appropriate, in appendix A to part 60.
flow rate determination.
4. Measuring the moisture EPA test method 4 in appendix A to part
content of the stack gas. 60.
5. Measuring the PM emissions EPA test method 5A in appendix A to part
60.
6. Measuring the PAH EPA test method 23 \b\ with analysis by
emissions. SW-846 Method 8270D.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The sampling locations must be located at the outlet of the process
equipment (or control device, if applicable), prior to any releases to
the atmosphere.
\b\ When using EPA Method 23, the toluene extraction step specified in
section 3.1.2.1 of the method should be omitted.
Table 4 of Subpart AAAAAAA of Part 63--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must
If you comply with the establish an
emission limits using * * * operating value And maintain \a\ * * *
for * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A thermal oxidizer........ Combustion zone The 3-hour average
temperature. combustion zone
temperature at or above
the operating value
established as
specified in Sec.
63.11562(a)(2) and
(b)(2).
2. A high-efficiency air a. Inlet gas The 3-hour average inlet
filter or fiber bed filter. temperature gas temperature within
\b\, and. the operating range
b. Pressure established as
drop across specified in Sec.
device \b\. 63.11562(a)(2) and
(b)(3).
The 3-hour average
pressure drop across
the device within the
approved operating
range established as
specified in Sec.
63.11562(a)(2) and
(b)(3).
3. An electrostatic Voltage \c\ to The 3-hour average ESP
precipitator (ESP). the ESP. voltage \c\ at or above
the approved operating
value established as
specified in Sec.
63.11562(a)(2) and
(b)(3).
4. Process modifications Appropriate The monitoring
(i.e., a control device is process parameters within the
not required). monitoring operating values
parameters.\d\ established as
specified in Sec.
63.11562(c)(2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The 3-hour averaging period applies at all times other than startup
and shutdown, as defined in Sec. 63.2. Within 24 hours of a startup
event, or 24 hours prior to a shutdown event, you must normalize the
emissions that occur during the startup or shutdown, when there is no
production rate available to assess compliance with the lb/ton of
product emission limits, with emissions that occur when the process is
operational. The emissions that occur during the startup or shutdown
event must be included with the process emissions when assessing
compliance with the emission limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of
this subpart.
\b\ As an alternative to monitoring the inlet gas temperature and
pressure drop, you can use a leak detection system that identifies
when the filter media has been comprised.
\c\ As an alternative to monitoring the ESP voltage, you can monitor the
ESP instrumentation (e.g. light, alarm) that indicates when the ESP
must be cleaned and maintain a record of the instrumentation on an
hourly basis. Failure to service the ESP within one hour of the
indication is an exceedance of the applicable monitoring requirements
specified in Sec. 63.11563(a).
\d\ If you are not using a control device to comply with the emission
limits specified in Table 2 of this subpart, the process parameters
and corresponding parameter values that you select to demonstrate
continuous compliance must correlate to the process emissions.
Table 5 of Subpart AAAAAAA of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart AAAAAAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Applies to subpart AAAAAAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1........................... Applicability........................... Yes.
Sec. 63.2........................... Definitions............................. Yes.
Sec. 63.3........................... Units and Abbreviations................. Yes.
Sec. 63.4........................... Prohibited Activities................... Yes.
Sec. 63.5........................... Construction/Reconstruction............. Yes.
Sec. 63.6(a)-(d).................... Compliance With Standards and Yes.
Maintenance Requirements.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).................. Operation and Maintenance Requirements.. No.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)................. Operation and Maintenance Requirements.. No.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)................ Operation and Maintenance Requirements.. Yes.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2)..................... [Reserved].............................. ..............................
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)..................... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan. No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not
require startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plans.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)..................... Compliance with Nonopacity Emission No. The emission limits apply
Standards. at all times.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)................. Methods for Determining Compliance and Yes.
Finding of Compliance.
Sec. 63.6(h)........................ Opacity/Visible Emission (VE) Standards. No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not
contain opacity or VE
standards.
Sec. 63.6(i)........................ Compliance Extension.................... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(j)........................ Presidential Compliance Exemption....... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(a)-(d).................... Performance Testing Requirements........ Yes.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)..................... Performance Testing Requirements........ No. Subpart AAAAAAA specifies
the conditions under which
performance tests must be
conducted.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(4)................. Conduct of Performance Tests and Data Yes.
Reduction.
[[Page 63266]]
Sec. 63.7(f)-(h).................... Use of Alternative Test Method; Data Yes.
Analysis, Recordkeeping, and Reporting;
and Waiver of Performance Tests.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)..................... Applicability of Monitoring Requirements Yes.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2)..................... Performance Specifications.............. No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not
allow CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)..................... [Reserved].............................. ..............................
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)..................... Monitoring with Flares.................. Yes.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)..................... Conduct of Monitoring................... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3)................. Multiple Effluents and Multiple Yes.
Monitoring Systems.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)..................... Monitoring System Operation and Yes.
Maintenance.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i).................. CMS maintenance......................... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)................. Spare Parts for CMS Malfunction......... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)................ Compliance with Operation and No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not
Maintenance Requirements. require startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plans.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)................. Monitoring System Installation.......... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)..................... CMS Requirements........................ No; Sec. 63.11563 specifies
the CMS requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)..................... COMS Minimum Procedures................. No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not
contain opacity or VE
standards.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)..................... CMS Requirements........................ No; Sec. 63.11563 specifies
the CMS requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8)................. CMS Requirements........................ Yes.
Sec. 63.8(d)........................ CMS Quality Control..................... No; Sec. 63.11563 specifies
the CMS requirements.
Sec. 63.8(e)-(f).................... CMS Performance Evaluation.............. Yes.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)-(4)................. Data Reduction Requirements............. Yes.
Sec. 63.8(g)(5)..................... Data to Exclude from Averaging.......... No. All monitoring data must
be included when calculating
averages.
Sec. 63.9........................... Notification Requirements............... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(a)....................... Recordkeeping and Reporting Yes.
Requirements--Applicability.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1).................... General Recordkeeping Requirements...... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(iii)........... General Recordkeeping Requirements...... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)............ Records of Actions Taken During Startup, No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not
Shutdown, and Malfunction Plans. require startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plans.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xiv).......... General Recordkeeping Requirements...... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(14)............... Additional Recordkeeping Requirements Yes.
for Sources with Continuous Monitoring
Systems.
Sec. 63.10(c)(15)................... Additional Recordkeeping Requirements No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not
for Sources with Continuous Monitoring require startup, shutdown,
Systems. and malfunction plans.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)-(4)................ General Reporting Requirements.......... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5).................... Periodic Startup, Shutdown, and No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not
Malfunction Reports. require startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plans.
Sec. 63.10(e)....................... Additional Reporting Requirements for Yes.
Sources with Continuous Monitoring
Systems.
Sec. 63.10(f)....................... Waiver of Recordkeeping or Reporting Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.11.......................... Control Device and Work Practice Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.12.......................... State Authority and Delegations......... Yes.
Sec. 63.13.......................... Addresses of State Air Pollution Control Yes.
Agencies and EPA Regional Offices.
Sec. 63.14.......................... Incorporations by Reference............. Yes.
Sec. 63.15.......................... Availability of Information and Yes.
Confidentiality.
Sec. 63.16.......................... Performance Track Provisions............ No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E9-27946 Filed 12-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P