24562 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[OAR–2002–0035; FRL–7461–8] 

RIN 2060–AG66 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asphalt 

Processing and Asphalt Roofing 

Manufacturing

Editorial Note: Due to numerous errors this 

document is being reprinted in its entirety. 

It was originally printed in the Federal 

Register on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 at 68 FR 

22975–23007.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action promulgates 

national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 

existing and new asphalt processing and 

asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities. 

The EPA has identified asphalt 

processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing facilities as major 

sources of hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) such as formaldehyde, hexane, 

hydrogen chloride (HCl), phenol, 

polycyclic organic matter (POM), and 

toluene. The final standards will 

implement section 112(d) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major 

sources to meet HAP emission standards 

reflecting the application of the 

maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT). The total HAP 

reduction resulting from compliance 

with the rule is expected to be 86 

megagrams per year (Mg/yr). 

A variety of HAP are emitted from 

asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing source categories. The 

following HAP account for the majority 

(approximately 98 percent, based on the 

emission factors developed for the final 

rule) of the total HAP emissions: 

Formaldehyde, hexane, HCl (at asphalt 

processing facilities that use chlorinated 

catalysts), phenol, and toluene. The 

remaining two percent of the total HAP 

emissions is a combination of several 

different organic HAP, each contributing 

less than 0.5 percent to the total HAP 

emissions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 29, 2003.

ADDRESSES: The official public docket is 

the collection of materials that is 

available for public viewing at the 

Office of Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center (Air Docket) in the 

EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA 

West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information concerning applicability 

and rule determinations, contact your 

State or local representative or 

appropriate EPA Regional Office 

representative. For information 

concerning rule development, contact 

Rick Colyer, Minerals and Inorganic 

Chemicals Group, Emission Standards 

Division (C504–05), U.S. EPA, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 

telephone number (919) 541–5262, 

electronic mail address, 

colyer.rick@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated 

Entities. Categories and entities 

potentially regulated by this action:

TABLE 1.—REGULATED CATEGORIES AND ENTITIES

Category 

NAICSa SIC b

Code Description Code Description 

Manufacturing ................................................... 324122 Asphalt shingle and coating materials manufacturing.2952 Asphalt felts and coating. 

Manufacturing ................................................... 32411 Petroleum refineries ......................................... 2911 Petroleum refining. 

Federal Government ........................................ Not affected Not affected 

State/Local/Tribal Government ........................ Not affected Not affected. 

aStandard Industrial Classification Code. 

b North American Information Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. To determine 

whether your facility is regulated by this 

action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in §§ 63.8681 and 

63.8682 of the final rule. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, contact 

the person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Docket. The EPA has established an 

official public docket for this action 

under Docket ID No. OAR–2002–0035. 

The official public docket consists of the 

documents specifically referenced in 

this action, any public comments 

received, and other information related 

to this action. Although a part of the 

official docket, the public docket does 

not include Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

The official public docket is the 

collection of materials that is available 

for public viewing at the Office of Air 

and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center (Air Docket) in the EPA Docket 

Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 

B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 

Center Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Air Docket 

is (202) 566–1742. A reasonable fee may 

be charged for copying docket materials. 

Electronic Docket Access. You may 

access the final rule electronically 

through the EPA Internet under the 

‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at http://

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/

to view public comments, access the 

index listing of the contents of the 

official public docket, and to access 

those documents in the public docket 

that are available electronically. 

Although not all docket materials may 

be available electronically, you may still 

access any of the publicly available 

docket materials through the docket 

facility in the above paragraph entitled 

‘‘Docket.’’ Once in the system, select 

‘‘search,’’ then key in the appropriate 

docket identification number. 

Certain types of information will not 

be placed in the EPA Dockets. 

Information claimed as CBI and other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute, which is not 

included in the official public docket, 

will not be available for public viewing 

in EPA’s electronic public docket. The 

EPA’s policy is that copyrighted 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 24563

material will not be placed in EPA’s 

electronic public docket but will be 

available only in printed, paper form in 

the official public docket. To the extent 

feasible, publicly available docket 

materials will be made available in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. When a 

document is selected from the index list 

in EPA Dockets, the system will identify 

whether the document is available for 

viewing in EPA’s electronic public 

docket. Although not all docket 

materials may be available 

electronically, you may still access any 

of the publicly available docket 

materials through the docket facility 

previously identified.

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of the final rule is also 

available on the WWW through the 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following signature, a copy of the final 

rule will be posted on the TTN’s policy 

and guidance page for newly proposed 

or promulgated rules at the following 

address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.

The TTN provides information and 

technology exchange in various areas of 

air pollution control. If more 

information regarding the TTN is 

needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 

541–5384. 

Judicial Review. The NESHAP for 

asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing was proposed on 

November 21, 2001 (66 FR 58610). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

judicial review of the NESHAP is 

available by filing a petition for review 

in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit by June 30, 

2003. Only those objections to the rule 

that were raised with reasonable 

specificity during the period for public 

comment may be raised during judicial 

review. Under section 307(b)(2) of the 

CAA, the requirements that are the 

subject of today’s final rule may not be 

challenged later in civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by EPA to enforce 

these requirements. 

Background Information Document.

The EPA proposed the NESHAP for 

asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing on November 21, 2001 

(66 FR 58610) and received 21 comment 

letters on the proposal. In response to 

the public comments, EPA adjusted the 

final NESHAP where appropriate. A 

background information document (BID) 

(‘‘National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants, Asphalt 

Processing and Asphalt Roofing 

Manufacturing, Summary of Public 

Comments and Responses,’’ February 

2003, EPA–453/R–03–005) containing 

EPA’s responses to each public 

comment is available in Docket No. 

OAR–2002–0035. 

Outline. The information presented in 

the preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for the 

final NESHAP? 

B. What criteria were used in the 

development of NESHAP? 

C. What operations constitute asphalt 

processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacture? 

D. What are the HAP emissions and HAP 

emission sources? 

E. What are the health effects associated 

with the HAP emitted from the asphalt 

processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing source categories? 

F. What was the basis for the proposed 

standards? 

II. Summary of the Final Standards 

A. Does the final NESHAP apply to me? 

B. What are the affected sources? 

C. What pollutants are regulated by the 

final NESHAP? 

D. What emission limits must I meet? 

E. When must I comply? 

F. What are the testing and initial 

compliance requirements? 

G. What are the continuous compliance 

provisions? 

H. What are the notification, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements? 

III. What are the responses to the significant 

comments? 

A. Rule Applicability 

B. Asphalt Storage Tank and Loading Rack 

Vapor Pressure Control Cutoff 

C. Level of the Standards 

D. Compliance Options 

E. Performance Tests 

F. Monitoring Requirements 

G. Overlap with Other Rules 

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

D. What are the non-air health, 

environmental and energy impacts? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

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 That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background 

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for 

the Final NESHAP? 

Section 112 of the CAA requires us to 

list categories and subcategories of 

major sources and area sources of HAP 

emissions and to establish NESHAP for 

the listed source categories and 

subcategories. A major source of HAP is 

any stationary source or group of 

stationary sources within a contiguous 

area under common control that emits 

or has the potential to emit, considering 

controls, in the aggregate, 9.1 Mg/yr (10 

tons per year (tpy)) or more of any single 

HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) or more of 

any combination of HAP. Based on the 

emissions data collected for this 

rulemaking, asphalt processing and 

asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities 

have the potential to be major sources 

of HAP. 

The EPA listed asphalt processing and 

asphalt roofing manufacturing 

categories of major sources as separate 

source categories on July 16, 1992 (57 

FR 31576). However, because these 

processes are closely related and are 

often collocated, we are regulating 

emissions from both source categories 

under a single NESHAP. 

B. What Criteria Were Used in the 

Development of NESHAP? 

Section 112(c)(2) of the CAA requires 

that we establish NESHAP for control of 

HAP from both existing and new major 

sources, based upon the criteria set out 

in section 112(d). The CAA requires the 

NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree 

of reduction in emissions of HAP that is 

achievable, taking into consideration the 

cost of achieving the emission 

reduction, any non-air quality health 

and environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements. This level of control is 

commonly referred to as the MACT.

The minimum control level allowed 

for NESHAP (the minimum level of 

stringency for MACT) is the so-called 

‘‘MACT floor,’’ as defined under section 

112(d)(3) of the CAA. The MACT floor 

for existing sources is the emission 

limitation achieved by the average of the 

best-performing 12 percent of existing 

sources for categories and subcategories 

with 30 or more sources, or the average 

of the best-performing five sources for 

categories or subcategories with fewer 

than 30 sources. For new sources, the 

MACT floor cannot be less stringent 

than the emission control achieved in 

practice by the best-controlled similar 

source. 

In developing the final NESHAP, we 

considered control options that are more 

stringent than the MACT floor (so-called 

beyond-the-floor control options), taking 

into consideration the cost of achieving 

the emission reductions, and any nonair quality health and environmental 

impacts, and energy requirements. 

In the final rule, the EPA is 

promulgating standards for both existing 

24564 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

and new sources consistent with these 

statutory requirements. 

C. What Operations Constitute Asphalt 

Processing and Asphalt Roofing 

Manufacture? 

The final rule regulates both asphalt 

processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing operations. Asphalt 

processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing operations can be standalone or integrated with each other, or 

with related operations such as wetformed fiberglass mat manufacturing. In 

addition, asphalt is processed at some 

petroleum refineries. 

Processed asphalt is produced using 

asphalt flux as the raw material. Asphalt 

flux is a product that is obtained in the 

last stages of fractional distillation of 

crude oil. Asphalt is processed to 

change its physical properties for use in 

various end products (e.g., paving 

applications, roofing products). In 

asphalt processing, heated asphalt flux 

is taken from storage and charged to a 

heated blowing still where air is 

bubbled up through the flux. This 

process raises the softening temperature 

of the asphalt. The blowing process also 

decreases the penetration rate of the 

asphalt when applied to the roofing 

substrate. Some processing operations 

use a catalyst (e.g., ferric chloride, 

phosphoric acid) in the blowing still to 

promote the oxidation of asphalt. The 

need to use catalyst is primarily driven 

by the type of feedstock used. Certain 

low-quality feedstocks (which are used, 

however, by necessity because 

substitute feedstocks are not available, 

see 66 FR 58619) require catalyst to be 

used to attain desired product 

specifications. 

In asphalt roofing manufacturing, 

processed or modified asphalt (also 

called modified bitumen) is applied to 

a fibrous substrate (typically made of 

fiberglass or organic felt) to produce the 

following types of roofing products: 

Shingles, laminated shingles, smoothsurfaced roll roofing, mineral-surfaced 

roll roofing, and saturated felt roll 

roofing. Modified asphalt is asphalt that 

is mixed with polymer modifiers (which 

add strength and durability to the 

asphalt) and is typically used to 

produce roll roofing products. A roofing 

manufacturing line is a largely 

continuous operation, with line 

stoppages occurring primarily due to 

breaks in the substrate. 

In asphalt roofing manufacturing, 

asphalt is typically mixed with filler 

materials before application to the 

substrate. If a fiberglass substrate is 

used, coating asphalt is applied by a 

coater. If an organic substrate is used, a 

saturator and wet looper are typically 

used prior to the coater to provide 

additional time for the asphalt to 

impregnate the substrate. The type of 

final product being manufactured 

determines the process steps that follow 

the coating or impregnation steps. 

For shingles and mineral-surfaced roll 

roofing, granules are applied to the hot 

surface of the coated substrate. This step 

is omitted in manufacture of smoothsurfaced and saturated felt roll roofing. 

In shingle manufacturing, a strip of 

sealant (typically oxidized or modified 

asphalt) is applied to the back of the 

product after it has cooled. This sealant 

strip, which is heated by the sun after 

the roofing product is installed, 

provides some adhesion and sealing 

between layers of roofing product. In 

shingle manufacture, the coated 

substrate is cut into the desired size. 

Multiple single-ply shingles can be 

glued together (typically using oxidized 

or modified asphalt as an adhesive) to 

produce laminated or dimensional 

shingles. When asphalt roofing 

manufacturing lines are collocated with 

asphalt processing operations, the two 

operations typically share storage and 

process tanks. 

D. What Are the HAP Emissions and 

HAP Emission Sources? 

Asphalt is essentially the material that 

remains after fractional distillation of 

crude oil, with petroleum coke being the 

only other fraction available for 

recovery. Consequently, asphalt consists 

primarily of heavy organic compounds 

with low boiling points. Hazardous air 

pollutants are volatilized from asphalt 

as it is heated and agitated during 

processing and roofing manufacturing 

operations. Hazardous air pollutants are 

also volatilized during asphalt 

processing as a result of the oxidation 

reactions that occur in the blowing still.

Because the HAP volatilized from 

asphalt generally have low boiling 

points, they can be present in both 

condensed particulate matter (PM) and 

gaseous forms, depending on the 

temperature of the vent or exhaust gas. 

When the temperature of the vent gas is 

below the boiling point of a HAP, the 

HAP will condense into particulate form 

(i.e., a cooler vent gas will have more 

HAP in the form of condensed PM, 

whereas a hotter vent stream will 

contain mostly gaseous HAP). 

The following types of equipment are 

sources of PM HAP and gaseous HAP 

emissions: Asphalt storage and process 

tanks, asphalt blowing stills, asphalt 

loading racks, saturators, wet loopers, 

coating mixers, coaters, sealant 

applicators, and adhesive applicators. 

The majority of uncontrolled HAP 

emissions from an asphalt processing 

and asphalt roofing manufacturing 

facility (approximately 50 percent, 

based on the emission factors developed 

for this rulemaking) are contributed by 

the blowing stills, followed by the 

process equipment used to apply 

asphalt to the roofing substrate (e.g., 

coating mixers, saturators, wet loopers, 

and coaters). Asphalt processing 

operations can also be sources of HCl, 

if a chlorinated catalyst is introduced 

into the blowing still during processing. 

Since most blowing still emissions are 

controlled by a combustion device, 

chlorine compounds present in the 

blowing still exhaust are oxidized and 

emitted as HCl from the blowing still 

combustion device outlet. 

E. What Are the Health Effects 

Associated With the HAP Emitted From 

the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt 

Roofing Manufacturing Source 

Categories? 

A variety of HAP are emitted from 

asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing source categories. The 

following HAP account for the majority 

(approximately 98 percent, based on the 

emission factors developed for this 

rulemaking) of the total HAP emissions: 

Formaldehyde, hexane, HCl (at asphalt 

processing facilities that use chlorinated 

catalysts), phenol, and toluene. The 

remaining two percent of the total HAP 

emissions is a combination of several 

different organic HAP, each contributing 

less than 0.5 percent to the total HAP 

emissions. 

The HAP emitted from these source 

categories (controlled under the final 

rule) are associated with a variety of 

adverse health effects. These adverse 

health effects include 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). The EPA has classified two 

of the HAP (formaldehyde and POM) as 

probable human carcinogens. 

The EPA does not have the type of 

current detailed data on each of the 

facilities and the people living around 

the facilities covered by today’s rule for 

this source category that would be 

necessary to conduct an analysis to 

determine the actual population 

exposures to the HAP emitted from 

these facilities and the potential for 

resultant health effects. Therefore, EPA 

does not know the extent to which the 

adverse health effects described above 

occur in the populations surrounding 

these facilities. However, to the extent 

the adverse effects do occur, and this 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 24565

rule reduces emissions, subsequent 

exposures would be reduced. 

F. What Was the Basis for the Proposed 

Standards? 

The EPA proposed standards for the 

HAP-emitting equipment at the two 

affected sources: Each asphalt 

processing facility (blowing stills, 

asphalt flux storage tanks, oxidized 

asphalt storage tanks, and asphalt 

loading racks) and each asphalt roofing 

manufacturing line (saturator, a wet 

looper, a coater, coating mixers, sealant 

applicators, adhesive applicators, and 

associated storage tanks). 

The EPA determined the MACT floors 

for existing and new sources for each 

type of process equipment used in 

asphalt processing facilities and in 

asphalt roofing manufacturing lines. For 

each equipment type, the equipment 

pieces were ranked in order of level of 

control. Combustion devices were 

ranked over PM control devices because 

combustion devices reduce both gaseous 

HAP and condensed HAP. 

At proposal, a combustion device 

operating at or above 1200 °F was the 

basis for the MACT floor for blowing 

stills, asphalt storage tanks with a 

capacity of 1.93 megagrams or greater, 

and loading racks at existing, new, and 

reconstructed affected sources. Blowing 

stills that use a chlorinated catalyst 

produce a vent stream that contains 

chlorinated organic compounds. When 

this vent stream is sent to a combustion 

device, the chlorinated organic 

compounds are oxidized to HCl which 

is a HAP. Because requiring facilities to 

use non-chlorinated catalysts is not 

feasible due to the need to produce 

oxidized asphalt of a given quality (see 

generally 66 FR 58618), and because no 

facilities control HCl emissions, the 

proposed MACT floor for HCl emissions 

from blowing stills using catalyst was 

based on no control of those emissions.

With the exception of asphalt storage 

tanks, the MACT floor for equipment at 

existing asphalt roofing manufacturing 

lines (coaters, saturators, wet loopers, 

coating mixers and sealant and adhesive 

applicators) was based on a PM control 

device complying with the new source 

performance standards (NSPS) for 

asphalt processing and roofing 

manufacture (asphalt NSPS) (40 CFR 

part 60, subpart UU) PM emission 

limits. The floor for saturators, coaters, 

and coating mixers at new and 

reconstructed affected sources was 

based on a combustion device operating 

at or above 1200 °F. For wet loopers at 

existing, new, and reconstructed 

affected sources, the MACT floor was 

based on a PM control device that 

achieves the asphalt NSPS PM emission 

limits. For storage tanks with capacity of 

1.93 megagrams or greater at existing, 

new, and reconstructed asphalt roofing 

manufacturing lines, the MACT floor 

was based on a combustion device 

operating at or above 1200 °F. 

The EPA evaluated potential options 

for achieving emission reductions more 

stringent than the floor (beyond-thefloor options) for three groups of 

equipment: (1) Saturators, wet loopers, 

coaters, coating mixers, and sealant and 

adhesive applicators at existing sources; 

(2) blowing stills that use a chlorinated 

catalyst at existing, new, and 

reconstructed sources; and (3) wet 

loopers at new and reconstructed 

sources. For all other equipment 

(blowing stills, loading racks, and 

storage tanks at existing, new, and 

reconstructed sources; and for 

saturators, coaters, coating mixers, and 

sealant and adhesive applicators at new 

and reconstructed sources), there are no 

known technologies in use at asphalt 

processing or roofing manufacturing 

facilities or similar sources that would 

be capable of achieving a greater 

emission reduction than a combustion 

device operating with a minimum 

operating temperature of 1200 °F. Thus, 

EPA did not consider beyond-the-floor 

options for these types of equipment. 

For saturators, wet loopers, coating 

mixers, coaters, and sealant and 

adhesive applicators at existing affected 

sources, the level of control achieved by 

a combustion device with a minimum 

operating temperature of 1200 °F was 

identified as the only beyond-the-floor 

option. However, due to the cost per 

megagram of HAP reduction ($616,000) 

and the increase in criteria pollutant 

emissions, requiring the level of control 

achieved by a combustion device for 

saturators, wet loopers, coaters, coating 

mixers, and sealant and adhesive 

applicators at existing sources was not 

a justifiable option. 

For blowing stills that use chlorinated 

catalysts, emissions of HCl can be 

reduced by a gas scrubber using caustic 

scrubbing media. However, since gas 

scrubbing has not been demonstrated as 

an effective technology for controlling 

HCl emissions from asphalt processing 

and due to the potentially high cost per 

megagram of HCl reduced ($23,900), the 

additional cost of going beyond-thefloor was not warranted. Nor is process 

substitution a viable option for 

controlling HCl emissions, as noted 

above. Therefore, the MACT for HCl 

emissions from blowing stills using 

catalyst was based on no emission 

reduction. For wet loopers, EPA 

considered the level of control of a 

combustion device operating at a 

minimum of 1200 °F as a beyond-thefloor option. Because controlling wet 

loopers at new affected sources was 

expected to add minimal if any cost to 

the total control cost, the MACT for wet 

loopers at new or reconstructed affected 

sources was based on a combustion 

device operating at a minimum of 1200 

°F. See generally 66 FR 58618–621 and 

the memorandum ‘‘Documentation of 

Existing and New Source Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Floors for the National Emission 

Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) for Asphalt Processing and 

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing’’

(Docket No. OAR–2002–0035). 

With the exception of standards for 

certain tanks and loading racks, EPA is 

adopting all of these standards (and 

analysis) in the final rule. 

II. Summary of the Final Standards 

A. Does the Final NESHAP Apply to 

Me? 

The final rule applies to you if you 

process asphalt (at stand-alone facilities 

or collocated with asphalt roofing 

manufacturing facilities or petroleum 

refineries) or manufacture asphalt 

roofing products at a facility that is a 

major source of HAP emissions. Major 

sources of HAP are those that emit or 

have the potential to emit at least 10 tpy 

of any one HAP or 25 tpy of any 

combination of HAP. All HAP emission 

sources at a facility, not just those 

related to asphalt processing or roofing 

manufacture, must be considered in 

determining major source status. Put 

another way, the final rule may apply to 

you even if the HAP emissions from 

your asphalt roofing products 

manufacturing and asphalt processing 

operations do not themselves exceed the 

major source threshold levels given 

above. If your facility is determined to 

be an area source (i.e., not a major 

source), you would not be subject to the 

final rule. 

For the storage tanks at asphalt 

processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing facilities regulated by the 

final NESHAP, the potential exists for 

these tanks to already be subject to an 

existing emission standard: The 

petroleum refinery NESHAP (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart CC), or standards of 

performance for volatile organic liquid 

storage vessels (40 CFR part 60, subparts 

K, Ka, and Kb). Storage tanks that are 

subject to those standards are not 

subject to the requirements of the 

asphalt rule since the control 

requirements specified by those 

standards for fixed roof storage tanks 

(used in the asphalt processing and 

asphalt roofing manufacturing industry) 

are as stringent as the standards 

24566 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

specified in the asphalt rule, and so 

regulation of these tanks under the 

asphalt rule would be duplicative, 

imposing costs without any 

environmental benefit. 

The EPA also recognizes that asphalt 

storage tanks, blowing stills, saturators, 

wet loopers, and coaters at asphalt 

processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing facilities could be subject 

to both the final NESHAP and the 

asphalt NSPS. In cases where the 

requirements of the rules overlap, the 

final rule specifies that facilities are 

required to comply only with the 

asphalt NESHAP. However, any storage 

tank with a capacity less than 1.93 

megagrams that is subject to the asphalt 

NSPS but not regulated under the 

asphalt NESHAP must comply with the 

asphalt NSPS. 

Another instance where we are 

excluding equipment involved in 

asphalt roofing manufacturing from the 

final rule, due to regulatory overlap 

involves, wet-formed fiberglass mat 

production. Although wet-formed 

fiberglass mat is produced at both standalone facilities and those collocated 

with asphalt processing and roofing 

facilities, HAP emissions from wetformed fiberglass mat manufacturing 

processes are regulated by another 

NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

HHHH).

The final rule does not regulate 

asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing equipment that is used 

solely for research and development 

activities. 

B. What Are the Affected Sources? 

The two affected sources are defined 

as each asphalt processing facility and 

each asphalt roofing manufacturing line. 

An asphalt processing facility consists 

of one or more asphalt flux blowing 

stills, asphalt flux storage tanks storing 

asphalt flux intended for processing in 

the blowing stills, oxidized asphalt 

storage tanks, and oxidized asphalt 

loading racks. An asphalt roofing 

manufacturing line consists of a 

saturator (including wet looper) and/or 

a coater and their associated coating 

mixers, sealant applicators, adhesive 

applicators, and asphalt storage and 

process tanks. 

To reduce repetition in the final 

NESHAP, we have separated asphalt 

storage tanks into two groups. Group 1 

asphalt storage tanks: Have a capacity of 

177 cubic meters (47,000 gallons) of 

asphalt or greater and either store 

asphalt at a maximum temperature of 

260 °C (500 °F) or greater, or have a 

maximum true vapor pressure of 10.4 

kiloPascals (kPa) (1.5 pounds per square 

inch absolute, psia) or greater. Group 2 

asphalt storage tanks are those tanks 

with a capacity of 1.93 Mg of asphalt or 

greater that are not Group 1 asphalt 

storage tanks. 

Asphalt storage tanks at asphalt 

processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing facilities that are 

collocated may be shared by the two 

operations. If the asphalt roofing 

manufacturing line is collocated with an 

asphalt processing facility, the storage 

tanks that receive asphalt directly from 

the on-site blowing stills are defined as 

part of the asphalt processing affected 

source. 

A facility that manufactures asphalt 

roofing may have more than one 

manufacturing line. At these facilities, 

asphalt storage tanks and sealant and 

adhesive applicators may be shared by 

roofing manufacturing lines. A shared 

storage tank is considered part of the 

asphalt roofing manufacturing line to 

which the tank supplies the greatest 

amount of asphalt on an annual basis. 

Similarly, a sealant or adhesive 

applicator that is shared by two or more 

asphalt roofing manufacturing lines is 

considered part of the line that provides 

the greatest throughput to the applicator 

on an annual basis. Recordkeeping 

provisions documenting these 

equipment allocations are found in 

§ 63.8694(d) of the final rule. 

This definition of affected source is 

also used to determine if new source 

standards apply when subject 

equipment is ‘‘constructed’’ or 

‘‘reconstructed,’’ as defined in the 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR 

63.2). We defined the affected source as 

the asphalt processing facility or asphalt 

roofing manufacturing line, rather than 

on a narrow equipment-piece basis, 

because we believe that it is 

inappropriate for small changes (e.g., 

the addition of a sealant applicator to a 

manufacturing line) to trigger the new 

source emission limits for only part of 

the manufacturing line. For asphalt 

processing facilities, this is not a 

concern since the existing and new 

source standards are the same. However, 

the existing and new source standards 

are different for asphalt roofing 

manufacturing lines. 

For asphalt roofing manufacturing 

lines, the new source emission limits 

would be triggered only when an entire 

new line is added or when an existing 

line is reconstructed. This is appropriate 

because the manufacture of roofing 

products is a continuous process, with 

the equipment for the different process 

steps arranged in sequence. 

Consequently, an increase in production 

cannot be achieved simply by adding a 

single piece of process equipment (e.g., 

a coater). To increase production 

capacity, significant parts of the line 

would have to be modified or a new line 

would need to be constructed. 

C. What Pollutants Are Regulated by the 

Final NESHAP? 

The final rule establishes emission 

limits for two pollutants, total 

hydrocarbons (THC) and PM, each of 

which serves as a surrogate for HAP 

emitted by the process equipment. 

Total Hydrocarbons 

We are regulating total gaseous 

organic HAP emissions using THC as a 

surrogate. Total hydrocarbons are an 

appropriate surrogate for total HAP 

since organic HAP constitutes a 

significant portion of the THC, and 

because combustion controls are equally 

effective at reducing emissions of a wide 

range of organic compounds (including 

organic HAP emitted by asphalt 

processing and roofing manufacturing 

facilities and THC). Thus, reduction of 

organic HAP and THC from these 

sources is proportionate. 

Particulate Matter 

Particulate matter emitted from 

blowing stills consists of condensed 

organic hydrocarbons. For organic HAP 

that is present in condensed PM form, 

we are using PM as a surrogate. Similar 

to the THC surrogate for gaseous HAP, 

PM is an appropriate surrogate because 

it includes the HAP that are emitted as 

condensed PM. Because the reductions 

achieved by PM control devices are not 

pollutant-specific (i.e., one type of PM is 

not preferentially reduced over another 

type of PM), controlling PM will result 

in a generally proportionate amount of 

condensed particulate organic HAP 

control.

D. What Emission Limits Must I Meet? 

You must meet the emission limits 

that are summarized in Table 1 to the 

final rule. The emission limits are 

expressed in appropriate formats for the 

various process equipment being 

regulated. Depending on the piece of 

process equipment, you may have the 

option of complying with any of several 

formats. These formats include a PM 

emission limit (expressed in terms of 

kilograms of PM per Mg product 

manufactured), a THC percent reduction 

standard, a THC outlet concentration, a 

THC destruction efficiency standard 

(only for combustion devices that do not 

use auxiliary fuel), or a combustion 

efficiency standard. 

The THC destruction efficiency and 

combustion efficiency standards are 

provided as an alternative to the THC 

percent reduction standard in the final 

rule because there are some emission 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 24567

sources (e.g., blowing stills) for which 

testing of the control device inlet is 

impractical. 

Saturators (including wet loopers) and 

coaters at existing roofing 

manufacturing lines must meet PM 

emission limits based on the type of 

substrate used in manufacturing. At 

existing, reconstructed, and new asphalt 

roofing manufacturing lines, saturators 

(including wet loopers) and coaters 

must meet an opacity limit, and the 

emission capture system for these 

equipment must meet a visible 

emissions standard. The final rule also 

provides the option for Group 2 asphalt 

storage tanks, saturators (including wet 

loopers), and coaters at existing and 

new asphalt roofing manufacturing lines 

and coating mixers, sealant applicators, 

and adhesive applicators at existing 

asphalt roofing manufacturing lines to 

comply with either the THC or the 

combustion efficiency standards instead 

of the PM and opacity standards. 

E. When Must I Comply? 

Existing sources must comply with 

the final rule no later than May 1, 2006. 

The 3-year period is necessary to allow 

owners and operators sufficient time to 

design, purchase, and install emissions 

capture systems and air pollution 

control equipment. New or 

reconstructed sources must comply with 

the final rule at startup or April 29, 

2003, whichever is later. 

If your asphalt processing facility or 

asphalt roofing manufacturing line is 

located at a facility that is an area source 

that increases its emissions or its 

potential to emit such that it becomes a 

major source of HAP after April 29, 

2003, then any portion of the existing 

facility that is a new affected source or 

a reconstructed affected source must 

comply with all requirements of the 

final rule applicable to new sources 

upon startup after the facility becomes 

a major source or by April 29, 2003, 

whichever is later. All other parts of any 

facility to which the final rule applies 

must be in compliance with this subpart 

by 3 years after becoming a major 

source. 

F. What Are the Testing and Initial 

Compliance Requirements? 

You must conduct a performance test 

to demonstrate initial compliance with 

the final rule emission limits unless you 

are using the results from an acceptable 

previously-conducted emission test to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limitations in the final rule, or 

you are using a control device that the 

EPA has already determined achieves 

the required HAP destruction efficiency. 

If you choose to use the results from 

a previously-conducted emissions test, 

you must demonstrate to the 

Administrator’s (or delegated authority) 

satisfaction that no changes have been 

made to the process since the time of 

the emissions test, the operating 

conditions and test methods used 

during testing conform to the 

requirements of the final rule, and the 

control device and process parameter 

values established during the 

previously-conducted emission test are 

used to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the final rule. 

An initial performance test is not 

required for boilers or process heaters 

with a design heat input capacity of 44 

megawatts (MW) or greater or where the 

emissions are introduced into the flame 

zone of the boiler or process heater. 

Performance testing is also not required 

for flares that meet the design and 

operating requirements of 40 CFR 

63.11(b). An initial performance test is 

not required for boilers and process 

heaters larger than 44 MW because they 

operate at high temperatures and 

residence times. When vent streams are 

introduced into the flame zone of these 

boilers and process heaters, over 98 

percent reduction or an outlet 

concentration of 20 parts per million per 

volume (ppmv) is achieved. Therefore, a 

performance test is not necessary. We 

are not requiring performance testing of 

flares because percent reduction and 

outlet concentration cannot feasibly be 

measured at flares. The operating 

conditions in § 63.11 assure that the 

flare will be operated properly and 

achieve the requisite degree of 

destruction of organic HAP.

As specified in 40 CFR 63.7(e), 

performance tests must be conducted 

within the range of normal operating 

conditions. To ensure that compliance 

can be achieved over the entire range of 

operating conditions, the performance 

tests must be conducted under the 

operating conditions that reflect the 

highest rate of asphalt processing or 

roofing production reasonably expected 

to be achieved by the facility. For 

example, performance tests of roofing 

manufacturing line equipment must be 

conducted while operating under 

normal conditions and while 

manufacturing the roofing product that 

is expected to result in the greatest 

amount of HAP emissions. 

For each performance test, you must 

conduct a minimum of three 1-hour test 

runs. Compliance is determined based 

on the average of the three test runs. To 

measure PM, you must use EPA test 

method 5A; for THC emissions, you 

must use EPA test method 25A. 

For the THC destruction efficiency 

and combustion efficiency standards, 

you must measure emissions of THC, 

carbon monoxide (CO2), and carbon 

dioxide (CO2) to demonstrate 

compliance. For the THC outlet 

concentration you must measure 

emissions of THC to demonstrate 

compliance. You must use EPA test 

method 10 to measure CO emissions 

and EPA test method 3A to measure CO2

emissions. The EPA test methods are 

contained in appendix A of 40 CFR part 

60. You must demonstrate compliance 

with the PM emission limit, THC 

percent reduction standard, THC outlet 

concentration standard, THC 

destruction efficiency standard, and the 

combustion efficiency standard using 

the instructions and equations in the 

performance test requirement section of 

the final rule. 

The final rule also contains opacity 

and visible emission standards for 

saturators (including wet loopers) and 

coaters and their emissions capture 

systems at existing, new, and 

reconstructed asphalt roofing 

manufacturing lines and an opacity 

standard for certain asphalt storage 

tanks at existing, new, and 

reconstructed asphalt processing 

facilities and roofing manufacturing 

lines. Opacity and visible emission 

compliance determinations must be 

made using EPA test methods 9 and 22 

in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, 

respectively. 

The final rule allows you to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the emission standards by 

monitoring control device operating 

parameters or by using continuous 

emission monitoring systems (CEMS) to 

directly measure emissions. Although 

the final rule does not require 

continuous monitoring of opacity, you 

can use continuous opacity monitoring 

systems (COMS) if you choose to do so 

since the opacity standard applies at all 

times. 

If you choose to conduct parameter 

monitoring, you must install, calibrate, 

maintain, and operate a continuous 

parameter monitoring system (CPMS) to 

monitor the control device parameters. 

During the performance test, you must 

continuously monitor and record 

control device parameters and establish 

the monitoring parameter value(s) that 

constitute compliance with the emission 

limits if you plan to use parameter 

monitoring to demonstrate compliance 

following the initial performance test. If 

you use a combustion device to comply 

with the standards, you must record the 

average operating temperature. The 

temperature monitoring device must be 

installed at the exit of the combustion 

24568 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

zone or in the ductwork immediately 

downstream of the combustion zone, 

before any substantial heat loss occurs. 

If you use a control device to comply 

with the PM standards, you must record 

the device inlet gas temperature and 

pressure drop across the device. If you 

use electrostatic precipitators (ESP) to 

achieve compliance with the PM 

standard, you may record the voltage of 

the ESP as an alternative to the pressure 

drop across the ESP. 

For combustion devices and PM 

control devices, the parameters must be 

monitored and values recorded in 15-

minute blocks during each of three 1-

hour test runs. If you use a control 

device other than a combustion device 

or PM control device to comply with the 

final rule, you must propose the 

appropriate monitoring parameters, 

monitoring frequencies, and averaging 

periods. All monitoring parameters for 

control devices not specified in the final 

rule must be approved by the 

Administrator as specified in 40 CFR 

63.8(f). 

If you choose to demonstrate 

continuous compliance by directly 

measuring emissions, you must install, 

calibrate, maintain, and operate a CEMS 

and record the emissions during the 

performance test according to the 

procedures specified in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A. 

For all monitoring approaches (CPMS 

and CEMS (and COMS, if used)), you 

must also monitor and record the 

average hourly roofing line production 

rate or the asphalt processing rate, as 

applicable, during the performance test. 

If you are complying with the PM 

emission limit, you must also determine 

the asphalt content of the product 

manufactured during the performance 

test. 

G. What Are the Continuous 

Compliance Provisions? 

After the performance test, you must 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the emission limits by monitoring 

either control device or process 

operating parameters or by monitoring 

emissions. The parameters or emissions 

must remain within the limits 

established during the initial 

performance test. 

If you choose to use parametric 

monitoring to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the standards, the final 

rule specifies the parameters that are to 

be monitored. For combustion devices 

(other than boilers, process heaters, and 

flares that meet specified design and 

operating requirements), you must 

monitor the operating temperature. For 

control devices used to meet the PM 

standards, you must monitor the inlet 

gas temperature and pressure drop 

across the device. If you use an ESP to 

achieve compliance with the PM 

standard, you may monitor the voltage 

of the ESP as an alternative to pressure 

drop. 

For parametric monitoring, you must 

determine and record 15-minute and 3-

hour block averages of the specified 

parameters. However, the final rule 

allows the option of determining 

continuous compliance based on any 

15-minute period (i.e., you are not 

required to calculate 3-hour block 

averages). If you choose this alternative, 

a monitoring parameter deviation would 

occur if the monitoring parameter 

value(s) is outside the approved range 

during any 15-minute period.

If you use a control device other than 

a combustion device or PM control 

device to achieve compliance with the 

emission limits, the monitoring 

parameters must be approved by the 

Administrator and established during 

the initial performance test. To change 

the value of any monitored parameter, 

you must conduct a performance test 

and submit a request to the 

Administrator for approval using the 

procedures specified in 40 CFR 63.8(f). 

H. What Are the Notification, 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements? 

You must comply with the 

notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart A, as specified in Tables 6 

and 7 to the final rule. The notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements include, but are not 

limited to: Initial notification of 

applicability of the rule, notification of 

the dates for conducting the 

performance test and notification of 

compliance status; reports of any 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

events that occur; and semiannual 

reports of excess emissions or 

deviations from monitoring parameter 

limits. When no deviations occur, you 

must submit semiannual reports 

indicating that no deviations have 

occurred during the period. For a 

combustion device, a deviation would 

be any time (excluding periods of 

startup, shutdown and malfunction 

which would be a separate report) that 

the operating temperature falls below 

the limit established during the initial 

performance test. For a control device 

used to meet the PM standards, a 

deviation would be any time (excluding 

periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction) that the temperature of the 

gas at the inlet to the control device or 

the pressure drop across the control 

device (or ESP voltage) are outside their 

respective limits established during the 

initial performance test. 

You must maintain records of the 

following, as applicable: (1) Combustion 

device operating temperature; (2) PM 

control device inlet gas temperature and 

pressure drop (or voltage for ESP); (3) 

approved parameters for sources that 

comply with the emission limits using 

a control device other than a 

combustion device or PM control 

device; (4) CEMS; and (5) the date and 

time a deviation commenced if a 

monitoring parameter or emission 

deviation occurs, the date and time 

corrective actions were initiated and 

completed, a description of the cause of 

the deviation, and a description of the 

corrective actions taken. You must also 

prepare a startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction plan and maintain records 

of actions taken during these events, as 

required by 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3). 

The final rule also includes a 

requirement to develop and make 

available for inspection by the 

permitting authority, upon request, a 

site-specific monitoring plan that 

specifies how the continuous parameter 

monitoring system will be installed, 

operated, and maintained as well as the 

data quality assurance procedures and 

ongoing recordkeeping and reporting 

procedures. 

The NESHAP General Provisions 

(§ 63.10(b)) require that records be 

maintained for at least 5 years from the 

date of each record. You must retain the 

records onsite for at least 2 years. You 

may retain records for the remaining 3 

years at an offsite location. The records 

must be readily available and in a form 

suitable for efficient inspection and 

review. The files may be retained on 

paper, microfilm, microfiche, a 

computer, computer disks, or magnetic 

tape. Reports may also be made on 

paper or on a labeled computer disk 

using commonly available and 

compatible computer software. 

III. What Are the Responses to the 

Significant Comments? 

Significant public comments on the 

proposed rule along with our responses 

to these comments are summarized in 

this section of the preamble. For 

detailed responses to all the comments, 

see the Background Information 

Document (BID) (‘‘National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 

Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 

Manufacturing, Summary of Public 

Comments and Responses,’’ February 

2003, EPA–453/R–03–005) (Docket No. 

OAR–2002–0035).

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 24569

A. Rule Applicability 

Comment: Several commenters noted 

that it was not clear if the proposed rule 

applied to facilities that process asphalt 

intended for non-roofing products. The 

commenters suggested that confusion 

regarding applicability was caused by 

addressing both the asphalt processing 

and asphalt roofing manufacturing 

source categories together under one 

NESHAP. Confusion may have also been 

caused by the proposed definition of 

asphalt flux, which read: ‘‘asphalt flux 

means the residual material from 

distillation of crude oil used to 

manufacture asphalt roofing products.’’

Response: On June 21, 2002, the EPA 

sent letters to the commenters to clarify 

two aspects of the proposed rule:

• The proposed rule was intended to cover 

all asphalt processing regardless of the 

asphalt’s end use; and 

• Requirements for storage vessels at 

asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities, 

inadvertently left out of the proposed rule, 

are the same as those for storage vessels at 

asphalt processing facilities.

Subsequent comments on the notice 

letters disagreed with EPA’s 

interpretation of the proposed rule’s 

applicability and contended that the 

EPA should address this clarification in 

a supplemental proposal. 

The EPA does not believe that a 

supplemental proposal is needed to 

clarify the applicability of the final rule. 

It has long been held that actual notice 

constitutes adequate notice and 

opportunity for comment for purposes 

of section 307 of the CAA. (See Small 

Lead Refiner Phase Down Task Force v. 

EPA, 705 F. 2d 507, 548 (D.C. Cir. 

1983).) The extensive comments 

received in response to the June 21, 

2002 letters demonstrates that the 

commenters had adequate notice and 

availed themselves of it. There is no 

credible claim that further comments 

could have been submitted had there 

been more notice or that the time for 

response was inadequate. Under these 

circumstances, EPA believes that it 

afforded all letter recipients adequate 

notice and opportunity for comment 

and a supplemental notice to clarify the 

applicability of the rule is not necessary. 

The final NESHAP includes both 

asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing because many facilities 

both process asphalt and manufacture 

roofing products (asphalt roofing and 

other roofing products). 

With respect to the issue of whether 

asphalt processing should include 

operations that process asphalt for nonroofing uses, EPA believes that it 

should. The HAP emissions from 

asphalt processing (and the means of 

controlling such emissions) are 

identical, whether or not asphalt is 

produced for roofing or for other uses. 

Nor did EPA ever intend to distinguish 

among asphalt uses in setting out the 

rule’s scope. The source category 

definition (‘‘Documentation for 

Developing the Initial Source Category 

List,’’ EPA–450/3–91–030, July 1992) of 

‘‘asphalt processing’’ reads as follows:

‘‘The Asphalt Processing source category 

includes any facility engaged in the 

preparation of asphalt at asphalt processing 

plants, petroleum refineries, and asphalt 

roofing plants. Asphalt preparation, called 

‘blowing,’ involves the oxidation of asphalt 

flux by bubbling air through the liquid 

asphalt flux at 260°C for 1 to 4.5 hours, 

depending upon the desired characteristics of 

the asphalt. The category includes, but is not 

limited to, the following process: asphalt 

heating, blowing still, and asphalt storage 

tanks’’ (emphasis added).

This definition is not limited to 

asphalt that is processed for roofing 

manufacturing, and in fact, is not 

limited in any respect by the ultimate 

use to which processed asphalt is put. 

Consistent with the source category 

definition, it was not EPA’s intent to 

limit the applicability of the final rule 

to the processing of roofing asphalt or 

any other end use. 

To clarify the final rule applicability, 

EPA has written the definition of 

asphalt processing in the final rule to 

read as follows:

‘‘Asphalt processing facility means any 

facility 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 increase the softening point and 

reduce the penetration of the oxidized 

asphalt.

An asphalt processing facility includes one 

or more asphalt flux blowing stills and their 

associated asphalt flux storage tanks, 

oxidized asphalt storage tanks and oxidized 

asphalt loading racks.’’

The EPA has also modified the 

definition of ‘‘asphalt flux’’ as proposed 

to remove any suggestion that the rule’s 

scope is limited by the intended use of 

the processed asphalt. 

B. Asphalt Storage Tank and Loading 

Rack Vapor Pressure Control Cutoff 

Comment: Several commenters 

supported using a vapor pressure cutoff, 

such as those found in the petroleum 

refinery NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CC) and the new source 

performance standards for storage 

vessels (40 CFR part 60, subparts K, Ka, 

and Kb) for asphalt storage tanks and 

loading racks. The commenters 

contended that equipment with vapor 

pressures below those thresholds would 

emit only minimal amounts of HAP and 

therefore should not be subject to 

control requirements. The commenters 

also alleged that EPA was being 

inconsistent among different MACT 

standards in developing standards 

applicable to similar types of 

equipment. For example, one 

commenter asserted that EPA should 

not declare emissions from low HAP, 

low vapor pressure stocks as de minimis

sources under the petroleum refineries 

NESHAP and then propose to regulate 

those same emissions under the asphalt 

NESHAP. One commenter contended 

that it would be reasonable for EPA to 

use an approach similar to the 

petroleum refinery NESHAP because 

asphalt flux feedstocks and finished 

asphalt products are produced directly 

by refineries and because many 

refineries will be subject to the asphalt 

NESHAP. 

Response: The proposed MACT for all 

asphalt storage tanks with a capacity of 

1.93 Mg or greater at existing, new, and 

reconstructed affected sources was 

based on the fact that greater than 12 

percent of the asphalt storage tanks were 

controlled with a combustion device 

operating at or above 1200 °F. Also, the 

available data showed that no sources 

were using a combustion device to 

control emissions from storage tanks 

with a capacity less than 1.93 Mg of 

asphalt. Therefore, the proposed MACT 

did not require control of tanks with 

capacities less than 1.93 Mg (66 FR 

58620). 

The EPA now believes that the 

prevalence of combustion devices on 

tanks storing asphalt at low vapor 

pressure is misleading. We believe that 

combustion devices in this industry are 

used to control emissions from tanks 

storing high- and low-vapor asphalt that 

are generally part of an ‘‘integrated 

system,’’ an integrated group of process 

equipment including higher-emitting 

equipment such as a blowing still, so 

that what really is being controlled by 

combustion are the emissions from the 

high-emitting equipment, with 

emissions from other system 

components being ‘‘along for the ride.’’

An integrated system is one in which 

process components (e.g., blowing stills, 

coaters, and tanks storing high- and lowvapor pressure asphalt) are utilized 

largely together and are generally 

located in close proximity. In an 

integrated system, emissions from 

process equipment that are subject to 

less stringent emission standards (e.g.,

tanks storing low-vapor pressure 

asphalt) generally are routed to the 

control device (e.g., combustion device) 

that is used to control emissions from 

24570 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

the equipment (e.g., blowing stills, 

coaters) that are subject to more 

stringent emission standards. In other 

words, it is more cost effective to ‘‘over 

control’’ emissions from lower-emitting 

storage tanks that are nearby, using a 

combustion device that is selected and 

designed to control emissions from the 

entire system (e.g., blowing stills, 

coaters, and asphalt storage tanks), than 

it is to install a separate control device 

to reduce emissions from the storage 

tanks to a lesser degree. 

In the absence of an integrated system 

configuration, we do not believe that 

combustion controls represent the 

MACT floor (or otherwise represent 

MACT) for tanks that store low-vapor 

pressure asphalt since facilities that do 

not use a combustion device to reduce 

emissions from higher-emitting process 

equipment are unlikely to use a 

combustion device to reduce emissions 

from tanks that store low-vapor pressure 

asphalt (and we in fact know of no 

instance when a tank storing low-vapor 

pressure asphalt in this industry is 

controlled by a combustion device when 

the tank is a stand-alone unit). 

Therefore, for tanks storing asphalt with 

a low vapor pressure, the MACT floor 

largely depends on whether or not the 

tank is part of an integrated system. 

Based on the above discussion, it 

would seem logical to develop one set 

of standards for integrated systems 

(including tanks) and another for 

nonintegrated systems (where tanks 

would have different standards). 

However, we do not have sufficient data 

to characterize the control level of 

integrated versus nonintegrated systems 

or even to devise workable definitions 

of these systems. The significance of the 

existence of integrated systems, 

therefore, relates to calculation of floor 

standards for tanks. 

Based on the existence of integrated 

systems, we do not believe that we have 

to include all tanks storing high- and 

low-vapor pressure asphalt together in 

making a floor determination for storage 

tanks. We do believe that it is 

reasonable to assume that facilities 

would use combustion devices for tanks 

storing high-vapor pressure asphalt 

because of the greater potential for 

emissions from these tanks and the 

appropriateness of controlling volatile 

emissions using combustion devices. 

We, thus, included all such tanks as a 

single group in determining floor 

standards and determined that the bestperforming 12 percent of tanks used to 

store high-vapor pressure asphalt use 

combustion to control the emissions. 

(We did not, however, include tanks 

used to store low-vapor pressure asphalt 

in this calculus and are not compelled 

to for the reasons explained above 

relating to integrated systems.) 

Therefore, for tanks storing asphalt with 

a high vapor pressure at existing and 

new sources, we believe that the MACT 

floor is a combustion device regardless 

of whether or not it is located in an 

integrated system.

For tanks storing low-vapor pressure 

asphalt, a separate determination must 

be made to establish the MACT floor for 

existing and new sources. For these 

storage tanks, the MACT floor depends 

mainly on whether or not the tank is 

part of an integrated system. However, 

as noted above, we are unable to devise 

a workable definition of the integrated 

system. Among other problems, we have 

no information regarding tank vapor 

pressure or facility configurations to 

determine the relative proximity of lowvapor pressure asphalt storage tanks to 

combustion devices. Although we are 

unable to develop a separate standard 

for integrated systems, the MACT floor 

for any storage tank cannot be less 

stringent than the opacity limits for 

controlling PM specified in the asphalt 

NSPS, since over 12 percent of existing 

storage tanks in the industry are already 

subject to those standards. In fact, 

approximately 27 percent of the storage 

tanks in the database use particulate 

controls (such as fiber-bed filters, mist 

eliminators, condensers) to meet the 

asphalt NSPS. This control of PM will 

necessarily control HAP emissions since 

a portion of the PM is condensed HAP. 

Therefore, the MACT floor for tanks 

storing asphalt with low vapor pressures 

at existing and new sources is the 

opacity limit specified in the asphalt 

NSPS. 

We recognize that this floor for tanks 

storing low-vapor pressure asphalt 

actually applies to some tanks that are 

part of integrated systems. Nevertheless, 

we expect that tanks that are part of an 

integrated system are controlled by the 

same control device used to control the 

entire system, rather than being 

controlled separately. Therefore, using 

the opacity limit specified in the asphalt 

NSPS as a floor for tanks storing asphalt 

with low vapor pressures should not 

discourage facilities from using 

combustion devices to control emissions 

from storage tanks that are part of 

integrated systems. Nor is it likely to 

lead to removal of any existing controls 

on integrated systems since the 

combined system was already adopted 

by those facilities and removal would 

entail retrofit costs. 

With regard to establishing the vapor 

pressure cutoff value that would be used 

to assign tanks into high- and low-vapor 

pressure groups (Groups 1 and 2, 

respectively), EPA does not have survey 

data for the vapor pressure of stored 

asphalt that could be used to establish 

this value. In the absence of vapor 

pressure data, we based the vapor 

pressure cutoff value on the MACT floor 

for existing storage tanks at petroleum 

refineries. Asphalt tanks are similar 

because asphalt is a petroleum refinery 

product, and asphalt processing 

facilities are located at some petroleum 

refineries. Therefore, EPA believes that 

it is reasonable for the vapor pressure 

cutoff in the final rule to be consistent 

with the maximum true vapor pressure 

cutoff (10.4 kPa) for existing storage 

tanks in the petroleum refinery 

NESHAP. Thus, under the final rule, 

tanks storing asphalt with a maximum 

true vapor pressure of 10.4 kPa or 

greater are considered ‘‘high-vapor 

pressure’’ tanks (i.e., Group 1 tanks) 

while tanks storing asphalt with a 

maximum true vapor pressure less than 

10.4 kPa are considered ‘‘low-vapor 

pressure’’ tanks (i.e., Group 2 tanks).

The petroleum refinery NESHAP also 

contains an annual average true vapor 

pressure cutoff (8.3 kPa) and an annual 

HAP liquid concentration cutoff (4 

percent, by weight of total organic HAP) 

for determining storage tank 

applicability. Because the storage 

temperature of asphalt at asphalt 

processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing facilities is expected to 

be maintained over a narrow range 

throughout the year, providing an 

annual average for storage temperature 

in the asphalt NESHAP is unnecessary. 

The concentration cutoff was included 

in the petroleum refinery NESHAP to 

address the fact that some liquids at 

petroleum refineries have very low HAP 

concentrations and high vapor pressures 

due to the volatility of non-HAP 

compounds in the material. However, 

because asphalt processing and asphalt 

roofing manufacturing facilities do not 

typically store products other than 

asphalt, the EPA believes that including 

an annual HAP liquid concentration 

cutoff in the asphalt NESHAP is 

unnecessary. 

With regard to the proposed tank 

capacity cutoff of 1.93 Mg, EPA believes 

that the analysis used to establish the 

proposed capacity cutoff for combustion 

control was flawed since the cutoff 

value was based on the smallest tank 

controlled by a combustion device. 

Since we now consider the seeming 

prevalence of combustion devices on 

tanks storing low-vapor pressure asphalt 

to actually reflect controls on integrated 

systems (driven by the need to control 

the greatest emission source of the 

integrated system), we do not believe 

that the proposed capacity cutoff value 

for combustion control is valid because 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 24571

it was premised on the assumption that 

stand-alone (i.e., non-integrated) lowvapor pressure asphalt storage tanks 

were controlled by means of combustion 

devices. Consequently, we are 

establishing the capacity cutoff value for 

combustion control to be consistent 

with the capacity cutoff for existing 

tanks at petroleum refineries (again 

consistent with comments urging that 

the petroleum and asphalt NESHAP be 

consistent insofar as they apply to 

similar types of emission sources). 

Therefore, the floor for asphalt storage 

tanks with a capacity of 177 cubic 

meters or greater and storing asphalt 

with a maximum vapor pressure of 10.4 

kPa or greater (i.e., Group 1 asphalt 

storage tanks) at existing and new 

sources is combustion control. The floor 

for asphalt storage tanks with a capacity 

of 177 cubic meters or greater storing 

asphalt with a maximum vapor pressure 

less than 10.4 kPa (i.e., Group 2 asphalt 

storage tanks) at existing and new 

sources is the opacity limit specified in 

the asphalt NSPS. As at proposal, 

however, we are not determining a floor 

level of control for tanks less than a 

capacity of 1.93 Mg. Based on the tank 

capacity data from the Asphalt Roofing 

Manufacturers Association survey, less 

than 2 percent of the tanks have 

capacities less than 1.93 Mg, and only 

one of those tanks is vented to a PM 

control device. 

The EPA is also applying much this 

same reasoning in determining a MACT 

floor for asphalt loading racks. The 

proposed MACT for asphalt loading 

racks at existing, new, and 

reconstructed affected sources was 

based on the fact that greater than 12 

percent of the loading racks were 

controlled with a combustion device 

operating at or above 1200 °F. Although 

we do not have vapor pressure data for 

loading racks, we believe (as with 

storage tanks) that it is reasonable to 

assume that facilities are using 

combustion devices to control emissions 

from loading racks that are used to 

transfer high-vapor pressure asphalt 

because of the greater potential for 

emissions from this asphalt and the 

appropriateness of controlling volatile 

emissions using combustion devices. 

Consequently, the EPA believes that the 

MACT floor for loading racks 

transferring high-vapor pressure asphalt 

at existing and new sources is a 

combustion device regardless of 

whether or not it is part of an integrated 

system. In the absence of vapor pressure 

data, and to be consistent with the 

approach used for high-vapor pressure 

(Group 1) asphalt storage tanks, we 

based the vapor pressure cutoff for 

loading asphalt racks on the maximum 

true vapor pressure cutoff (10.4 kPa) for 

existing storage tanks in the petroleum 

refinery NESHAP. 

For loading racks used to transfer lowvapor pressure asphalt at existing and 

new sources, as with low-vapor pressure 

(Group 2) asphalt storage tanks, we are 

unable to develop a separate standard 

for integrated systems. However, unlike 

the asphalt NSPS for storage tanks, an 

existing regulation does not exist for 

asphalt loading racks that would 

establish a minimum level of the MACT 

floor. Therefore, a MACT floor for 

loading racks transferring asphalt with a 

maximum vapor pressure less than 10.4 

kPa at existing and new sources could 

not be established. 

In summary, the MACT floor for tanks 

with an asphalt storage capacity of 177 

cubic meters or greater and storing 

asphalt with a maximum vapor pressure 

of 10.4 kPa or greater at existing and 

new sources is based on a combustion 

device operating at or above 1200 °F. 

For tanks with asphalt storage capacities 

of 177 cubic meters or greater or storing 

asphalt with a maximum vapor pressure 

less than 10.4 kPa, the MACT floor for 

existing and new sources is represented 

by the opacity limit in the asphalt 

NSPS. The opacity limit of the asphalt 

NSPS also represents the MACT floor 

for asphalt storage tanks with capacities 

less than 177 cubic meters but greater 

than or equal to 1.84 cubic meters at 

existing and new sources. For loading 

racks used to transfer asphalt with a 

maximum vapor pressure of 10.4 kPa or 

greater at existing and new sources, the 

MACT floor is a combustion device 

operating at or above 1200 °F. The 

MACT floor for loading racks used to 

transfer asphalt with a maximum vapor 

pressure less than 10.4 kPa at existing 

and new sources is no additional 

control. 

Also, as explained in detail in the 

preamble to the proposal (66 FR 58620–

21), we continue to believe that controls 

beyond the MACT floor for high-vapor 

pressure asphalt storage tanks and 

loading racks (where the floors have not 

changed between the proposed and final 

rule) are not technically or economically 

feasible (i.e., there are no known 

controls that would reduce HAP 

emissions more than combustion 

control), so that MACT for the highvapor pressure asphalt storage tanks and 

loading racks is represented by their 

respective MACT floors. 

For the low-vapor pressure asphalt 

storage tanks (for which we have made 

a different floor determination), the only 

control option beyond the MACT floor 

is control with a combustion device. 

However, given the relatively low HAP 

emissions from this equipment, the 

incremental cost-effectiveness (greater 

than $3,000,000 per megagram of HAP 

reduced) of increasing the level of HAP 

reduction achieved by a PM control 

device (93.3 percent) (the device we 

anticipate would be used to achieve the 

opacity standard which is the MACT 

floor) to that achieved by a combustion 

device (95 percent) is not a justifiable 

option. (Additional energy use likewise 

would be required to achieve this 

modest incremental HAP reduction as 

well.) Therefore, MACT for low-vapor 

pressure asphalt storage tanks is 

represented by the MACT floor. 

For low-vapor pressure asphalt 

loading racks, the control options 

beyond the MACT floor are a PM 

control device and a combustion device. 

However, as with low-vapor pressure 

asphalt storage tanks, the high costs per 

megagram of HAP reduction (greater 

than $500,000 per megagram of HAP 

reduced) achieved by controlling lowvapor pressure asphalt loading rack 

emissions with either a PM control 

device or combustion device make the 

beyond the MACT floor options 

economically infeasible. Therefore, 

MACT for low-vapor pressure asphalt 

loading racks is represented by the 

MACT floor.

Because we are specifying vapor 

pressure as a cutoff for different groups 

of tanks, it is necessary to identify how 

such a determination would be made if 

a facility were required to do so. 

Following proposal, the EPA met with 

industry representatives to identify an 

appropriate test method for determining 

the vapor pressure of stored asphalt, if 

EPA were to promulgate such a cutoff. 

According to the industry and EPA 

representatives, a standardized or 

consensus test method for measuring 

the vapor pressure of stored asphalt has 

not been established. (See the summary 

of the September 17, 2002 meeting with 

petroleum refinery representatives in 

Docket No. OAR–2002–0035.) Currently, 

the industry uses nomographs or other 

relationships depicting the vapor 

pressure of petroleum liquids as a 

function of storage temperature vapor 

pressure and asphalt composition (e.g., 

flux versus oxidized) to determine the 

vapor pressure of stored asphalt. 

Since there is no standardized test 

method for measuring the vapor 

pressure of stored asphalt, the EPA 

believes that the final rule should 

specify a temperature that equates to a 

vapor pressure of 10 kPa, instead of 

requiring facilities to physically 

measure asphalt vapor pressure. 

According to industry representatives, 

asphalt flux reaches 10.4 kPa at 

approximately 500 to 550 °F (oxidized 

asphalt would require higher 

24572 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

temperatures to reach 10.4 kPa). The 

temperature estimate cited by the 

industry representatives was confirmed 

on a theoretical level using a regression 

equation for asphalt vapor pressure as a 

function of temperature, developed by 

the Owens Corning Company using a 

modified version of the American 

Society of Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) method D2879 (Standard Test 

Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature 

Relationship and Initial Decomposition 

Temperature of Liquids by 

Isoteniscope). According to the 

regression equation, asphalt flux reaches 

a vapor pressure of 10.4 kPa at 

approximately 450 °F. 

Since the regression equation, which 

under-predicts the temperature at which 

asphalt flux reaches a given vapor 

pressure (according to industry and EPA 

representatives), tends to corroborate 

the storage temperature cited by the 

industry representatives, the EPA 

believes that a storage temperature of 

500 °F appropriately represents a vapor 

pressure of 10.4 kPa. Consequently, the 

final rule specifies that tanks storing 

(and loading racks transferring) asphalt 

at a maximum vapor pressure of 10.4 

kPa or greater, or at a maximum 

temperature of 500 °F or greater, must 

be controlled with a combustion device. 

Also, the final rule allows the use of 

standard industry nomographs and 

other relationships to determine the 

vapor pressure of asphalt. The docket 

for this NESHAP (Docket No. OAR–

2002–0035) contains a memorandum 

from the National Petrochemical and 

Refiners Association (NPRA) that 

presents several manual methods that 

are currently used in the petroleum 

industry for estimating the vapor 

pressure of asphalt. 

C. Level of the Standards 

Comment: One commenter questioned 

the derivation of the THC destruction 

and combustion efficiency standards (95 

and 99.6 percent, respectively). The 

commenter contended that the 

statistical analysis used to derive the 

standards from test data was incorrect. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that the available data set is 

too small for a rigorous statistical 

analysis. Therefore, at proposal, we 

chose to account for the variability in 

the data by subtracting one standard 

deviation from the mean, rather than 

performing a more formal statistical 

analysis to derive the proposed 

emission limit. Despite the small size of 

the data set, since proposal, the EPA has 

calculated the 95 percent confidence 

interval about the mean of the test data 

for THC destruction efficiency. The 

lower limit of the 95-confidence interval 

is 94.85 percent THC destruction 

efficiency. (See section 2.3.10.2 of the 

BID for a more detailed discussion of 

this analysis.) In other words, there is 

only a 5 percent chance that the true 

population mean of THC destruction 

efficiency will be below 94.85 percent. 

In addition, all four of the facilities with 

THC destruction efficiency data would 

meet the standards. This calculation 

supports that a THC destruction 

efficiency of 95 percent is achievable. 

The 95 percent destruction efficiency 

has thus been included in the final rule. 

Since proposal, the EPA has 

calculated the 95 percent confidence 

interval about the mean of the test data 

used to establish the proposed 

combustion efficiency. The lower limit 

of the 95 percent confidence interval is 

99.49 percent combustion efficiency. 

Since this value is lower than the 

proposed combustion efficiency limit of 

99.6 percent, the EPA has decided to 

establish the combustion efficiency 

limit in the final rule at 99.5 percent. 

(Note that this change does not affect 

EPA’s determination, made originally at 

proposal, that beyond-the-floor controls 

remain inappropriate here, largely 

because EPA knows of no means of 

control more efficient than combustion 

control.) 

Comments: Comments were also 

received on the proposed rule regarding 

the use of electric regenerative thermal 

oxidizers (RTO). One commenter 

explained that EPA’s proposed method 

for calculating combustion efficiency 

penalizes control technologies that do 

not burn auxiliary fuel and, 

consequently, have a relatively low CO2

concentration at their outlets. The 

commenters stated that the proposed 

method for calculating combustion 

efficiency understates the combustion 

efficiency achieved by an RTO since the 

only relevant source of CO2 in RTO 

exhaust comes from the destruction of 

hydrocarbons. The commenters 

submitted test data and proposed a 

separate equation for calculating the 

destruction efficiency for RTO. 

Response: The EPA reviewed the test 

data submitted by the commenters (see 

section of the 2.3.10.6 of the BID) and 

agrees that, because RTO do not use 

auxiliary fuel, the outlet CO2

concentrations are much less than those 

of conventional thermal oxidizers 

without compromising THC destruction 

efficiency. Consequently, the final rule 

contains an option that allows 

combustion devices that do not use 

auxiliary fuel to use an outlet-only THC 

destruction efficiency equation. To 

determine the level of the standard for 

RTO, the same approach as was taken 

for the derivation of the THC 

destruction efficiency and combustion 

efficiency standards was used (i.e., one 

standard deviation was subtracted from 

the average THC destruction efficiencies 

calculated from the test data submitted 

by the commenters). The resulting 

calculations (see section 2.3.10.6 of the 

BID) yield a THC destruction efficiency 

standard for RTO of 95.8 percent.

D. Compliance Options 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the control devices used at refineries to 

control blowing stills are flares, boilers, 

and process heaters and that refineries 

do not typically have thermal oxidizers. 

The commenter urged the EPA to allow 

the use of combustion devices other 

than thermal oxidizers to control 

blowing still emissions. 

Response: The proposed rule did not 

prohibit the use of process heaters, 

boilers, and flares because we consider 

these units to be types of thermal 

oxidizers. However, since the term 

‘‘thermal oxidizer’’ was not defined in 

the proposed rule, the proposed rule 

could be interpreted differently. In the 

final rule, we use the term ‘‘combustion 

device’’ instead of ‘‘thermal oxidizer’’

and have defined combustion device to 

include process heaters, boilers, flares, 

and incinerators; all devices which 

achieve the same high degree of HAP 

destruction provided they operate using 

efficient combustion. Consistent with 

other rules, a performance test and 

continuous parameter monitoring are 

not required for boilers or process 

heaters if the vent streams to be 

controlled are introduced into the flame 

zone, or if the unit has a design input 

heat capacity of 44 MW or greater since 

the residence time and operating 

temperature of these devices is great 

enough to ensure reduction of HAP 

emissions. Flares are required to meet 

the design and operating requirements 

of 40 CFR 63.11 in lieu of conducting 

performance tests, as explained earlier 

in this preamble. 

E. Performance Tests 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern with the requirement to 

conduct performance testing before the 

compliance date. The commenter stated 

that the NESHAP General Provisions 

and nearly all previously-issued MACT 

standards allow the test to be conducted 

within 180 days of the compliance date 

(existing sources) or at startup (new 

sources). The commenter pointed out 

that the testing date for existing sources 

is 8 months earlier than what is 

provided in the General Provisions and 

listed several problems that it would 

create. 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 24573

Response: The EPA agrees that it is 

not necessary to require performance 

tests to be completed 60 days prior to 

the rule compliance date since this 

would effectively require that facilities 

be in compliance before the compliance 

date specified in the final rule. 

Consequently, the final rule 

(§ 63.8686(a)) has been written to be 

consistent with the NESHAP General 

Provisions (performance tests must be 

conducted within 180 days after the 

compliance date). 

F. Monitoring Requirements 

Comment: Comments were received 

on a variety of monitoring requirements. 

The changes made to the proposed 

monitoring requirements are discussed 

in the following paragraphs. 

Response: Many facilities in the 

asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing industry use analog chart 

recorders to display and record 

monitored parameters. However, when 

these devices are used, the value of the 

monitored parameters is generally not 

recorded electronically. Parameter 

values therefore cannot be automatically 

averaged and compared to the 

established range to determine if there 

has been an parameter deviation. Such 

a determination would have to be made 

through manual calculations. One 

commenter suggested that chart 

recorders could more easily be used for 

monitoring if manual calculations of 3-

hour averages were not required and 

deviations were based on 15-minute 

exceedances of limits. Because the 

commenter’s suggestion is more 

stringent than the requirements in the 

proposed rule, the EPA has decided that 

this is an acceptable alternative for 

determining continuous compliance. 

Therefore, the final rule was written to 

allow facilities the option of 

demonstrating continuous compliance 

using either a 15-minute or 3-hour 

averaging period. 

For example, if a facility uses an 

analog chart recorder that provides a 

continuous record of the combustion 

device operating temperature on a strip 

chart, the facility would be allowed to 

determine compliance with the 

NESHAP by comparing the minimum 

temperature reading for each 15-minute 

period to the minimum 15-minute value 

established during the initial 

performance test (i.e., the facility would 

not be required to manually average the 

readings on the strip chart over a 3-hour 

period to determine compliance with 

the standards). 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that facilities should be allowed to use 

CEMS and COMS to demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the 

standards. 

Response: The proposed rule did not 

preclude facilities from using CEMS and 

COMS, and it was not EPA’s intent to 

discourage facilities from using CEMS 

and COMS where feasible and beneficial 

to them. However, continuous 

monitoring is not required for the 

opacity standard, even though the 

opacity standard applies at all times 

(i.e., EPA test method 9 could be used 

at any time by the regulating agency to 

determine compliance with the opacity 

standard). To allow you to use 

continuous monitors without first 

obtaining the approval from the 

Administrator to use an alternative 

monitoring procedure, the list of 

acceptable monitoring systems in the 

final rule has been written to include 

CEMS (and COMS) and their applicable 

performance specifications from 40 CFR 

part 60 Appendix B. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the EPA modify the proposed rule 

so that a facility using an ESP as a PM 

control device could select which 

parameters are appropriate for 

demonstrating compliance and have 

those parameters approved by the EPA 

in the same manner as ‘‘other’’ control 

devices. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that ESP operate differently 

from filter-type PM control devices, and 

that parameters other than pressure 

drop could be used to show proper ESP 

operation. For these reasons, an 

alternative has been provided in the 

final rule to allow facilities using an 

ESP to monitor the voltage going to the 

ESP instead of the pressure drop across 

the device. The voltage going to the ESP 

is a direct measure of the strength of the 

corona field responsible for ionizing PM 

as it passes through the ESP. The value 

or range of ESP voltage must be 

determined during the performance test. 

G. Overlap With Other Rules 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the rule should be clarified so that 

asphalt flux and oxidized asphalt 

storage tanks already regulated under 

another MACT rule (for example, the 

petroleum refinery NESHAP) are not 

further regulated under the asphalt 

NESHAP.

Response: The EPA recognizes that 

asphalt storage vessels subject to the 

asphalt NESHAP could also be subject 

to other regulations, such as the 

petroleum refinery NESHAP (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart CC) and the storage 

vessel NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart K, 

Ka, or Kb). Consequently, EPA is 

providing in the final rule that the 

NESHAP does not apply to any 

equipment that is subject to the 

petroleum refinery NESHAP or to 

subpart K, Ka, or Kb of part 60 since the 

requirements specified in those rules for 

the types of storage tanks used in this 

industry (fixed roof tanks) are as 

stringent as the standards in the asphalt 

processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing NESHAP. 

The EPA also recognizes that storage 

tanks (and blowing stills, saturators, wet 

loopers, and coaters) at asphalt 

processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing facilities could be subject 

to both the asphalt NESHAP and the 

asphalt NSPS. In cases where the rule 

requirements overlap, the asphalt rule 

specifies that facilities are required to 

comply only with the asphalt NESHAP. 

However, any storage tank with a 

capacity less than 1.93 mg that is subject 

to the asphalt NSPS but not regulated 

under the asphalt NESHAP must 

comply with the asphalt NSPS. 

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy 

and Economic Impacts 

Although MACT floors must be based 

exclusively on the emission limitation 

achieved by the requisite percentage of 

best-performing similar sources (or, for 

new sources, the best-performing 

source), the EPA has compiled 

information on air quality impacts, 

costs, non-air quality impacts, and 

energy impacts in compliance with 

Executive Orders. We estimate the final 

rule will affect a total of 19 existing 

facilities (ten asphalt processing and 

asphalt roofing facilities and nine 

petroleum refineries). We estimated the 

number of major sources by estimating 

potential emissions using emission 

factors and available production data. 

We identified major facilities only for 

the purposes of estimating potential 

emissions, emission reductions, control 

costs, and monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting costs. It should be noted 

that facilities may not necessarily be 

major sources for the purposes of 

determining applicability of the final 

rule because they were identified as 

major by our estimates. Likewise, 

facilities would not be relieved from 

complying with the final rule because 

they were not identified as major 

sources in our estimates. 

A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts? 

Baseline HAP emissions from the 

asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing facilities that are 

projected to be subject to the final rule 

are estimated to be 295 Mg/yr (325 tpy). 

Baseline THC emissions are estimated to 

be 550 Mg/yr (605 tpy). The baseline 

emission estimates were developed 

using equipment, control device, and 

24574 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

production rate data reported in a 1995 

industry survey. The final rule is 

projected to reduce HAP emissions by 

86 Mg/yr (95 tpy) and THC emissions by 

465 Mg/yr (512 tpy). The final rule will 

also reduce PM emissions from asphalt 

processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing facilities. However, we 

do not have sufficient data to estimate 

baseline emissions or emission 

reductions for PM. The baseline 

emissions and emission reductions do 

not include contributions from area 

sources because they are not subject to 

the final rule. 

The final rule will also likely cause an 

increase in emissions of nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), CO, sulfur dioxide (SO2), PM, 

and volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

due to the increased use of thermal 

oxidizers as control devices. The 

estimated increases of NOX, CO, and 

SO2 are approximately, 476, 799, and 6 

Mg/yr (524, 880, and 6 tpy), 

respectively. These estimates are based 

on the amount of exhaust and auxiliary 

fuel that will be burned at the asphalt 

processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing facilities that are 

estimated to be major sources. 

B. What Are the Cost Impacts? 

The total capital cost for the industry 

to achieve compliance with the final 

rule for existing facilities is estimated to 

be $2.71 million. The capital costs arise 

from the purchase of emission capture 

systems and control devices. The total 

annualized cost is estimated to be $1.41 

million. The total annualized costs for 

the industry include the annualized 

capital cost of emission capture systems 

and control devices and operation, 

maintenance, supervisory labor, 

maintenance materials, utilities, 

administrative charges, taxes, and 

insurance. It is estimated that the 

industry will spend an additional 

industrywide average of $320,000 per 

year for monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting to comply with the final rule. 

This results in a total annualized cost of 

$1.73 million. 

C. What Are the Economic Impacts? 

The Agency conducted an economic 

impact analysis to determine the 

market- and industry-level impacts 

associated with the final rule. The 

compliance costs of the final rule are 

expected to increase the prices of 

asphalt processing and roofing products 

by 0.02 percent or less across the 

directly affected product markets, and 

domestic production and consumption 

of the affected products are expected to 

decrease by less than 0.01 percent also. 

In terms of industry impacts, the 

asphalt processors and asphalt roofing 

manufacturers are projected to 

experience a decrease in operating 

profits of about 0.08 percent, which 

reflects the compliance costs associated 

with the production of asphalt 

processing and roofing products and the 

resulting reductions in revenues due to 

the increase in the prices of the directly 

affected product markets and reduced 

quantities purchased. Through the 

market impacts described above, the 

final rule created both gainers and losers 

within the asphalt processing and 

asphalt roofing manufacturing industry. 

The majority of facilities, almost 92 

percent, are expected to experience 

profit increases with the final rule; 

however, there are some facilities 

projected to lose profits (about 8 percent 

of affected facilities). Furthermore, the 

economic impact analysis indicates that 

of the 123 existing asphalt roofing and 

processing facilities, none are at risk of 

closure because of the final rule. 

Therefore, none of the companies that 

own asphalt processing and roofing 

manufacturing facilities are projected to 

close due to the final rule. 

Based on the market analysis, the 

annual social costs of the final rule are 

projected to be about $1.73 million. The 

estimated social costs differ slightly 

from the projected engineering costs of 

the final rule. These two costs differ 

because social costs account for 

producer and consumer behavior. These 

social costs are distributed across the 

many consumers and producers of 

asphalt processing and roofing products. 

For the final rule, the producers of 

asphalt roofing and processing products, 

in aggregate, are expected to incur about 

$1.32 million annually in costs, while 

the consumers of asphalt roofing and 

processing products are expected to 

incur approximately $410 thousand 

annually across the product markets. 

The economic analysis also addressed 

potential changes in new asphalt 

processing and roofing facility 

construction for the year following 

promulgation of the final rule. This was 

done by estimating the total annualized 

costs for new facilities and projecting 

changes in equilibrium output due to 

the final rule. The economic impact 

analysis estimated a very small 

reduction in the growth of the asphalt 

industry represented by a small 

reduction in equilibrium output of 

asphalt products in the year following 

promulgation. However, the reduction 

in equilibrium output was only a small 

fraction of estimated new plant 

capacity. Thus, the control costs are not 

expected to influence the decision to 

enter the market for asphalt products. 

For more information, consult the 

Economic Impact Analysis report 

supporting the final rule in the docket. 

D. What Are the Non-air Health, 

Environmental and Energy Impacts?

Spent filter media from certain types 

of PM control devices (e.g., highefficiency air filters (HEAF)) are 

periodically replaced and disposed of as 

solid waste. Although many of the 

emission sources subject to the final 

rule are already controlled by PM 

devices, an increase in the generation of 

spent filter media is expected as a result 

of the final rule. However, we do not 

have sufficient data to quantify this 

anticipated increase in solid waste 

generation. 

No water impacts are anticipated due 

to the final rule. None of the control 

devices expected to be used to comply 

with the final rule require the use of 

water nor do they generate wastewater 

streams. 

Increased energy usage is expected 

due to the final rule. Electricity is 

required to power fans for emission 

capture systems, and new thermal 

oxidizers will require supplemental fuel 

(e.g., natural gas) to efficiently combust 

the HAP vent streams. The estimated 

annual increase in electricity 

consumption is 5.58 million kilowatt 

hours. The approximate increase in 

natural gas consumption is 186 million 

standard cubic feet per year. These 

estimates are for the 19 facilities 

considered to be major sources. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must 

determine whether the regulatory action 

is ‘‘significant,’’ and therefore subject to 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) review and the requirements of 

the Executive Order. The Executive 

Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as one that is likely to result in 

a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 24575

(4) raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of Executive 

Order 12866, it has been determined 

that the final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ because it is not 

expected to have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements of the final rule have been 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. An Information Collection 

Request (ICR) document has been 

prepared by the EPA (ICR No. 2029.01) 

and a copy may be obtained from Susan 

Auby by mail at U.S. EPA, Office of 

Environmental Information, Collection 

Strategies Division, (2822T), 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001, by e-mail at 

auby.susan@epa.gov or by calling (202) 

566–1672. A copy may also be 

downloaded off the internet at http://

www.epa.gov/icr. 

The information will be used by the 

EPA to ensure that the requirements of 

the asphalt processing and asphalt 

roofing manufacturing NESHAP are 

implemented properly and are complied 

with on a continuous basis. Records and 

reports are necessary to identify asphalt 

processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing facilities that might not 

be in compliance with the final rule. 

Based on reported information, the 

implementing agency will decide which 

asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing facilities should be 

inspected and what records or processes 

should be inspected. Records that 

owners and operators of asphalt 

processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing facilities maintain 

indicate whether personnel are 

operating and maintaining control 

equipment properly. 

These recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are specifically authorized 

by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 

7414). All information submitted to the 

EPA for which a claim of confidentiality 

is made will be safeguarded according 

to the EPA policies in 40 CFR part 2, 

subpart B, Confidentiality of Business 

Information. 

We estimate the final rule will affect 

a total of 19 existing facilities (ten 

asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 

facilities and nine petroleum refineries). 

We estimated the number of major 

sources by estimating emissions using 

emission factors and available 

production data and extrapolating 

potential emission from actual 

emissions. We identified major facilities 

for the purposes of estimating 

emissions, emission reductions, control 

costs, and monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting costs only. Facilities 

would not necessarily be major sources 

for the purposes of determining 

applicability of the asphalt NESHAP 

because they were identified as major by 

our estimates. Likewise, facilities are 

not relieved from complying with the 

asphalt NESHAP because they were not 

identified as major sources in our 

estimates. We expect that existing 

facilities will be in compliance 3 years 

after promulgation of the final rule, but 

will perform related activities (e.g., 

reading and understanding the rule, 

conducting performance tests) before 

they are in compliance. We project that 

one new asphalt processing and asphalt 

roofing facility will become subject to 

the final rule during each of the first 3 

years. 

The estimated average annual burden 

for industry for the first 3 years after 

implementation of the rule is 

approximately 1,962 person-hours 

annually. There will be no capital costs 

for monitoring or recordkeeping during 

the first 3 years. The total average 

annual reporting and recordkeeping 

burden (including industry and the 

EPA) for this collection is estimated at 

approximately 2,780 labor hours per 

year at an average annual cost of 

approximately $356,000.

Burden means total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or 

provide information to or for a Federal 

agency. This includes the time needed 

to review instructions; develop, acquire, 

install, and utilize technology and 

systems for the purposes of collecting, 

validating, and verifying information, 

processing and maintaining 

information, and disclosing and 

providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR 

chapter 15. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The 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 will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small business, 

small organizations, and small 

government jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, a small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

according to Small Business 

Administration (SBA) size standards by 

NAICS code (in this case, less than 750 

employees for affected businesses 

classified in NAICS code 324122, 

Asphalt Shingles and Coating Materials 

Manufacturing and less than 1,500 

employees for businesses in NAICS 

code 324110, Petroleum Refineries); (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-forprofit enterprise that is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

In accordance with the RFA, the EPA 

conducted an assessment of the 

standards on small businesses within 

the asphalt roofing and processing 

industry. Based on SBA NAICS-based 

size definitions and reported 

employment data, the EPA identified 26 

of the 40 companies that own 

potentially affected asphalt roofing and 

processing facilities and petroleum 

refineries as small businesses. Although 

small businesses represent 65 percent of 

the companies within the source 

category, they are expected to incur 

approximately 5 percent of the total 

industry compliance costs of about 

$1.73 million annually. There are no 

companies with compliance costs 

greater than 0.04 percent of their sales. 

No firms are expected to close rather 

than incur the costs of compliance with 

the rule.

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s rule on small entities, 

the EPA certifies that the final rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

24576 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

or tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

the EPA generally must prepare a 

written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for final rules with 

‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may result in 

expenditures to State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any 1 year. Before promulgating a 

rule for which a written statement is 

needed, section 205 of the UMRA 

generally requires the EPA to identify 

and consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives and adopt the 

least costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule. The 

provisions of section 205 do not apply 

when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows the EPA to adopt an alternative 

other than the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative if the Administrator 

publishes with the final rule an 

explanation why that alternative was 

not adopted. Before the EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of the EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

The EPA has determined that the final 

rule does not contain a Federal mandate 

that may result in expenditures of $100 

million or more for State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any 1 year. In the 

Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) for 

the final rule, the EPA estimates that the 

total nationwide capital cost for the 

standards is $2.71 million. The total 

nationwide annual cost for the 

standards is $1.73 million. In addition, 

the EPA has determined that the final 

rule contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments 

because it contains no requirements that 

apply to such governments or impose 

obligations upon them. Therefore, the 

final rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

the UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires the EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’

The final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. None of the 

affected facilities under the final rule 

are owned or operated by State or local 

governments. Thus Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to the final rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires the 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes.’’

The final rule does not have tribal 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. No 

affected facilities are owned or operated 

by Indian tribal governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to the final rule. 

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 

the EPA has reason to believe may have 

a disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the 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 EPA. 

The 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. The final rule 

is not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is based on technology 

performance and not on health and 

safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001), provides that agencies shall 

prepare and submit to the Administrator 

of the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, a Statement of 

Energy Effects for certain actions 

identified as ‘‘significant energy 

actions.’’ Section 4(b) of Executive 

Order 13211 defines ‘‘significant energy 

actions’’ as ‘‘any action by an agency 

(normally published in the Federal 

Register) that promulgates or is 

expected to lead to the promulgation of 

a final rule or regulation, including 

notices of inquiry, advance notices of 

proposed rulemaking, and notices of 

proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866 or any successor 

order, and (ii) is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that 

is designated by the Administrator of 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs as a significant energy action.’’

The final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ because it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 24577

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

We have estimated that the rule will 

result in an additional 5.58 million 

kilowatt hours of electricity usage and 

186 million standard cubic feet of 

natural gas consumption. This 

represents an insignificant fraction of 

the over 3 trillion kilowatt hours and 

21,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas 

consumed in the United States (Energy 

Information Administration, 

Department of Energy, www.eia.gov). 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law 104–

113, section 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 272 note), 

directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in their regulatory 

and procurement activities unless to do 

so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by one or 

more voluntary consensus bodies. The 

NTTAA directs the EPA to provide 

Congress, through annual reports to 

OMB, with explanations when an 

agency does not use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

The final rulemaking involves 

technical standards including EPA test 

methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 

3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5A, 9, 10, 22, and 25A. 

Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA 

conducted searches to identify 

voluntary consensus standards in 

addition to these EPA test methods. No 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards were identified for EPA test 

methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 5A, 9, and 

22. 

The search for emissions 

measurement procedures identified 16 

voluntary consensus standards 

potentially applicable to the final rule. 

Three of the voluntary consensus 

standards were not available at the time 

this review was conducted. For the 

remaining 13 standards identified for 

measuring emissions of the HAP or 

surrogates subject to emission standards 

in the final rule, we determined that 

they were impractical alternatives to 

EPA test methods for the purposes of 

the final rule. Therefore, the EPA does 

not intend to adopt these standards. The 

search and review methods can be 

found in docket A–95–32 (see 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble). 

J. 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 the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing the 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 the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The 

final rule will be effective on April 29, 

2003.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

Dated: February 28, 2003. 

Christine Todd Whitman, 

Administrator.

■ For the reasons cited in the preamble, 

title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows:

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

■ 2. Part 63 is amended by adding a new 

subpart LLLLL to read as follows:

Subpart LLLLL—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Asphalt Processing and 

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing

Sec. 

What This Subpart Covers 

63.8680 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

63.8681 Am I subject to this subpart? 

63.8682 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover? 

63.8683 When must I comply with this 

subpart? 

Emission Limitations 

63.8684 What emission limitations must I 

meet? 

General Compliance Requirements 

63.8685 What are my general requirements 

for complying with this subpart? 

Testing and Initial Compliance 

Requirements 

63.8686 By what date must I conduct 

performance tests or other initial 

compliance demonstrations? 

63.8687 What performance tests, design 

evaluations, and other procedures must 

I use? 

63.8688 What are my monitoring 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

requirements? 

63.8689 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission 

limitations? 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

63.8690 How do I monitor and collect data 

to demonstrate continuous compliance? 

63.8691 How do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the operating limits? 

Notifications, Reports, and Records 

63.8692 What notifications must I submit 

and when? 

63.8693 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

63.8694 What records must I keep? 

63.8695 In what form and how long must I 

keep my records? 

Other Requirements and Information 

63.8696 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to me? 

63.8697 Who implements and enforces this 

subpart? 

63.8698 What definitions apply to this 

subpart?

Tables to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 

Table 1 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63—

Emission Limitations 

Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63—

Operating Limits 

Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63—

Requirements for Performance Tests 

Table 4 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63—Initial 

Compliance With Emission Limitations 

Table 5 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63—

Continuous Compliance with Operating 

Limits 

Table 6 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63—

Requirements for Reports 

Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63—

Applicability of General Provisions to 

Subpart LLLLL

Subpart LLLLL—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Asphalt Processing and 

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 

What This Subpart Covers

§ 63.8680 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

This subpart establishes national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) for existing and 

new asphalt processing and asphalt 

roofing manufacturing facilities. This 

subpart also establishes requirements to 

demonstrate initial and continuous 

compliance with the emission 

limitations.

24578 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 63.8681 Am I subject to this subpart? 

(a) You are subject to this subpart if 

you own or operate an asphalt 

processing facility or an asphalt roofing 

manufacturing facility, as defined in 

§ 63.8698, that is a major source of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 

emissions, or is located at, or is part of 

a major source of HAP emissions. 

(b) After the applicable compliance 

date specified in § 63.8683, blowing 

stills, asphalt storage tanks, saturators, 

wet loopers, and coaters subject to the 

provisions of this subpart that are also 

subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart UU, 

are required to comply only with 

provisions of this subpart. 

(c) This subpart does not apply to any 

equipment that is subject to subpart CC 

of this part or to subpart K, Ka, or Kb 

of 40 CFR part 60. 

(d) This subpart does not apply to 

asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing equipment used for 

research and development, as defined in 

§ 63.8698. 

(e) A major source of HAP emissions 

is any stationary source or group of 

stationary sources within a contiguous 

area under common control that emits 

or has the potential to emit any single 

HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 

tons) or more per year or any 

combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 

megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.

§ 63.8682 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover? 

(a) This subpart applies to each new, 

reconstructed, or existing affected 

source at asphalt processing and asphalt 

roofing manufacturing facilities.

(b) The affected source is: 

(1) Each asphalt processing facility as 

defined in § 63.8698; or 

(2) Each asphalt roofing 

manufacturing line as defined in 

§ 63.8698. 

(i) If the asphalt roofing 

manufacturing line is collocated with an 

asphalt processing facility, the storage 

tanks that store asphalt flux intended for 

oxidation in the blowing stills and those 

tanks that receive asphalt directly from 

the on-site blowing stills are part of the 

asphalt processing facility. The 

remaining asphalt storage tanks are 

considered to be part of the asphalt 

roofing facility. 

(ii) If an asphalt storage tank is shared 

by two or more lines at an asphalt 

roofing manufacturing facility, the 

shared storage tank is considered part of 

the line to which the tank supplies the 

greatest amount of asphalt, on an annual 

basis. 

(iii) If a sealant or adhesive applicator 

is shared by two or more asphalt roofing 

manufacturing lines, the shared 

applicator is considered part of the line 

that provides the greatest throughput to 

the applicator, on an annual basis. 

(c) An affected source is a new 

affected source if you commenced 

construction of the affected source after 

November 21, 2001, and you met the 

applicability criteria at the time you 

commenced construction. 

(d) An affected source is 

reconstructed if you meet the criteria in 

the reconstruction definition in § 63.2. 

(e) An affected source is existing if it 

is not new or reconstructed.

§ 63.8683 When must I comply with this 

subpart? 

(a) If you have a new or reconstructed 

affected source and start up: 

(1) On or before April 29, 2003, then 

you must comply with the requirements 

for new and reconstructed sources in 

this subpart no later than April 29, 

2003. 

(2) After April 29, 2003, then you 

must comply with the requirements for 

new and reconstructed sources in this 

subpart upon startup. 

(b) If you have an existing affected 

source, you must comply with the 

requirements for existing sources no 

later than May 1, 2006. 

(c) If you have an area source that 

increases its emissions or its potential to 

emit such that it becomes a (or part of 

a) major source of HAP, then the 

following requirements apply: 

(1) Any portion of the existing facility 

that becomes a new or reconstructed 

affected source must be in compliance 

with this subpart upon startup or by 

April 29, 2003, whichever is later. 

(2) All other parts of the source to 

which this subpart applies must be in 

compliance with this subpart by 3 years 

after the date the source becomes a 

major source. 

(d) You must meet the notification 

requirements in § 63.8692 according to 

the schedules in §§ 63.8692 and 63.9. 

Some of the notifications must be 

submitted before you are required to 

comply with the emission limitations in 

this subpart. 

Emission Limitations

§ 63.8684 What emission limitations must I 

meet? 

(a) You must meet each emission 

limitation in Table 1 to this subpart that 

applies to you. 

(b) You must meet each operating 

limit in Table 2 to this subpart that 

applies to you. 

General Compliance Requirements

§ 63.8685 What are my general 

requirements for complying with this 

subpart?

(a) You must be in compliance with 

the emission limitations (including 

operating limits) in this subpart at all 

times, except during periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction. 

(b) You must always operate and 

maintain your affected source, including 

air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, according to the provisions 

in § 63.6(e)(1)(i). 

(c) You must develop and implement 

a written startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction plan (SSMP) according to 

the provisions in § 63.6(e)(3). 

(d) You must develop and implement 

a written site-specific monitoring plan 

according to the provisions in 

§ 63.8688(g) and (h). 

Testing and Initial Compliance 

Requirements

§ 63.8686 By what date must I conduct 

performance tests or other initial 

compliance demonstrations? 

(a) For existing affected sources, you 

must conduct performance tests no later 

than 180 days after the compliance date 

that is specified for your source in 

§ 63.8683 and according to the 

provisions in § 63.7(a)(2). 

(b) As an alternative to the 

requirement specified in paragraph (a) 

of this section, you may use the results 

of a previously-conducted emission test 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limitations in this subpart if 

you demonstrate to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction that: 

(1) No changes have been made to the 

process since the time of the emission 

test; and 

(2) The operating conditions and test 

methods used during testing conform to 

the requirements of this subpart; and 

(3) The control device and process 

parameter values established during the 

previously-conducted emission test are 

used to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with this subpart. 

(c) For new sources, you must 

demonstrate initial compliance no later 

than 180 calendar days after April 29, 

2003 or within 180 calendar days after 

startup of the source, whichever is later.

§ 63.8687 What performance tests, design 

evaluations, and other procedures must I 

use? 

(a) You must conduct each 

performance test in Table 3 to this 

subpart that applies to you. 

(b) Each performance test must be 

conducted under normal operating 

conditions and under the conditions 

specified in Table 3 to this subpart. 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 24579

(c) You may not conduct performance 

tests during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction, as specified 

in § 63.7(e)(1).

(d) Except for opacity and visible 

emission observations, you must 

conduct three separate test runs for each 

performance test required in this 

section, as specified in § 63.7(e)(3). Each 

test run must last at least 1 hour. 

(e) You must use the following 

equations to determine compliance with 

the emission limitations. 

(1) To determine compliance with the 

particulate matter mass emission rate, 

you must use Equations 1 and 2 of this 

section as follows:

E = M P (Eq. 1) PM/

Where:

E = Particulate matter emission rate, 

kilograms (pounds) of particulate 

matter per megagram (ton) of roofing 

product manufactured. 

MPM = Particulate matter mass emission 

rate, kilograms (pounds) per hour, 

determined using Equation 2. 

P = The asphalt roofing product 

manufacturing rate during the 

emissions sampling period, including 

any material trimmed from the final 

product, megagram (tons) per hour.

M C Q K (Eq. 2) PM =∗ ∗

Where:

MPM = Particulate matter mass emission 

rate, kilograms (pounds) per hour. 

C = Concentration of particulate matter 

on a dry basis, grams per dry standard 

cubic meter (g/dscm), as measured by 

the test method specified in Table 3 

to this subpart. 

Q = Vent gas stream flow rate (dry 

standard cubic meters per minute) at 

a temperature of 20°C as measured by 

the test method specified in Table 3 

to this subpart. 

K = Unit conversion constant (0.06 

minute-kilogram/hour-gram.

(2) To determine compliance with the 

total hydrocarbon percent reduction 

standard, you must use Equations 3 and 

4 of this section as follows:

RE = M M M (Eq. 3) [ ] ( )( ) THCi THCo THCi − ∗ ( ) 100

Where:

RE = Emission reduction efficiency, 

percent. 

MTHCi = Mass flow rate of total 

hydrocarbons entering the control 

device, kilograms (pounds) per hour, 

determined using Equation 4. 

MTHCo = Mass flow rate of total 

hydrocarbons exiting the control 

device, kilograms (pounds) per hour, 

determined using Equation 4.

M C Q K (Eq. 4) THC =∗ ∗

Where:

MTHC = Total hydrocarbon emission 

rate, kilograms (pounds) per hour. 

C = Concentration of total hydrocarbons 

on a dry basis, parts per million by 

volume (ppmv), as measured by the 

test method specified in Table 3 to 

this subpart. 

Q = Vent gas stream flow rate (dscmm) 

at a temperature of 20 °C as measured 

by the test method specified in Table 

3 to this subpart. 

K = Unit conversion constant (3.00E–05) 

(ppmv)¥1 (gram-mole/standard cubic 

meter) (kilogram/gram) (minutes/

hour)), where standard temperature 

for gram-mole/standard cubic meter is 

20 °C.

(3) To determine compliance with the 

combustion efficiency standard, you 

must use Equation 5 of this section as 

follows:

CE CO CO THC CO = − [ ] 1 ( ) / / (Eq. 5) 2 2 − ( )

Where:

CE = Combustion efficiency, percent. 

CO = Carbon monoxide concentration at 

the combustion device outlet, parts 

per million by volume (dry), as 

measured by the test method specified 

in Table 3 to this subpart. 

CO2 = Carbon dioxide concentration at 

the combustion device outlet, parts 

per million by volume (dry), as 

measured by the test method specified 

in Table 3 to this subpart. 

THC = Total hydrocarbon concentration 

at the combustion device outlet, parts 

per million by volume (dry), as 

measured by the test method specified 

in Table 3 to this subpart.

(4) To determine compliance with the 

total hydrocarbon destruction efficiency 

standard for a combustion device that 

does not use auxiliary fuel, you must 

use Equation 6 of this section as follows:

THC DE = CO CO CO THC (Eq. 6) [ ] ( ) + 2 ( ) + + CO2

Where:

THC DE = THC destruction efficiency, 

percent. 

CO = Carbon monoxide concentration at 

the combustion device outlet, parts 

per million by volume (dry), as 

measured by the test method specified 

in Table 3 to this subpart. 

CO2 = Carbon dioxide concentration at 

the combustion device outlet, parts 

per million by volume (dry), as 

measured by the test method specified 

in Table 3 to this subpart. 

THC = Total hydrocarbon concentration 

at the combustion device outlet, parts 

per million by volume (dry), as 

measured by the test method specified 

in Table 3 to this subpart.

§ 63.8688 What are my monitoring 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

requirements? 

(a) You must install, operate, and 

maintain each continuous parameter 

monitoring system (CPMS) according to 

the following: 

(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 outof-control according to your site-specific 

monitoring plan. 


ER29AP03.000</MATH> ER29AP03.001</MATH> ER29AP03.002</MATH> ER29AP03.003</MATH> ER29AP03.004</MATH> ER29AP03.005</MATH>
24580 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

(iii) Determine the 3-hour average of 

all recorded readings for each operating 

day, except as stated in § 63.8690(c). 

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 outof-control periods). 

(3) You must record the results of 

each inspection, calibration, and 

validation check. 

(b) For each temperature monitoring 

device, you must meet the requirements 

in paragraph (a) of this section and the 

following: 

(1) Locate the temperature sensor in a 

position that provides a representative 

temperature. 

(2) For a noncryogenic temperature 

range, use a temperature sensor with a 

minimum measurement sensitivity of 

2.8 °C or 1.0 percent of the temperature 

value, whichever is larger. 

(3) If a chart recorder is used, it must 

have a sensitivity in the minor division 

of at least 20 °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. 

(c) For each pressure measurement 

device, you must meet the requirements 

of paragraph (a) of this section and the 

following: 

(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in, or 

as close as possible, to a position that 

provides a representative measurement 

of the pressure. 

(2) Use a gauge with a minimum 

measurement sensitivity of 0.12 

kiloPascals or a transducer with a 

minimum measurement sensitivity of 5 

percent of the pressure range. 

(3) Check pressure tap pluggage daily. 

Perform an accuracy check at least 

quarterly or following an operating 

parameter deviation: 

(i) According to the procedures in the 

manufacturer’s documentation; 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. 

(d) For monitoring parameters other 

than temperature and pressure drop, 

you must install and operate a CPMS to 

provide representative measurements of 

the monitored parameters. 

(e) For each flare, you must install a 

device (including but not limited to a 

thermocouple, an ultraviolet beam 

sensor, or an infrared sensor) capable of 

continuously detecting the presence of a 

pilot flame. 

(f) As an option to installing the 

CPMS specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, you may install a continuous 

emissions monitoring system (CEMS) or 

a continuous opacity monitoring system 

(COMS) that meets the requirements 

specified in § 63.8 and the applicable 

performance specifications of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B. 

(g) For each monitoring system 

required in this section, you must 

develop and make available for 

inspection by the permitting authority, 

upon request, a site-specific monitoring 

plan that addresses the following: 

(1) Installation of the CPMS, CEMS, or 

COMS sampling probe or other interface 

at a measurement location relative to 

each affected process unit such that the 

measurement is representative of 

control of the exhaust emissions (e.g.,

on or downstream of the last control 

device); 

(2) Performance and equipment 

specifications for the sample interface, 

the pollutant concentration or 

parametric signal analyzer, and the data 

collection and reduction system; and 

(3) Performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g.,

calibrations). 

(h) In your site-specific monitoring 

plan, you must also address the 

following: 

(1) Ongoing operation and 

maintenance procedures in accordance 

with the general requirements of 

§ 63.8(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii), (c)(7), and 

(c)(8); 

(2) Ongoing data quality assurance 

procedures in accordance with the 

general requirements of § 63.8(d); and 

(3) Ongoing recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures in accordance with 

the general requirements of § 63.10(c), 

(e)(1), and (e)(2)(i). 

(i) You must conduct a performance 

evaluation of each CPMS, CEMS, or 

COMS in accordance with your sitespecific monitoring plan. 

(j) You must operate and maintain the 

CPMS, CEMS, or COMS in continuous 

operation according to the site-specific 

monitoring plan.

§ 63.8689 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission limitations? 

(a) You must demonstrate initial 

compliance with each emission 

limitation that applies to you according 

to Table 4 to this subpart. 

(b) You must establish each sitespecific operating limit in Table 2 to 

this subpart that applies to you 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.8687 and Table 3 to this subpart. 

(c) You must submit the Notification 

of Compliance Status containing the 

results of the initial compliance 

demonstration according to the 

requirements in § 63.8692(e). 

Continuous Compliance Requirements

§ 63.8690 How do I monitor and collect 

data to demonstrate continuous 

compliance? 

(a) You must monitor and collect data 

according to this section. 

(b) Except for monitor malfunctions, 

associated repairs, and required quality 

assurance or control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration 

checks and required zero and span 

adjustments), you must monitor 

continuously (or collect data at all 

required intervals) at all times that the 

affected source is operating. This 

includes periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction when the affected 

source is operating. 

(c) You may not use data recorded 

during monitoring malfunctions, 

associated repairs, and required quality 

assurance or control activities in data 

averages and calculations used to report 

emission or operating levels, nor may 

such data be used in fulfilling a 

minimum data availability requirement, 

if applicable. You must use all the data 

collected during all other periods in 

assessing the operation of the control 

device and associated control system.

§ 63.8691 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the operating 

limits? 

(a) You must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with each operating limit in 

Table 2 to this subpart that applies to 

you according to test methods specified 

in Table 5 to this subpart. 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 24581

(b) You must report each instance in 

which you did not meet each operating 

limit in Table 5 to this subpart that 

applies to you. This includes periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction. 

These instances are deviations from the 

emission limitations in this subpart. 

These deviations must be reported 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.8693. 

(c) During periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction, you must 

operate in accordance with the SSMP. 

(d) Consistent with §§ 63.6(e) and 

63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during 

a period of startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction are not violations if you 

demonstrate to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction that you were operating in 

accordance with the SSMP. The 

Administrator will determine whether 

deviations that occur during a period of 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction are 

violations, according to the provisions 

in § 63.6(e). 

Notifications, Reports, and Records

§ 63.8692 What notifications must I submit 

and when? 

(a) You must submit all of the 

notifications in §§ 63.6(h)(4) and (5), 

63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f), and 63.9(b) 

through (f) and (h) that apply to you by 

the dates specified. 

(b) As specified in § 63.9(b)(2), if you 

start up your affected source before 

April 29, 2003, you must submit an 

Initial Notification not later than 120 

calendar days after April 29, 2003. 

(c) As specified in § 63.9(b)(3), if you 

start up your new or reconstructed 

affected source on or after April 29, 

2003, you must submit an Initial 

Notification not later than 120 calendar 

days after you become subject to this 

subpart. 

(d) If you are required to conduct a 

performance test, you must submit a 

notification of intent to conduct a 

performance test at least 60 calendar 

days before the performance test is 

scheduled to begin, as required in 

§ 63.7(b)(1). 

(e) If you are required to conduct a 

performance test, design evaluation, 

opacity observation, visible emission 

observation, or other initial compliance 

demonstration as specified in Table 3 or 

4 to this subpart, you must submit a 

Notification of Compliance Status 

according to § 63.9(h)(2)(ii). You must 

submit the Notification of Compliance 

Status, including the performance test 

results, before the close of business on 

the 60th calendar day following the 

completion of the performance test 

according to § 63.10(d)(2). 

(f) If you are using data from a 

previously-conducted emission test to 

serve as documentation of conformance 

with the emission standards and 

operating limits of this subpart, you 

must submit the test data in lieu of the 

initial performance test results with the 

Notification of Compliance Status 

required under paragraph (e) of this 

section.

§ 63.8693 What reports must I submit and 

when?

(a) You must submit each report in 

Table 6 to this subpart that applies to 

you. 

(b) Unless the Administrator has 

approved a different schedule for 

submission of reports under § 63.10(a), 

you must submit each report by the date 

in Table 6 to this subpart and according 

to the following dates: 

(1) The first compliance report must 

cover the period beginning on the 

compliance date that is specified for 

your affected source in § 63.8683 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 § 63.8683. 

(2) 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 

§ 63.8683. 

(3) 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. 

(4) 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. 

(5) For each affected source that is 

subject to permitting regulations 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR 

part 71, and if the permitting authority 

has established dates for submitting 

semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 

70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 

71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the 

first and subsequent compliance reports 

according to the dates the permitting 

authority has established instead of the 

dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of 

this section. 

(c) The compliance report must 

contain the following information: 

(1) Company name and address. 

(2) 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. 

(3) Date of report and beginning and 

ending dates of the reporting period. 

(4) If you had a startup, shutdown or 

malfunction during the reporting period 

and you took actions consistent with 

your SSMP, the compliance report must 

include the information in 

§ 63.10(d)(5)(i). 

(5) If there are no deviations from any 

emission limitations (emission limit, 

operating limit, opacity limit, and 

visible emission limit) that apply to you, 

a statement that there were no 

deviations from the emission limitations 

during the reporting period. 

(6) If there were no periods during 

which the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was 

out-of-control as specified in 

§ 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were 

no periods during which the CPMS, 

CEMS, or COMS was out-of-control 

during the reporting period. 

(d) For each deviation from an 

emission limitation (emission limit, 

operating limit, opacity limit, and 

visible emission limit), you must 

include the information in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (6) of this section, and the 

information in paragraphs (d)(1) through 

(12) of this section. This includes 

periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction. 

(1) The date and time that each 

malfunction started and stopped. 

(2) The date and time that each CPMS, 

CEMS, or COMS was inoperative, 

except for zero (low-level) and highlevel checks. 

(3) The date, time and duration that 

each CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was outof-control, including the information in 

§ 63.8(c)(8). 

(4) 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. 

(5) 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. 

(6) 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. 

(7) A summary of the total duration of 

CPMS, CEMS, or COMS downtime 

during the reporting period and the total 

duration of CPMS, CEMS, or COMS 

downtime as a percent of the total 

source operating time during that 

reporting period. 

(8) An identification of each air 

pollutant that was monitored at the 

affected source. 

24582 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

(9) A brief description of the process 

units. 

(10) A brief description of the CPMS, 

CEMS, or COMS. 

(11) The date of the latest CPMS, 

CEMS, or COMS certification or audit. 

(12) A description of any changes in 

CPMS, CEMS, or COMS, processes, or 

controls since the last reporting period. 

(e) Each affected source that has 

obtained a title V operating permit 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR 

part 71 must report all deviations as 

defined in this subpart in the 

semiannual monitoring report required 

by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 

71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected source 

submits a compliance report pursuant to 

Table 6 to this subpart along with, or as 

part of, the semiannual monitoring 

report required by 40 CFR 

70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 

71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance 

report includes all required information 

concerning deviations from any 

emission limitation (including any 

operating limit), submission of the 

compliance report shall be deemed to 

satisfy any obligation to report the same 

deviations in the semiannual 

monitoring report. However, submission 

of a compliance report shall not 

otherwise affect any obligation the 

affected source may have to report 

deviations from permit requirements to 

the permit authority. 

(f) If acceptable to both the 

Administrator and you, you may submit 

reports and notifications electronically.

§ 63.8694 What records must I keep? 

(a) You must keep the following 

records:

(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 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv). 

(2) The records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) 

through (v) related to startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction. 

(3) Records of performance tests, 

performance evaluations, and opacity 

and visible emission observations as 

required in § 63.10(b)(2)(viii). 

(b) You must keep the records in 

§ 63.6(h)(6) for visible emission 

observations. 

(c) You must keep the records 

required in Table 5 to this subpart to 

show continuous compliance with each 

operating limit that applies to you. 

(d) Records of any shared equipment 

determinations as specified in 

§ 63.8682(b).

§ 63.8695 In what form and how long must 

I keep my records? 

(a) Your records must be in a form 

suitable and readily available for 

expeditious review, according to 

§ 63.10(b)(1). 

(b) As specified in § 63.10(b)(1), you 

must keep each record for 5 years 

following the date of each occurrence, 

measurement, maintenance, corrective 

action, report, or record. 

(c) You must keep each record on site 

for at least 2 years after the date of each 

occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 

corrective action, report, or record, 

according to § 63.10(b)(1). You can keep 

the records offsite for the remaining 3 

years. 

Other Requirements and Information

§ 63.8696 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to me? 

Table 7 to this subpart shows which 

parts of the General Provisions in 

§§ 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.

§ 63.8697 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 §§ 63.8681, 63.8682, 

63.8683, 63.8684(a) through (c), 

63.8686, 63.8687, 63.8688, 63.8689, 

63.8690, and 63.8691. 

(2) Approval of major changes to test 

methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) 

and as defined in § 63.90. 

(3) Approval of major changes to 

monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as 

defined in § 63.90. 

(4) Approval of major changes to 

recordkeeping and reporting under 

§ 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90.

§ 63.8698 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

Terms used in this subpart are 

defined in the Clean Air Act, in 40 CFR 

63.2, the General Provisions of this part, 

and in this section as follows: 

Adhesive applicator means the 

equipment used to apply adhesive to 

roofing shingles for producing 

laminated or dimensional roofing 

shingles. 

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 loading rack means the 

equipment at an asphalt processing 

facility used to transfer oxidized asphalt 

from a storage tank into a tank truck, rail 

car, or barge. 

Asphalt processing facility means any 

facility 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 flux storage 

tanks storing asphalt flux intended for 

processing in the blowing stills, 

oxidized asphalt storage tanks, and 

oxidized asphalt loading racks. 

Asphalt roofing manufacturing 

facility means a facility consisting of 

one or more asphalt roofing 

manufacturing lines. 

Asphalt roofing manufacturing line

means the collection of equipment used 

to manufacture asphalt roofing products 

through a series of sequential process 

steps. The equipment that comprises an 

asphalt roofing manufacturing line 

varies depending on the type of 

substrate used (i.e., organic or inorganic) 

and the final product manufactured 

(e.g., roll roofing, laminated shingles). 

For example, an asphalt roofing 

manufacturing line that uses fiberglass 

mat as a substrate typically would not 

include a saturator/wet looper (or the 

saturator/wet looper could be bypassed 

if the line manufacturers multiple types 

of products). An asphalt roofing 

manufacturing line can include a 

saturator (including wet looper), coater, 

coating mixers, sealant applicators, 

adhesive applicators, and asphalt 

storage and process tanks. The number 

of asphalt roofing manufacturing lines at 

a particular facility is determined by the 

number of saturators (or coaters) 

operated in parallel. For example, an 

asphalt roofing manufacturing facility 

with two saturators (or coaters) 

operating in parallel would be 

considered to have two separate roofing 

manufacturing lines. 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 24583

Asphalt storage tank means any tank 

used to store asphalt flux, oxidized 

asphalt, and modified asphalt, at asphalt 

roofing manufacturing facilities, 

petroleum refineries, and asphalt 

processing facilities. Storage tanks 

containing cutback asphalts (asphalts 

diluted with solvents to reduce viscosity 

for low temperature applications) and 

emulsified asphalts (asphalts dispersed 

in water with an emulsifying agent) are 

not subject to this subpart. 

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. 

Boiler means any enclosed 

combustion device that extracts useful 

energy in the form of steam and is not 

an incinerator.

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. 

Combustion device means an 

individual unit of equipment such as a 

flare, incinerator, process heater, or 

boiler used for the combustion of 

organic hazardous air pollutant vapors. 

Deviation means any instance in 

which an affected source subject to this 

subpart, or an owner or operator of such 

a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or 

obligation established by this subpart 

including, but not limited to, any 

emission limitation (including any 

operating limit), or work practice 

standard; 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition 

that is adopted to implement an 

applicable requirement in this subpart, 

and that is included in the operating 

permit for any affected source required 

to obtain such a permit; or 

(3) Fails to meet any emission 

limitation (including any operating 

limit) or work practice standard in this 

subpart during startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction, regardless of whether or 

not such failure is permitted by this 

subpart. 

Emission limitation means any 

emission limit, opacity limit, operating 

limit, or visible emission limit. 

Group 1 asphalt loading rack means 

an asphalt loading rack loading asphalt 

with a maximum temperature of 260 °C 

(500 °F) or greater or with a maximum 

true vapor pressure of 10.4 kiloPascals 

(kPa) (1.5 pounds per square inch 

absolute (psia)) or greater. 

Group 2 asphalt loading rack means 

an asphalt loading rack loading asphalt 

with a maximum temperature less than 

260 °C (500 °F) or with a maximum true 

vapor pressure less than 10.4 kPa, 1.5 

psia. 

Group 1 asphalt storage tank means 

an asphalt storage tank that meets both 

of the following two criteria: 

(1) Has a capacity of 177 cubic meters 

(47,000 gallons) of asphalt or greater; 

and 

(2) Stores asphalt at a maximum 

temperature of 260 °C (500 °F) or 

greater, or has a maximum true vapor 

pressure of 10.4 kPa, (1.5, psia) or 

greater. 

Group 2 asphalt storage tank means 

any asphalt storage tank with a capacity 

of 1.93 megagrams (Mg) of asphalt or 

greater that is not a Group 1 asphalt 

storage tank. 

Incinerator means an enclosed 

combustion device that is used for 

destroying organic compounds. 

Auxiliary fuel may be used to heat 

waste gas to combustion temperatures. 

Any energy recovery section present is 

not physically formed into one 

manufactured or assembled unit with 

the combustion section; rather, the 

energy recovery section is a separate 

section following the combustion 

section and the two are joined by ducts 

or connections carrying flue gas. 

Maximum true vapor pressure means 

the equilibrium partial pressure exerted 

by the stored asphalt at its maximum 

storage temperature. 

Modified asphalt means asphalt that 

has been mixed with polymer modifiers. 

Oxidized asphalt means asphalt that 

has been prepared by passing air 

through liquid asphalt flux in a blowing 

still. 

Process heater means an enclosed 

combustion device that primarily 

transfers heat liberated by burning fuel 

directly to process streams or to heat 

transfer liquids other than water. 

Research and development equipment

means any equipment whose primary 

purpose is to conduct research and 

development to develop new processes 

and products, where such equipment is 

operated under the close supervision of 

technically trained personnel and is not 

engaged in the manufacture of products 

for commercial sale in commerce, 

except in a de minimis manner. 

Responsible official means 

responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 

70.2. 

Saturator means the equipment in 

which substrate (predominantly organic 

felt) is filled with asphalt. Saturators are 

predominantly used for the manufacture 

of saturated felt products. The term 

saturator includes the saturator and wet 

looper. 

Sealant applicator means the 

equipment used to apply a sealant strip 

to a roofing product. The sealant strip is 

used to seal overlapping pieces of 

roofing product after they have been 

applied. 

Work practice standard means any 

design, equipment, work practice, or 

operational standard, or combination 

thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to 

section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act. 

Tables to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63.—EMISSION LIMITATIONS

For— You must meet the following emission limitation—

1. Each blowing still, Group 1 asphalt loading rack, and Group 1 asphalt storage tank at existing, new, and reconstructed asphalt processing facilities; and each Group 1 asphalt storage tank at existing, 

new, and reconstructed roofing manufacturing lines; and each coating mixer, saturator (including wet looper), coater, sealant applicator, 

adhesive applicator, and Group 1 asphalt storage tank at new and 

reconstructed asphalt roofing manufacturing lines.

a. Reduce total hydrocarbon mass emissions by 95 percent, or to a 

concentration of 20 ppmv, on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent 

oxygen; 

b. Route the emissions to a combustion device achieving a combustion efficiency of 99.5 percent; 

c. Route the emissions to a combustion device that does not use auxiliary fuel achieving a total hydrocarbon (THC) destruction efficiency 

of 95.8 percent; 

d. Route the emissions to a boiler or process heater with a design heat 

input capacity of 44 megawatts (MW) or greater; 

e. Introduce the emissions into the flame zone of a boiler or process 

heater; or 

f. Route emissions to a flare meeting the requirements of § 63.11(b). 

24584 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63.—EMISSION LIMITATIONS—Continued

For— You must meet the following emission limitation—

2. The total emissions from the coating mixer, saturator (including wet 

looper), coater, sealant applicator, and adhesive applicator at each 

existing asphalt roofing manufacturing line.a

a. Limit particulate matter emissions to 0.04 kilograms emissions per 

megagram (kg/Mg) (0.08 pounds per ton, lb/ton) of asphalt shingle 

or mineral-surfaced roll roofing produced; or 

b. Limit particulate matter emissions to 0.4 kg/Mg (0.8 lb/ton) of saturated felt or smooth-surfaced roll roofing produced. 

3. Each saturator (including wet looper) and coater at existing, new, 

and reconstructed asphalt roofing manufacturing lines.a

a. Limit exhaust gases to 20 percent opacity; and 

b. Limit visible emissions from the emission capture system to 20 percent of any period of consecutive valid observations totaling 60 minutes. 

4. Each Group 2 asphalt storage tank at existing, new, and reconstructed asphalt processing facility and asphalt roofing manufacturing 

lines.a

Limit exhaust gases to 0 percent opacity.b

aAs an alternative to meeting the particulate matter and opacity limits, these emission sources may comply with the THC percent reduction or 

combustion efficiency standards. bThe opacity limit can be exceeded for on consecutive 15-minute period in any 24-hour period when the storage tank transfer lines are being 

cleared. During this 15-minute period, the control device must not be bypassed. If the emissions from the asphalt storage tank are ducted to the 

saturator control device, the combined emissions from the saturator and storage tank must meet the 20 percent opacity limit (specified in 4.a of 

table 1) during this 15-minute period. At any other time, the opacity limit applies to Group 2 asphalt storage tanks. 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63.—OPERATING LIMITS

For— You must a

1. Non-flare combustion devices with a design heat input capacity less 

than 44 MW or where the emissions are not introduced into the flame 

zone.

Maintain the 3-hour average b combustion zone temperature at or 

above the operating limit established during the performance test. 

2. Flares .................................................................................................... Meet the operating requirements specified in § 63.11(b). 

3. Control devices used to comply with the particulate matter standards. a. Maintain the 3-hour average b inlet gas temperature at or below the 

operating limit established during the performance test; and 

b. Maintain the 3-hour average b pressure drop across the device c at 

or below the operating limit established during the performance test. 

4. Control devices other than combustion devices or devices used to 

comply with the particulate matter emission standards.

Maintain the approved monitoring parameters within the operating limits established during the performance test. 

aThe operating limits specified in Table 2 are applicable if you are monitoring control device operating parameters to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. If you are using a CEMS or COMS, you must maintain emissions below the value established during the initial performance test. bA 15-minute averaging period can be used as an alternative to the 3-hour averaging period for this parameter. 

cAs an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control device, owners or operators using an ESP to achieve compliance with 

the emission limits specified in Table 1 of this subpart can monitor the voltage to the ESP. If this option is selected, the ESP voltage must be 

maintained at or above the operating limit established during the performance test. 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63.—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS a b

For— You must— Using— According to the following requirements—

1. All particulate matter, total 

hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide 

emission tests.

a. Select sampling port’s location and the number of traverse points.i. EPA test method 1 or 1A in 

appendix A to part 60 of this 

chapter.

A. For demonstrating compliance with the 

total hydrocarbon percent reduction 

standard, the sampling sites must be located at the inlet and outlet of the control device and prior to any releases to 

the atmosphere. 

B. For demonstrating compliance with the 

particulate matter mass emission rate, 

THC destruction efficiency, THC outlet 

concentration, or combustion efficiency 

standards, the sampling sites must be 

located at the outlet of the control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere. 

2. All particulate matter and 

total hydrocarbon tests.

Determine velocity and volumetric flow rate.EPA test method 2, 2A, 2C, 

2D, 2F, or 2G, as appropriate, in appendix A to part 

60 of this chapter.

3. All particulate matter and 

total hydrocarbon tests.

Determine the gas molecular 

weight used for flow rate determination.

EPA test method 3, 3A, 3B, as 

appropriate, in appendix A to 

part 60 of this chapter.

4. All particulate matter, total 

hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide 

emission tests.

Measure moisture content of 

the stack gas.

EPA test method 4 in appendix 

A to part 60 of this chapter.

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 24585

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63.—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS a b—Continued

For— You must— Using— According to the following requirements—

5. All particulate matter emission tests.Measure the asphalt processing rate or the asphalt 

roofing manufacturing rate 

and the asphalt content of 

the product manufactured, as 

appropriate.

6. Each control device used to 

comply with the particulate 

matter emission standards.

Measure the concentration of 

particulate matter.

EPA test method 5A in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.For demonstrating compliance with the 

particulate matter standard, the performance tests must be conducted 

under normal operating conditions and 

while manufacturing the roofing product 

that is expected to result in the greatest 

amount of hazardous air pollutant emissions. 

7. All opacity tests ..................... Conduct opacity observations .. EPA test method 9 in appendix 

A to part 60 of this chapter.

Conduct opacity observations for at least 

3 hours and obtain 30, 6-minute averages. 

8. All visible emission tests ....... Conduct visible emission observations.EPA test method 22 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.Modify EPA test method 22 such that 

readings are recorded every 15 seconds for a period of consecutive observations totaling 60 minutes. 

9. Each combustion device 

used to comply with the combustion efficiency or THC 

standards.

a. Measure the concentration of 

carbon dioxide.

b. Measure the concentration of 

carbon monoxide.

EPA test method 3A in appendix A to part 60 of this 

chapter.

EPA test method 10 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.

c. Measure the concentration of 

total hydrocarbons.

EPA test method 25A in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.

10. Each control device used to 

comply with the THC reduction efficiency or outlet concentration standards.

Measure the concentration of 

total hydrocarbons.

EPA test method 25A in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.

11. Each combustion device ..... Establish a site-specific combustion zone temperature 

limit.

Data from the CPMS and the 

applicable performance test 

method(s).

You must collect combustion zone temperature data every 15 minutes during 

the entire period of the initial 3-hour 

performance test, and determine the average combustion zone temperature 

over the 3-hour performance test by 

computing the average of all of the 15-

minute readings. 

12. Each control device used to 

comply with the particulate 

matter emission standards.

Establish a site-specific inlet 

gas temperature limit; and 

establish a site-specific limit 

for the pressure drop across 

the device.

Data from the CPMS and the 

applicable performance test 

method(s).

You must collect the inlet gas temperature 

and pressure drop b data every 15 minutes during the entire period of the initial 3-hour performance test, and determine the average inlet gas temperature 

and pressure drop c over the 3-hour 

performance test by computing the average of all of the 15-minute readings. 

13. Each control device other 

than a combustion device or 

device used to comply with 

the particulate matter emission standards.

Establish site-specific monitoring parameters.Process data and data from the 

CPMS and the applicable 

performance test method(s).

You must collect monitoring parameter 

data every 15 minutes during the entire 

period of the initial 3-hour performance 

test, and determine the average monitoring parameter values over the 3-hour 

performance test by computing the average of all of the 15-minute readings. 

14. Each flare used to comply 

with the THC percent reduction or PM emission limits.

Assure that the flare is operated and maintained in conformance with its design.The requirements of § 63.11(b).

aAs specified in § 63.8687(e), you may request that data from a previously-conducted emission test serve as documentation of conformance 

with the emission standards and operating limits of this subpart. bPerformance tests are not required if: (1) The emissions are routed to a boiler or process heater with a design heat input capacity of 44 MW 

or greater; or (2) the emissions are introduced into the flame zone of a boiler or process heater. cAs an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control device, owners or operators using an ESP to achieve compliance with 

the emission limits specified in Table 1 of this subpart can monitor the voltage to the ESP. 

24586 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART LLLLL TO PART 63.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS

For— For the following emission 

limitation— You have demonstrated initial compliance if—

1. Each blowing still, Group 1 asphalt loading rack, and Group 1 

asphalt storage tank, at existing, 

new, and reconstructed asphalt 

processing facilities.

a. Reduce total hydrocarbon mass 

emissions by 95 percent or to a 

concentration of 20 ppmv, on a 

dry basis corrected to 3 percent 

oxygen.

i. The total hydrocarbon emissions, determined using the equations in 

§ 63.8687 and the test methods and procedures in Table 3 to this 

subpart, over the period of the performance test are reduced by at 

least 95 percent by weight or to a concentration of 20 ppmv, on a 

dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen; and 

ii. You have a record of the average control device operating parameters a over the performance test during which emissions were reduced according to 1.a.i. of this table. 

b. Route the emissions to a combustion device achieving a combustion efficiency of 99.5 percent.i. The combustion efficiency of the combustion device, determined 

using the equations in § 63.8687 and the test methods and procedures in Table 3 to this subpart, over the period of the performance 

test is at least 99.5 percent; and 

ii. You have a record of the average combustion zone temperature a

and carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and total hydrocarbon outlet 

concentrations over the performance test during which the combustion efficiency was at least 99.5 percent. 

c. Route the emissions to a combustion device that does not use 

auxiliary fuel achieving a THC 

destruction efficiency of 95.8 

percent.

i. The THC destruction efficiency of the combustion device, determined using the equations in § 63.8687 and the test methods and 

procedures in Table 3 to this subpart, over the period of the performance test is at least 95.8 percent; and 

ii. You have a record of the average combustion zone temperature a

and carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and total hydrocarbon outlet 

concentrations over the performance test during which the THC destruction efficiency was at least 95.8 percent. 

d. Route emissions to a boiler or 

process heater with a design 

heat input capacity of 44 MW or 

greater.

You have a record of the boiler or process heater design heat capacity. 

e. Introduce the emissions into the 

flame zone of a boiler or process heater.

You have a record that shows the emissions are being introduced 

into the boiler or process heater flame zone. 

f. Route emissions to a flare meeting the requirements of 

§ 63.11(b).

You have a record of the flare design and operating requirements. 

2. Each coating mixer, saturator (including wet looper), coater, sealant applicator, adhesive applicator, and Group 1 asphalt storage tank at new and reconstructed asphalt roofing manufacturing lines.a. Reduce total hydrocarbon mass 

emissions by 95 percent or to a 

concentration of 20 ppmv, on a 

dry basis corrected to 3 percent 

oxygen.

See 1.a.i. and ii. of this table. 

b. Route the emissions to a combustion device achieving a combustion efficiency of 99.5 percent.See 1.b.i. and ii. of this table. 

c. Route the emissions to a combustion device that does not use 

auxiliary fuel achieving a THC 

destruction efficiency of 95.8 

percent.

See 1.c.i. and ii. of this table. 

d. Route emissions to a boiler or 

process heater with a design 

heat input capacity of 44 MW or 

greater.

See 1.d. of this table. 

e. Introduce the emissions into the 

flame zone of a boiler or process heater.

See 1.e. of this table. 

f. Route emissions to a flare meeting the requirements of 

§ 63.11(b).

See 1.f. of this table. 

3. The total emissions from the 

coating mixer, saturator (including wet looper), coater, sealant 

applicator, and adhesive applicator at each existing asphalt 

roofing manufacturing line.

a. Limit PM emissions to 0.04 kg/

Mg (0.08 lb/ton) of asphalt shingle or mineral-surfaced roll roofing produced.

i. The PM emissions, determined using the equations in § 63.8687 

and the test methods and procedures in Table 3 to this subpart, 

over the period of the performance test are no greater than the applicable emission limitation; and 

ii. You have a record of the average control device a or process parameters over the performance test during which the particulate 

matter emissions were no greater than the applicable emission limitation. 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 24587

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART LLLLL TO PART 63.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS—Continued

For— For the following emission 

limitation— You have demonstrated initial compliance if—

b. Limit PM emissions to 0.4 kg/

Mg (0.8 lb/ton) of saturated felt 

or smooth-surfaced roll roofing 

produced.

See 3.a.i. and ii. of this table. 

4. Each saturator (including wet 

looper) and coater at an existing, 

new, or reconstructed asphalt 

roofing manufacturing line.

a. Limit visible emissions from the 

emissions capture system to 20 

percent of any period of consecutive valid observations totaling 60 minutes.

The visible emissions, measured using EPA test method 22, for any 

period of consecutive valid observations totaling 60 minutes during 

the initial compliance period described in § 63.8686(b) do not exceed 20 percent. 

b. Limit opacity emissions to 20 

percent.

The opacity, measured using EPA test method 9, for each of the first 

30 6-minute averages during the initial compliance period described in § 63.8686(b) does not exceed 20 percent. 

5. Each Group 2 asphalt storage 

tank at existing, new, and reconstructed asphalt processing facilities and asphalt roofing manufacturing lines.

Limit exhaust gases to 0 percent 

opacity.

The opacity, measured using EPA test method 9, for each of the first 

30 6-minute averages during the initial compliance period described in § 63.8686(b) does not exceed 0 percent. 

a If you use a CEMS or COMS to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits, you are not required to record control device operating 

parameters. 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS a

For— For the following operating limit— You must demonstrate continuous compliance by—

1. Each non-flare combustion device.ba. Maintain the 3-hour c average 

combustion zone temperature at 

or above the operating limit establishing during the performance test.

i. Passing the emissions through the control device; and 

ii. Collecting the combustion zone temperature data according to 

§ 63.8688(b); and 

iii. Reducing combustion zone temperature data to 3-hour c averages 

according to calculations in Table 3 to this subpart; and 

iv. Maintaining the 3-hour c average combustion zone temperature 

within the level established during the performance test. 

2. Each flare .................................... Meet the operating requirements 

specified in § 63.11(b).

The flare pilot light must be present at all times and the flare must be 

operating at all times that emissions may be vented to it. 

3. Control devices used to comply 

with the particulate matter emission standards.

a. Maintain the 3-hour c average 

inlet gas temperature and pressure drop across device d at or 

below the operating limits established during the performance 

test.

i. Passing the emissions through the control device; and 

ii. Collecting the inlet gas temperature and pressure drop d data according to § 63.8688 (b) and (c); and 

iii. Reducing inlet gas temperature and pressure drop d data to 3-

hour c averages according to calculations in Table 3 to this subpart; 

and 

iv. Maintaining the 3-hour c average inlet gas temperature and pressure drop d within the level established during the performance test. 

4. Control devices other than combustion devices or devices used 

to comply with the particulate 

matter emission.

a. Maintain the monitoring parameters within the operating limits 

established during the performance test.

i. Passing the emissions through the devices; 

ii. Collecting the monitoring parameter data according to 

§ 63.8688(d); and 

iii. Reducing the monitoring parameter data to 3-hour c averages according to calculations in Table 3 to this subpart; and 

iv. Maintaining the monitoring parameters within the level established 

during the performance test. 

aThe operating limits specified in Table 2 and the requirements specified in Table 5 are applicable if you are monitoring control device operating parameters to demonstrate continuous compliance. If you use a CEMS or COMS to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits, you 

are not required to record control device operating parameters. However, you must maintain emissions below the value established during the 

initial performance test. Data from the CEMS and COMS must be reduced as specified in § 63.9(g). b Continuous parameter monitoring is not required if (1) the emissions are routed to a boiler or process heater with a with a design heat input 

capacity of 44 MW or greater; or (2) the emissions are introduced into the flame zone of a boiler or process heater. cA 15-minute averaging period can be used as an alternative to the 3-hour averaging period for this parameter. 

dAs an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control device, owners or operators using an ESP to achieve compliance with 

the emission limits specified in Table 1 of this subpart can monitor the voltage to the ESP. If this option is selected, the ESP voltage must be 

maintained at or above the operating limit established during the performance test. 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS

You must submit— The report must contain— You must submit the report—

1. An initial notification ............................. The information in § 63.9(b) .................................................. According to the requirements in 

§ 63.9(b). 

2. A notification of performance test ........ A written notification of the intent to conduct a performance 

test.

At least 60 calendar days before the 

performance test is scheduled to 

begin, as required in § 63.9(e). 

3. A notification of opacity and visible 

emission observations.

A written notification of the intent to conduct opacity and 

visible emission observations.

According to the requirements in 

§ 63.9(f). 

24588 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS—Continued

You must submit— The report must contain— You must submit the report—

4. Notification of compliance status ......... The information in § 63.9(h)(2) through (5), as applicable ... According to the requirements in 

§ 63.9(h)(2) through (5), as applicable. 

5. A compliance report ............................. a. A statement that there were no deviations from the 

emission limitations during the reporting period, if there 

are no deviations from any emmission limitations (emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and visible emission limit) that apply to you.

Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.8693(b). 

b. If there were no periods during which the CPMS, CEMS, 

or COMS was out-of-control as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), 

a statement that there were no periods during which the 

CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was out-of-control during the 

reporting period.

Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.8693(b). 

c. If you have a deviation from any emission limitation 

(emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and visible 

emission limit), the report must contain the information in 

§ 63.8693(c). If there were periods during which the 

CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was out-of-control, as specified 

in § 63.8(c)(7), the report must contain the information in 

§ 63.8693(d).

Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.8693(b). 

d. If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the 

reporting period and you took actions consistent with 

your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the information in 

§ 63.10(d)(5)(i).

Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.8693(b). 

6. An immediate startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction report if you have a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during 

the reporting period and actions taken 

were not consistent with your startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction plan.

The information in § 63.10(d)(5)(ii) ........................................ By fax or telephone within 2 working 

days after starting actions inconsistent with the plan followed by a 

letter within 7 working days after the 

end of the event unless you have 

made alternative arrangements with 

the permitting authority. 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART LLLLL 

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart 

LLLLL 

§ 63.1 .................. Applicability ......................................................... Initial Applicability Determination; Applicability 

After Standard Established; Permit Requirements; Extensions, Notifications.

Yes. 

§ 63.2 .................. Definitions ........................................................... Definitions for part 63 standards ........................ Yes. 

§ 63.3 .................. Units and Abbreviations ..................................... Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards ... Yes. 

§ 63.4 .................. Prohibited Activities ............................................ Prohibited Activities; Compliance date; Circumvention, Severability.Yes. 

§ 63.5 .................. Construction/Reconstruction ............................... Applicability; applications; approvals .................. Yes. 

§ 63.6(a) .............. Applicability ......................................................... GP apply unless compliance extension GP 

apply to area sources that become major.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(b)(1)–(4) ... Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed 

sources.

Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after 

effective date; upon startup; 10 years after 

construction or reconstruction commences for 

section 112(f).

Yes. 

§ 63.6(b)(5) ......... Notification .......................................................... Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction after proposal.Yes. 

§ 63.6(b)(6) ......... [Reserved].

§ 63.6(b)(7) ......... Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed 

Area Sources That Become Major.

Area sources that become major must comply 

with major source standards immediately 

upon becoming major, regardless of whether 

required to comply when they were an area 

source.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ... Compliance Dates for Existing Sources ............. 1. Comply according to date in subpart, which 

must be no later than 3 years after effective 

date.

2. For section 112(f) standards, comply within 

90 days of effective date unless compliance 

extension has been granted.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ... [Reserved].

§ 63.6(c)(5) ......... Compliance Dates for Existing Area Sources 

That Become Major.

Area sources that become major must comply 

with major source standards by date indicated in subpart or by equivalent time period 

(for example, 3 years).

Yes. 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 24589

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART LLLLL—Continued

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart 

LLLLL 

§ 63.6(d) .............. [Reserved].

§ 63.6(e)(1) ......... Operation & Maintenance ................................... 1. Operate to minimize emissions at all times ...

2. Correct malfunctions as soon as practicable

3. Operation and maintenance requirements 

independently enforceable; information Administrator will use to determine if operation 

and maintenance requirements were met.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(e)(2) ......... [Reserved].

§ 63.6(e)(3) ......... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) Plan 

(SSMP).

1. Requirement for SSM and startup, shutdown, 

malfunction plan.

2. Content of SSMP ...........................................

Yes. 

§ 63.6(f)(1) .......... Compliance Except During SSM ........................ You must comply with emission standards at all 

times except during SSM.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) .... Methods for Determining Compliance ................ Compliance based on performance test, operation and maintenance plans, records, inspection.Yes. 

§ 63.6(g)(1)–(3) ... Alternative Nonopacity Standard ........................ Procedures for getting an alternative nonopacity 

standard.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(h) .............. Opacity/Visible Emission (VE) Standards .......... Requirements for opacity and VE limits ............. Yes. 

§ 63.6(h)(1) ......... Compliance with Opacity/VE Standards ............ You must comply with opacity/VE emission limitations at all times except during SSM.Yes. 

§ 63.6(h)(2)(i) ...... Determining Compliance with Opacity/VE 

Standards.

If standard does not state test method, use 

EPA test method 9, 40 CFR 60, appendix A 

for opacity and EPA test method 22, 40 CFR 

60, appendix A for VE.

No. The test methods 

for opacity and visible 

emissions are specified in § 63.8687. 

§ 63.6(h)(2)(ii) ..... [Reserved].

§ 63.6(h)(2)(iii) .... Using Previous Tests to Demonstrate Compliance with Opacity/VE Standards.Criteria for when previous opacity/VE testing 

can be used to show compliance with this 

rule.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(h)(3) ......... [Reserved].

§ 63.6(h)(4) ......... Notification of Opacity/VE Observation Date ..... Must notify Administrator of anticipated date of 

observation.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(h)(5)(i), 

(iii)–(v).

Conducting Opacity/VE Observations ................ Dates and Schedule for conducting opacity/VE 

observations.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(h)(5)(ii) ..... Opacity Test Duration and Averaging Times ..... Must have at least 3 hours of observation with 

thirty 6-minute averages.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(h)(6) ......... Records of Conditions During Opacity/VE Observations.Must keep records available and allow Administrator to inspect.Yes. 

§ 63.6(h)(7)(i) ...... Report COMS Monitoring Data from Performance Test.Must submit COMS data with other performance test data.Yes, if COMS used. 

§ 63.6(h)(7)(ii) ..... Using COMS instead of EPA test method 9, 40 

CFR 60, appendix A.

Can submit COMS data instead of EPA test 

method 9, 40 CFR 60, appendix A results 

even if rule requires EPA test method 9, 40 

CFR 60, appendix A, but must notify Administrator before performance test.

Yes, if COMS used. 

§ 63.6(h)(7)(iii) .... Averaging time for COMS during performance 

test.

To determine compliance, must reduce COMS 

data to 6-minute averages.

Yes, if COMS used. 

§ 63.6(h)(7)(iv) .... COMS requirements ........................................... Owner/operator must demonstrate that COMS 

performance evaluations are conducted according to § 63.8(e), COMS are properly 

maintained and operated according to 

§ 63.8(c) and data quality as § 63.8(d).

Yes, if COMS used. 

§ 63.6(h)(7)(v) ..... Determining Compliance with Opacity/VE 

Standards.

COMS is probative but not conclusive evidence 

of compliance with opacity standard, even if 

EPA test method 9, 40 CFR 60, appendix A 

observation shows otherwise. Requirements 

for COMS to be probative evidence, proper 

maintenance, meeting PS 1, and data have 

not been altered.

Yes, if COMS used. 

§ 63.6(h)(8) ......... Determining Compliance with Opacity/VE 

Standards.

Administrator will use all COMS, EPA test 

method 9, 40 CFR 60, appendix A, and EPA 

test method 22, 40 CFR 60, appendix A results, as well as information about operation 

and maintenance to determine compliance.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(h)(9) ......... Adjusted Opacity Standard ................................. Procedures for Administrator to adjust an opacity standard.Yes. 

§ 63.6(i) ............... Compliance Extension ........................................ Procedures and criteria for Administrator to 

grant compliance extension.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(j) ............... Presidential Compliance Exemption ................... President may exempt source category from requirement to comply with rule.Yes. 

24590 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART LLLLL—Continued

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart 

LLLLL 

§ 63.7(a)(1)–(2) ... Performance Test Dates .................................... Dates for conducting initial performance testing 

and other compliance demonstrations. Must 

conduct 180 days after first subject to rule.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(a)(3) ......... Section 114 Authority ......................................... Administrator may require a performance test 

under CAA section 114 at any time.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(b)(1) ......... Notification of Performance Test ........................ Must notify Administrator 60 days before the 

test.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(b)(2) ......... Notification of Rescheduling ............................... If rescheduling a performance test is necessary, 

must notify Administrator 5 days before 

scheduled date of rescheduled date.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(c) .............. Quality Assurance/Test Plan .............................. 1. Requirement to submit site-specific test plan 

60 days before the test or on date Administrator agrees with: 

2. Test plan approval procedures ......................

3. Performance audit requirements ....................

4. Internal and external QA procedures for testing.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(d) .............. Testing Facilities ................................................. Requirements for testing facilities Yes. 

§ 63.7(e)(1) ......... Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests .. 1. Performance tests must be conducted under 

representative conditions. Cannot conduct 

performance tests during SSM.

2. Not a violation to exceed standard during 

SSM.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(e)(2) ......... Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests .. Must conduct according to rule and EPA test 

methods unless Administrator approves alternative.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(e)(3) ......... Test Run Duration .............................................. 1. Must have three test runs of at least 1 hour 

each.

2. Compliance is based on arithmetic mean of 

three runs.

3. Conditions when data from an additional test 

run can be used.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(f) ............... Alternative Test Method ..................................... Procedures by which Administrator can grant 

approval to use an alternative test method.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(g) .............. Performance Test Data Analysis ........................ 1. Must include raw data in performance test 

report.

2. Must submit performance test data 60 days 

after end of test with the Notification of Compliance Status.

3. Keep data for 5 years ....................................

Yes. 

§ 63.7(h) .............. Waiver of Tests .................................................. Procedures for Administrator to waive performance test.Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(1) ......... Applicability of Monitoring Requirements ........... Subject to all monitoring requirements in standard.Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(2) ......... Performance Specifications ................................ Performance Specifications in appendix B of 

part 60 apply.

Yes, if CEMS used. 

§ 63.8(a)(3) ......... [Reserved] 

§ 63.8(a)(4) ......... Monitoring with Flares ........................................ Unless your rule says otherwise, the requirements for flares in § 63.11 apply.Yes. 

§ 63.8(b)(1) ......... Monitoring ........................................................... Must conduct monitoring according to standard 

unless Administrator approves alternative.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(b) (2)–(3) .. Multiple Effluents and Multiple Monitoring Systems.1. Specific requirements for installing monitoring 

systems.

2. Must install on each effluent before it is combined and before it is released to the atmosphere unless Administrator approves 

otherwise.

3. If more than one monitoring system on an 

emission point, must report all monitoring 

system results, unless one monitoring system 

is a backup.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1) ......... Monitoring System Operation and Maintenance Maintain monitoring system in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices.Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) ...... Routine and Predictable CMS malfunction ........ 1. Follow the SSM plan for routine repairs ........

2. Keep parts for routine repairs readily 

available.

3. Reporting requirements for CMS malfunction 

when action is described in SSM plan.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ..... CMS malfunction not in SSP plan ...................... Reporting requirements for CMS malfunction 

when action is not described in SSM plan.

Yes. 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 24591

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART LLLLL—Continued

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart 

LLLLL 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ..... Compliance with Operation and Maintenance 

Requirements.

1. How Administrator determines if source complying with operation and maintenance 

requirements.

2. Review of source O&M procedures, records, 

manufacturer’s instructions, recommendations, and inspection of monitoring system.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ... Monitoring System Installation ........................... 1. Must install to get representative emission 

and parameter measurements.

2. Must verify operational status before or at 

performance test.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(4) ......... CMS Requirements ............................................ CMS must be operating except during breakdown, out-of-control, repair, maintenance, 

and high-level calibration drifts.

No; § 63.8690 specifies 

the CMS requirements. 

§ 63.8(c)(4)(i)–(ii) CMS Requirements ............................................ 1. COMS must have a minimum of one cycle of 

sampling and analysis for each successive 

10-second period and one cycle of data recording for each successive 6-minute period.

2. CEMS must have a minimum of one cycle of 

operation for each successive 15-minute period.

Yes, if COMS used. 

§ 63.8(c)(5) ......... COMS Minimum Procedures .............................. COMS minimum procedures Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(6) ......... CMS Requirements ............................................ Zero and High level calibration check requirements.No; § 63.8688 specifies 

the CMS requirements. 

§ 63.8(c)(7)–(8) ... CMS Requirements ............................................ Out-of-control periods, including reporting ......... Yes. 

§ 63.8(d) .............. CMS Quality Control ........................................... 1. Requirements for CMS quality control, including calibration, etc.

2. Must keep quality control plan on record for 

the life of the affected source.

3. Keep old versions for 5 years after revisions 

No; § 63.8688 specifies 

the CMS requirements. 

§ 63.8(e) .............. CMS Performance Evaluation ............................ Notification, performance evaluation test plan, 

reports.

No; § 63.8688 specifies 

the CMS requirements. 

§ 63.8(f)(1)–(5) .... Alternative Monitoring Method ............................ Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative monitoring.Yes. 

§ 63.8(f)(6) .......... Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test ................ Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative relative accuracy tests for CEMS.Yes, if CEMS used. 

§ 63.8(g)(1)–(4) ... Data Reduction ................................................... 1. COMS 6-minute averages calculated over at 

least 36 evenly spaced data points.

2. CEMS 1-hour averages computed over at 

least 4 equally spaced data points.

Yes, if CEMS or COMS 

used. 

§ 63.8(g)(5) ......... Data Reduction ................................................... Data that cannot be used in computing averages for CMS.No; § 63.8690 specifies 

the CMS requirements. 

§ 63.9(a) .............. Notification Requirements .................................. Applicability and State Delegation Yes. 

§ 63.9(b)(1)–(5) ... Initial Notifications ............................................... 1. Submit notification 120 days after effective 

date.

2. Notification of intent to construct/reconstruct; 

notification of commencement of construct/reconstruct; notification of startup.

3. Contents of each 

Yes. 

§ 63.9(c) .............. Request for Compliance Extension .................... Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed Best Achievable Control Technology 

(BACT)/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

(LAER).

Yes. 

§ 63.9(d) .............. Notification of Special Compliance Requirements for New Source.For sources that commence construction between proposal and promulgation and want to 

comply 3 years after effective date.

Yes. 

§ 63.9(e) .............. Notification of Performance Test ........................ Notify Administrator 60 days prior Yes. 

§ 63.9(f) ............... Notification of VE/Opacity Test .......................... Notify Administrator 30 days prior Yes. 

§ 63.9(g) .............. Additional Notifications When Using CMS ......... 1. Notification of performance evaluation ...........

2. Notification using COMS data 

3. Notification that the criterion for use of alternative to relative accuracy testing was exceeded.

No; § 63.8692 specifies 

the CMS notification 

requirements. 

§ 63.9(h)(1)–(6) ... Notification of Compliance Status ...................... 1. Contents. 

2. Due 60 days after end of performance test or 

other compliance demonstration, except for 

opacity/VE, which are due 30 days after.

3. When to submit to Federal vs. State authority 

Yes. 

24592 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART LLLLL—Continued

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart 

LLLLL 

§ 63.9(i) ............... Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines .................... Procedures for Administrator to approve change 

in dates when notifications must be submitted.

Yes. 

§ 63.9(j) ............... Change in Previous Information ......................... Must submit within 15 days after the change .... Yes. 

§ 63.10(a) ............ Recordkeeping/Reporting ................................... 1. Applies to all, unless compliance extension ..

2. When to submit to Federal vs. State authority 

3. Procedures for owners of more than 1 

source.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(1) ....... Recordkeeping/Reporting ................................... 1. General Requirements ...................................

2. Keep all records readily available. .................

3. Keep for 5 years .............................................

Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i)–

(v).

Records related to Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.1. Occurrence of each of operation (process 

equipment).

2. Occurrence of each malfunction of air pollution equipment.

3. Maintenance on air pollution control 

equipment.

4. Actions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) 

and (x–xi).

CMS Records ..................................................... 1. Malfunctions, inoperative, out-of-control ........

2. Calibration checks ..........................................

3. Adjustments, maintenance .............................

Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–

(ix).

Records .............................................................. 1. Measurements to demonstrate compliance 

with emission limitations.

2. Performance test, performance evaluation, 

and visible emission observation results.

3. Measurements to determine conditions of 

performance tests and performance evaluations.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xii) Records .............................................................. Records when under waiver ............................... Yes 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) Records .............................................................. Records when using alternative to relative accuracy test.Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) Records .............................................................. All documentation supporting Initial Notification 

and Notification of Compliance Status.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(3) ....... Records .............................................................. Applicability determinations ................................ Yes. 

§ 63.10(c)(1)–(6), 

(9)–(15).

Records .............................................................. Additional records for CMS ................................ No; § 63.8694 specifies 

the CMS recordkeeping requirements. 

§ 63.10(c)(7)–(8) Records .............................................................. Records of excess emissions and parameter 

monitoring exceeedances for CMS.

No; § 63.8694 specifies 

the CMS recordkeeping requirements. 

§ 63.10(d)(1) ....... General Reporting Requirements ....................... Requirement to report ........................................ Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(2) ....... Report of Performance Test Results .................. When to submit to Federal or State authority .... Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(3) ....... Reporting Opacity or VE Observations .............. What to report and when .................................... Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(4) ....... Progress Reports ................................................ Must submit progress reports on schedule if 

under compliance extension.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(5) ....... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports .... Contents and submission ................................... Yes. 

§ 63.10(e)(1), (2) Additional CMS Reports ..................................... 1. Must report results for each CEM on a unit ..

2. Written copy of performance evaluation ........

3. Three copies of COMS performance evaluation.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(e)(3) ....... Reports ............................................................... Excess emission reports .................................... No; § 63.8693 specifies 

the reporting requirements. 

§ 63.10(e)(3)(i)–

(iii).

Reports ............................................................... Schedule for reporting excess emissions and 

parameter monitor exceedances (now defined 

as deviations).

No; § 63.8693 specifies 

the reporting requirements. 

§ 63.10(e)(3)(iv)–

(v).

Excess Emissions Reports ................................. 1. Requirement to revert to the frequency specified in the relevant standard if there is an excess emissions and parameter monitor 

exceedances (now defined as deviations).

2. Provision to request semiannual reporting 

after compliance for one year.

3. Submit report by 30th day following end of 

quarter or calendar half.

4. If there has not been an exceedance or excess emission (now defined as deviations), 

report content is a statement that there have 

been no deviations.

No; § 63.8693 specifies 

the reporting requirements. 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 24593

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART LLLLL—Continued

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart 

LLLLL 

§ 63.10(e)(3)(iv)–

(v).

Excess Emissions Reports ................................. Must submit report containing all of the information in § 63.10(c)(5)(13), § 63.8(c)(7)–(8).No; § 63.8693 specifies 

the reporting requirements. 

§ 63.10(e)(3)(vi)–

(viii).

Excess Emissions Report and Summary Report 1. Requirements for reporting excess emissions 

for CMS (now called deviations).

2. Requires all of the information in 

§ 63.10(c)(5)(13), § 63.8(c)(7)–(8).

No; § 63.8693 specifies 

the reporting requirements. 

§ 63.10(e)(4) ....... Reporting COMS data ........................................ Must submit COMS data with performance test 

data.

Yes, if COMS used. 

§ 63.10(f) ............. Waiver for Recordkeeping/Reporting ................. Procedures for Administrator to waive ............... Yes. 

§ 63.11 ................ Flares .................................................................. Requirements for flares ...................................... Yes. 

§ 63.12 ................ Delegation ........................................................... State authority to enforce standards .................. Yes. 

§ 63.13 ................ Addresses ........................................................... Addresses where reports, notifications, and requests are sent.Yes. 

§ 63.14 ................ Incorporation by Reference ................................ Test methods incorporated by reference ........... Yes. 

§ 63.15 ................ Availability of Information ................................... Public and confidential information .................... Yes. 

Editorial Note: Due to numerous errors this 

document is being reprinted in its entirety. 

It was originally printed in the Federal Register on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 at 68 FR 

22975–23007.

[FR Doc. R3–5624 Filed 5–6–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–U