32822 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1721, and as 

noted in specific sections. 

2. Revise the second sentence of 

paragraph (a)(2) and paragraph (m) of 

§ 17.101 to read as follows: 

§ 17.101 Collection or recovery by VA for 

medical care or services provided or 

furnished to a veteran for a nonserviceconnected disability. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * In addition, the charges 

billed for prescription drugs not 

administered during treatment will be 

the amount determined under paragraph 

(m) of this section. * * * 

* * * * * 

(m) Charges for prescription drugs not 

administered during treatment. 

Notwithstanding other provisions of this 

section, when VA provides or furnishes 

prescription drugs not administered 

during treatment, within the scope of 

care referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section, charges billed separately 

for such prescription drugs will consist 

of the amount that equals the total of the 

actual cost to VA for the drugs and the 

national average of VA administrative 

costs associated with dispensing the 

drugs for each prescription. The actual 

VA cost of a drug will be the actual 

amount expended by the VA facility for 

the purchase of the specific drug. The 

administrative cost will be determined 

annually using VA’s managerial cost 

accounting system. Under this 

accounting system, the average 

administrative cost is determined by 

adding the total VA national drug 

indirect costs (such as utilities and 

financial services) to the total VA 

national drug dispensing costs (such as 

labor and packaging) with the sum 

divided by the actual number of VA 

prescriptions filled nationally. Based on 

this accounting system, VA will 

determine the amount of the average 

administrative cost annually for the 

prior fiscal year (October through 

September) and then apply the charge at 

the start of the next calendar year. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–16294 Filed 7–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0027; FRL–8928–3] 

RIN 2060–AO94 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area 

Sources: Asphalt Processing and 

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing national 

emissions standards for the control of 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) from the asphalt processing and 

asphalt roofing manufacturing area 

source category. These proposed 

emissions standards for new and 

existing sources are based upon EPA’s 

proposed determination as to what 

constitutes the generally available 

control technology or management 

practices (GACT) for the source 

category. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 10, 2009 unless a 

public hearing is requested by July 20, 

2009. If a hearing is requested on the 

proposed rules, written comments must 

be received by August 24, 2009. Under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

comments on the information collection 

provisions are best assured of having 

full effect if the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of 

your comments on or before August 10, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0027, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web Site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. Follow 

the instructions for submitting 

comments on the EPA Air and Radiation 

Docket Web Site. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0027 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: Area Source NESHAP for 

Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 

Manufacturing Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Please include a total of two copies. In 

addition, please mail a copy of your 

comments on the information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Desk 

Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., 

Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0027. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Area Source NESHAP for Asphalt 

Roofing Manufacturing Docket, EPA/DC, 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32823 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

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

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Warren Johnson, Outreach and 

Information Division, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards (MC– 

C404–05), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711, telephone number: 

(919) 541–5124; fax number: (919) 541– 

0242; e-mail address: 

johnson.warren@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Outline. The information in this 

preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments to EPA? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

D. When would a public hearing occur? 

II. Background Information for Proposed Area 

Source Standards 

A. What is the statutory authority and 

regulatory approach for the proposed 

standards? 

B. What source categories are affected by 

the proposed standards? 

C. What are the production operations, 

emission sources, and available controls? 

D. What existing national standards apply 

to this source category? 

III. Summary of Proposed Standards 

A. Do the proposed standards apply to my 

source? 

B. When must I comply with the proposed 

standards? 

C. What are the proposed standards? 

D. What are the initial and continuous 

compliance requirements? 

E. What are the notification, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements? 

IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule 

A. How did we select the source category? 

B. How did we select the affected source? 

C. How did we address PAH emissions in 

this rule? 

D. How was GACT determined? 

E. How did we select the compliance 

requirements? 

F. How did we decide to exempt this area 

source category from title V permitting 

requirements? 

V. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed 

Standards 

A. What are the air impacts? 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

D. What are the non-air health, 

environmental, and energy impacts? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The regulated categories and entities 

potentially affected by the proposed 

standards include: 

Category NAICS code 1 Examples of regulated entities 

Petroleum Refineries .................................................................. 324110 Area source facilities that refine asphalt. 

Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing .............. 324122 Area source facilities that manufacture asphalt roofing materials. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. To determine 

whether your facility would be 

regulated by this action, you should 

examine the applicability criteria in 40 

CFR 63.11559 of subpart AAAAAAA 

(NESHAP for Area Sources: Asphalt 

Processing and Asphalt Roofing 

Manufacturing). If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

either the air permit authority for the 

entity or your EPA Regional 

representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 

of subpart A (General Provisions). 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments to EPA? 

Do not submit information containing 

CBI to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Roberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention 

Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0027. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposed action will also be available 

on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through 

the Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). Following signature, a copy of 

this proposed action will be posted on 

the TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

the following address: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

D. When would a public hearing occur? 

If anyone contacts EPA requesting to 

speak at a public hearing concerning the 

proposed rule by July 20, 2009, we will 

hold a public hearing on July 24, 2009. 

Persons interested in presenting oral 

testimony at the hearing, or inquiring as 

to whether a hearing will be held, 

should contact Ms. Christine Adams at 

(919) 541–5590 at least two days in 

advance of the hearing. If a public 

hearing is held, it will be held at 10 a.m. 

at EPA’s Campus located at 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive in Research Triangle 

Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
32824 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

II. Background Information for 

Proposed Area Source Standards 

A. What is the statutory authority and 

regulatory approach for the proposed 

standards? 

Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requires EPA to establish 

national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 

both major and area sources of HAP that 

are listed for regulation under CAA 

section 112(c). A major source emits or 

has the potential to emit 10 tons per 

year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or 

25 tpy or more of any combination of 

HAP. An area source is a stationary 

source that is not a major source. 

Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls 

for EPA to identify at least 30 HAP 

which, as the result of emissions from 

area sources, pose the greatest threat to 

public health in the largest number of 

urban areas. EPA implemented this 

provision in 1999 in the Integrated 

Urban Air Toxics Strategy, (64 FR 

38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in 

the Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that 

pose the greatest potential health threat 

in urban areas, and these HAP are 

referred to as the ‘‘30 urban HAP.’’ 

Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list 

sufficient categories or subcategories of 

area sources to ensure that area sources 

representing 90 percent of the emissions 

of the 30 urban HAP are subject to 

regulation. A primary goal of the 

Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent 

reduction in cancer incidence 

attributable to HAP emitted from 

stationary sources. 

Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may 

elect to promulgate standards or 

requirements for area sources ‘‘which 

provide for the use of generally 

available control technologies or 

management practices (GACT) by such 

sources to reduce emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants.’’ Additional 

information on GACT is found in the 

Senate report on the legislation (Senate 

Report Number 101–228, December 20, 

1989), which describes GACT as: 

* * * methods, practices and techniques 

which are commercially available and 

appropriate for application by the sources in 

the category considering economic impacts 

and the technical capabilities of the firms to 

operate and maintain the emissions control 

systems. 

Consistent with the legislative history, 

we can consider costs and economic 

impacts in determining GACT, which is 

particularly important when developing 

regulations for source categories, like 

this one, that have many small 

businesses. Determining what 

constitutes GACT involves considering 

the control technologies and 

management practices that are generally 

available to the area sources in the 

source category. We also consider the 

standards applicable to major sources in 

the same industrial sector to determine 

if the control technologies and 

management practices are transferable 

and generally available to area sources. 

In appropriate circumstances, we may 

also consider technologies and practices 

at area and major sources in similar 

categories to determine whether such 

technologies and practices could be 

considered generally available for the 

area source category at issue. Finally, as 

noted above, in determining GACT for 

a particular area source category, we 

consider the costs and economic 

impacts of available control 

technologies and management practices 

on that category. 

We are proposing these national 

emission standards in response to a 

court-ordered deadline that requires 

EPA to issue standards for 4 source 

categories listed pursuant to section 

112(c)(3) and (k) by August 17, 2009 

(Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01–1537, 

D.D.C., March 2006). Additional 

rulemakings will be published in 

separate Federal Register notices for the 

remaining source categories that are due 

in August 2009. 

B. What source categories are affected 

by the proposed standards? 

We listed the asphalt processing and 

asphalt roofing manufacturing source 

category under CAA section 112(c)(3) in 

one of a series of amendments 

(November 22, 2002, 67 FR 70427) to 

the original source category list 

included in the 1999 Integrated Urban 

Strategy. The inclusion of this source 

category on the section 112(c)(3) area 

source category list is based on 1990 

emissions data, as EPA used 1990 as the 

baseline year for that listing. Section 

112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient 

categories or subcategories of area 

sources to ensure that area sources 

representing 90 percent of the emissions 

of the 30 urban HAP are subject to 

regulation. The asphalt processing and 

asphalt roofing manufacturing source 

category was listed for its contributions 

toward meeting the 90 percent 

requirement for polycyclic organic 

matter in the form of polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). 

C. What are the production operations, 

emission sources, and available 

controls? 

The two production operations for 

which this category was listed are: (1) 

The asphalt processing operation 

(performed in blowing stills); and (2) the 

roofing product manufacturing 

operation, where substrates are coated 

with asphalt and other materials to 

produce various roofing products (e.g., 

shingles, roll roofing). The emission 

sources are the process vents from each 

of these operations. 

The production operation with the 

largest potential to emit PAH is the 

processing operation. To our 

knowledge, all existing blowing still 

process vents are controlled by 

combustion devices that reduce total 

hydrocarbon (THC) emissions through 

thermal oxidation, which also reduces 

particulate matter (PM) and PAH 

emissions (PM is a component of THC 

and PAHs are components of PM). We 

believe that thermal oxidation controls 

are the only type of emission control 

applied to blowing stills in this source 

category. We did not identify any 

management practices that would 

reduce PAH emissions from the asphalt 

processing operation. 

The other production operation with 

the potential to emit PAH at these 

facilities is the manufacturing (coating) 

operation. The equipment configuration 

of coating operations varies depending 

on the type of roofing product 

manufactured at the facility. Three types 

of manufacturing operations (coating 

line configurations) are used in the 

industry: (1) Lines with coaters only 

(these lines manufacture roofing 

products using inorganic substrates), (2) 

lines that have both saturators/wet 

loopers and coaters (these lines can 

manufacture roofing products using 

either inorganic or organic substrates), 

and (3) lines that have saturators/wet 

loopers only (these lines manufacture 

roofing products using organic 

substrates). Each of these manufacturing 

operation types have a unique emission 

characteristic profile. 

Based on available information, we 

believe PM controls (e.g., fiber-bed 

filters, high efficiency air filters (HEAF) 

or, in some of cases, thermal oxidizers) 

are the only type of add-on emission 

control devices applied to the 

manufacturing operation equipment. 

While these control technologies are 

capable of achieving similar control 

efficiencies, the emissions reductions 

that may be achieved through use of PM 

controls vary depending on the PM 

emissions generated by the different 

types of equipment configurations. We 

did not identify any management 

practices that would reduce PAH 

emissions from the asphalt roofing 

manufacturing operations. 

D. What existing national standards 

apply to this source category? 

The New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) for Asphalt 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32825 

Processing and Asphalt Roofing 

Manufacture (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart 

UU) applies to ‘‘each saturator and each 

mineral handling and storage facility at 

asphalt roofing plants; and each asphalt 

storage tank and each blowing still at 

asphalt processing plants, petroleum 

refineries, and asphalt roofing plants’’ 

for which construction or modification 

commenced after November 18, 1980. 

The term ‘‘saturator’’ is defined in the 

NSPS to include the saturator, wet 

looper, and coater. Sources that are 

subject to the NSPS because they have 

blowing stills, saturators, wet loopers, or 

coaters that have been constructed or 

modified since November 18, 1980 

would be subject to this proposed rule. 

In addition to the asphalt NSPS, the 

major source NESHAP for asphalt 

processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

LLLLL) regulates HAP emissions from 

the same types of equipment (i.e., 

blowing stills, saturators, wet loopers, 

coating mixers, and coaters) covered by 

this proposed rule. However, area 

sources that would be subject to this 

proposed rule would not be covered by 

the asphalt NESHAP unless they 

become a major source. 

III. Summary of Proposed Standards 

A. Do the proposed standards apply to 

my source? 

The proposed subpart AAAAAAA 

standards would apply to each existing 

and new area source facility that 

processes asphalt and/or manufactures 

roofing products using saturation and/or 

coating processes. The standards do not 

apply to research or laboratory facilities, 

as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the 

CAA. 

B. When must I comply with the 

proposed standards? 

All existing area source facilities 

subject to this proposed rule would be 

required to comply with the rule 

requirements no later than one year after 

the date of publication of the final rule 

in the Federal Register. New sources 

would be required to comply with the 

rule requirements by the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register or at startup of the 

facility, whichever is later. 

Because the majority of existing 

sources in this category are already 

well-controlled, we believe that one 

year is a reasonable amount of time to 

allow existing sources to conduct 

performance testing and prepare 

compliance demonstrations with the 

proposed rule. 

C. What are the proposed standards? 

As discussed in section II.C of this 

preamble, the two production 

operations for which this category was 

listed are: (1) Asphalt processing 

(refining) operations; and (2) roofing 

product manufacturing operations. 

For asphalt processing, the proposed 

standards would require the owner or 

operator to limit PAH emissions to 

0.003 lb/ton of asphalt charged to the 

asphalt refining (blowing still) 

operation. Alternatively, owners or 

operators may choose to comply with a 

PM emissions limit of 1.2 lb/ton of 

asphalt charged to the asphalt refining 

operation. The proposed standards for 

new refining operations are the same as 

for existing sources. 

For the asphalt roofing product 

manufacturing operations, we examined 

the process operations and other factors 

and determined that subcategories are 

justified to reflect the unique emission 

characteristic profiles of the different 

equipment configurations. We 

developed three subcategories based 

upon the various equipment 

configurations used in the industry: (1) 

Production lines that use a coater only, 

(2) production lines that use a saturator 

only, and (3) production lines that use 

saturators and coaters. See section IV.D 

of this preamble for a discussion of how 

GACT was determined. 

For existing coater-only production 

lines, the proposed standards would 

require the owner or operator to limit 

PAH emissions from all coating mixers 

and coaters to 0.0002 lb/ton of product 

manufactured. Alternatively, owners or 

operators may choose to comply with a 

PM emission limit of 0.03 lb/ton of 

product manufactured. 

For existing saturator-only production 

lines, the proposed standards would 

require the owner or operator to limit 

PAH emissions from all saturators (and 

wet loopers) to 0.0004 lb/ton of product 

manufactured. The proposed standards 

for saturator-only production lines 

would alternatively allow owners or 

operators to comply with a PM 

emissions limit of 0.05 lb/ton of product 

manufactured. 

For existing combined saturator and 

coater production lines, the proposed 

standards would require the owner or 

operator to limit PAH emissions from all 

saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, 

and coaters to 0.0006 lb/ton of product 

manufactured. The proposed standards 

for combined saturator and coater 

production lines would alternatively 

allow owners or operators to comply 

with a PM emissions limit of 0.07 lb/ton 

of product manufactured. This 

alternative emission limit is at least as 

stringent as GACT for PAH emissions. 

The proposed standards for new 

roofing product manufacturing 

operations for all subcategories are the 

same as for existing sources. 

D. What are the initial and continuous 

compliance requirements? 

The proposed standards would 

require an initial performance 

assessment of the process emissions or 

control device outlet to demonstrate 

initial compliance with the applicable 

standard, and to establish the range of 

parameter values (e.g., temperature, 

pressure drop) for the process or control 

device that will be monitored to 

demonstrate continuous compliance. 

For existing sources, the proposed 

standards would require owners or 

operators to conduct the initial 

compliance assessment within 180 days 

of the date the final rule is published in 

the Federal Register. Owners or 

operators of new sources would be 

required to conduct compliance 

assessments within 180 days of the date 

the final rule is published in the Federal 

Register or startup (whichever is later). 

Initial compliance with proposed 

emission limits for existing and new 

asphalt processing operations and 

asphalt roofing manufacturing lines that 

include a saturator must be 

demonstrated by conducting emission 

tests. For existing and new asphalt 

roofing manufacturing lines that do not 

include a saturator, the proposed 

standards would allow owners or 

operators to demonstrate initial 

compliance and establish continuous 

monitoring parameters: 

• By conducting emissions tests, or 

• By using process knowledge and 

engineering calculations. 

As an alternative to conducting 

emission tests to demonstrate initial 

compliance with the asphalt processing 

or asphalt roofing manufacturing 

emission limits, an owner or operator of 

an existing source may use the results 

from an emission test conducted in the 

past five years. Owners or operators can 

use the results of the previouslyconducted test only if the emission 

measurements were made using the test 

methods specified in the proposed 

standards. Additionally, the owner or 

operator must be able to demonstrate 

that no process changes have been made 

since the date of the previous test, or 

that the results of the performance test, 

with or without adjustments, reliably 

demonstrate compliance despite any 

process changes. 

Continuous compliance with the 

proposed emission limits would be 

demonstrated by monitoring parameters 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
32826 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

and process conditions established 

during the initial compliance 

assessment. Under normal operating 

conditions (i.e., periods other than 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction), 

the proposed standards for 

demonstrating continuous compliance 

are based upon a 3-hour averaging 

period. In cases where add-on control 

devices are not needed to comply with 

the proposed standards, facilities would 

be required to establish operating values 

for process parameters during the 

performance assessment and maintain 

the 3-hour average of those parameters 

within the established values. If a 

thermal oxidizer is used to comply with 

the PAH or PM emission limits, the 

proposed standards would require that 

the 3-hour average combustion zone 

temperature of each affected thermal 

oxidizer be maintained at or above the 

operating limit established during the 

performance assessment. For PM control 

devices, the proposed standards would 

require that the inlet gas temperature be 

maintained at or below the average 3- 

hour value established during the 

performance assessment. The pressure 

drop across any filter media, if used by 

the control device (e.g., a HEAF), must 

also be maintained at or below the 

average 3-hour values established 

during the performance assessment. If 

an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) is 

used as the PM control device, the 

proposed standards would require that 

the 3-hour average ESP voltage be 

maintained at or above the operating 

value established during the initial 

performance test. For other types of 

controls, the proposed standards would 

allow the owner or operator to establish 

approved monitoring parameters and 

maintain the value of those parameters 

within the operating values established 

during the initial performance test. 

During periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction, facilities would be 

required to comply with the proposed 

emission limits; however, the averaging 

period for determining compliance 

would be extended from three hours to 

24 hours. 

E. What are the notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements? 

Affected new and existing sources 

would be required to comply with 

certain requirements set forth in the 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A), as identified in Table 5 of 

this proposed rule. The General 

Provisions include specific 

requirements for notifications, 

recordkeeping, and reporting. Among 

other requirements, each facility would 

be required to submit an initial 

notification that complies with the 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.9(b) of the 

General Provisions within 120 days of 

the effective date of the final rule and 

a notification of compliance status that 

complies with the requirements in 40 

CFR 63.9(h) within 60 days after 

completion of the compliance 

assessment. Facilities would also be 

required to submit semi-annual 

compliance summary reports. 

IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule 

A. How did we select the source 

category? 

As described in section II.B, we listed 

the asphalt processing and asphalt 

roofing manufacturing source category 

under CAA section 112(c)(3) on 

November 22, 2002 (67 FR 70427). The 

inclusion of this source category on the 

area source category list was based on 

data from the CAA section 112(k) 

inventory, which represents 1990 urban 

air information. The asphalt processing 

and asphalt roofing manufacturing area 

source category was listed as 

contributing a percentage of the total 

area source urban HAP emissions for 

PAH. 

In developing the proposed standards 

for this source category, we relied upon 

information on the production 

operations, emission sources, and 

prevalent emission controls employed 

by area sources: (1) Obtained from the 

industry trade association; (2) gleaned 

from published literature; and (3) 

derived from reviewing operating 

permits. We also held discussions with 

industry representatives, State 

permitting organizations, and EPA 

experts. This research confirmed that 

the asphalt processing and asphalt 

roofing manufacturing source category 

emits PAH. 

B. How did we select the affected 

source? 

‘‘Affected source’’ means the 

collection of equipment and processes 

in the source category or subcategory to 

which the subpart applies. We selected 

the affected source for this subpart 

based upon the processes identified in 

the CAA section 112(k) inventory data 

for this category as emitting PAH. The 

affected source is comprised of two 

operations, which are: (1) Asphalt 

processing (refining) operations; and (2) 

asphalt manufacturing (coating) 

operations. Some facilities conduct both 

of these operations, while others 

conduct only asphalt coating operations. 

C. How did we address PAH emissions 

in this rule? 

The proposed rule includes both a 

PAH emission limit and an equivalent 

PM emission limit. We have determined 

that it is appropriate to treat PM as a 

surrogate for PAH. PAH are a fractional 

constituent of the PM currently being 

controlled by affected sources. Thus, 

reductions in PM emissions necessarily 

result in proportional reductions in 

PAH emissions since the PM control 

devices used by sources in the category 

also effectively control PAH emissions. 

As we have been able to quantify the 

relationship between PM emissions and 

PAH emissions, we believe that it is 

appropriate to allow owners and 

operators to monitor and quantify PM 

emissions in lieu of monitoring and 

quantifying PAH emissions. This 

approach is particularly appropriate for 

this source category since the existing 

Federal regulations that cover these 

sources (i.e., the asphalt NSPS) already 

require testing for PM emissions. 

D. How was GACT determined? 

As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), 

we are proposing standards representing 

GACT to regulate PAH emissions from 

the asphalt processing and asphalt 

roofing manufacturing source category. 

The CAA allows the Agency to establish 

standards for area sources listed 

pursuant to section 112(c) based on 

GACT. The statute does not set any 

condition precedent for issuing 

standards under section 112(d)(5) other 

than that the area source category or 

subcategory at issue must be one that 

EPA listed pursuant to section 112(c), 

which is the case here. 

In establishing GACT, we considered 

the control technologies currently used 

by facilities in the source category that 

reduce PAH emissions from the refining 

operations and coating operations 

described in section II.C. of this 

preamble, and the costs and incremental 

emissions reduction achieved by more 

stringent controls. We were unable to 

identify any management practices 

which effectively reduced PAH 

emissions. 

1. Asphalt processing. 

Based upon the process equipment 

and control device configuration data 

supplied by the industry trade 

association (the Asphalt Roofing 

Manufacturers Association, ARMA) and 

data obtained through online permit 

database searches, all of the existing 

blowing stills are controlled using 

thermal oxidation. Thermal oxidizers at 

existing sources reduce PAH to 0.003 lb/ 

ton of asphalt charged to the blowing 

stills. Consequently, we consider GACT 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32827 

for existing blowing stills to be a PAH 

emissions limit of 0.003 lb/ton of 

asphalt charged to the blowing stills. 

Alternatively, the proposed standards 

would allow facilities to comply with an 

equivalent PM emissions limit of 1.2 lb/ 

ton of asphalt charged to the blowing 

stills. 

For new blowing stills, we are also 

proposing that GACT is a PAH 

emissions limit of 0.003 lb/ton of 

asphalt charged to the blowing stills, or 

a PM emissions limit of 1.2 lb/ton of 

asphalt charged to the blowing stills. 

Based upon the information currently 

available, we did not identify any 

technologies beyond thermal oxidation 

for which we would propose more 

stringent emission limits for new 

blowing stills in this source category. 

2. Asphalt roofing manufacturing. 

For roofing manufacturing operations, 

we estimated the baseline level of 

control in the industry using process 

equipment and control device 

configuration data supplied by ARMA 

and data obtained through online permit 

database searches. We also conducted a 

Web search and obtained operating 

permits for 9 non-ARMA facilities. 

Using the emissions data collected to 

support development of the asphalt 

NESHAP, we determined that 

establishing separate subcategories for 

coater-only, saturator-only, and 

combined saturator/coater production 

lines is appropriate to address the 

different types of equipment 

configurations. Saturators manufacture 

roofing products using organic 

substrates (e.g., felt) which require 

much higher asphalt application rates 

than coaters which are used to 

manufacture roofing products based 

upon inorganic substrates (e.g., 

fiberglass mat). Because of the different 

asphalt application rates, the emission 

rate of PAH and PM from a saturator is 

an order of magnitude higher than that 

from a coater. 

We established the proposed emission 

limits indicative of GACT for each of 

these subcategories by applying the 

average reduction performance for PAH 

and PM emissions achieved by the 

controls identified at baseline for each 

type of process. For existing roofing 

production lines, we established GACT 

as follows for each subcategory: 

• PAH emission limit of 0.0002 lb/ton 

of product manufactured or an 

alternative, equivalent PM emission 

limit of 0.03 lb/ton of product 

manufactured for coater-only lines; 

• PAH emission limit of 0.0004 lb/ton 

of product manufactured or an 

alternative, equivalent PM emission 

limit of 0.05 lb/ton of product 

manufactured for saturator-only lines; 

and 

• PAH emission limit of 0.0006 lb/ton 

of product manufactured or an 

alternative, equivalent PM emission 

limit of 0.07 lb/ton of product 

manufactured for combined saturator/ 

coater lines. 

For new sources, we established the 

GACT level of control at the same level 

as GACT for existing sources, which 

reflects the use of fiber-bed or highefficiency air filters. We considered 

requiring that new sources reduce PAH 

emission using thermal oxidizers. 

However, we rejected this option 

because of the high cost-effectiveness 

value ($5,000,000/ton of PAH reduced) 

which is due to the very low levels of 

PAH emissions and the high capital and 

annual costs associated with thermal 

oxidizers, when compared to less 

expensive PM controls. 

E. How did we select the compliance 

requirements? 

We are proposing testing, monitoring, 

notification, and recordkeeping 

requirements that are adequate to assure 

continuous compliance with the 

requirements of the rule. These 

provisions are based, in part, on 

requirements that have been applied to 

industries with similar control devices 

in other rulemakings. We selected these 

requirements based upon our 

determination of the information 

necessary to ensure emissions controls 

are maintained and operated properly 

on a continuing basis. We believe the 

proposed requirements would ensure 

continuous compliance with the 

emission reduction requirements of this 

proposed rule without posing a 

significant additional burden for 

facilities that must implement them. 

1. Asphalt Processing 

We are proposing that compliance 

with the emission limits for blowing 

stills be demonstrated by monitoring the 

combustion zone operating temperature 

and maintaining the 3-hour average 

combustion zone operating temperature 

at or above the temperature established 

during the initial compliance 

demonstration. 

The performance of thermal oxidizers 

is dictated by the turbulence and 

residence time of the gases in the 

combustion zone and by the combustion 

zone temperature. For a given flow rate, 

the turbulence and residence time are 

fixed properties. Therefore, the 

remaining parameter necessary for 

determining the operation of the 

thermal oxidizer is combustion zone 

temperature. Additionally, most thermal 

oxidizers are already equipped with 

systems for monitoring and recording 

operating temperature. Monitoring of 

combustion zone temperature for 

blowing still thermal oxidizers is also 

required by the asphalt NSPS. For the 

initial compliance demonstration, 

facilities would be allowed to use the 

results from performance tests used to 

demonstrate compliance with Federal or 

State regulations that are at least as 

stringent as the proposed emission 

limits, provided that the performance 

test was conducted within the last 5 

years and the test methods used were 

the same as the test methods specified 

in the proposed rule. Additionally, the 

owner or operator must be able to 

demonstrate that no process changes 

have been made since the date of the 

previous test, or that the results of the 

performance test, with or without 

adjustments, reliably demonstrate 

compliance despite any process 

changes. We are proposing to allow the 

use of existing performance tests to 

reduce the potential compliance burden 

on asphalt area sources. 

2. Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 

We are proposing that compliance 

with the emission limits for saturators, 

coating mixers, and coaters using addon controls be demonstrated by 

monitoring the gas temperature at the 

inlet of the PM control device and the 

pressure drop across the device. 

Facilities must maintain the 3-hour 

average inlet gas temperature and the 3- 

hour average pressure drop across the 

control device at or below the operating 

limits established during the initial 

compliance demonstration. We believe 

that, for this source category, the 

removal performance of PM control 

devices is adequately characterized by 

the inlet gas temperature and pressure 

drop across the device. For all PM 

control devices, the inlet gas 

temperature would have to be at or 

below the temperature at which the 

performance test was conducted to 

ensure that a sufficient amount of PM 

has condensed from the vent gas prior 

to entering the PM control device. The 

control device pressure drop would 

have to be at or below the value 

established during the performance test 

to ensure that the control device is 

providing sufficient removal of PM and 

that the removal mechanism (e.g., filter 

media) does not become plugged or 

fouled. Although monitoring of pressure 

drop is not required by the asphalt 

NSPS, monitoring of inlet gas 

temperature for PM control devices is 

the same as the monitoring 

requirements of the asphalt NSPS. This 

minimizes the monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting burden on 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
32828 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

facilities with these processes. We are 

also proposing to allow the use of 

existing performance tests for PM 

control devices in an effort to reduce the 

potential compliance burden on asphalt 

area sources, provided that the 

performance test was conducted within 

the last 5 years and the test methods 

used were the same as the test methods 

specified in the proposed rule. 

Additionally, the owner or operator 

must be able to demonstrate that no 

process changes have been made since 

the date of the previous test, or that the 

results of the performance test, with or 

without adjustments, reliably 

demonstrate compliance despite any 

process changes. 

Facilities that can comply with the 

proposed standards without the use of 

add-on control devices must monitor 

approved process parameters and 

maintain those parameters within the 

range of values established during the 

initial performance test. 

F. How did we decide to exempt this 

area source category from title V 

permitting requirements? 

For the reasons described below, we 

are proposing exemption from title V 

permitting requirements for affected 

sources in the asphalt processing and 

asphalt roofing manufacturing area 

source category that are not already 

required to have a title V permit for 

other reasons. We estimate that 

approximately 33 of the 75 area source 

facilities in this industry currently have 

title V permits. We are not proposing 

that sources in this category that already 

have a title V permit be exempt from 

title V permitting requirements. 

Section 502(a) of the CAA provides 

that the Administrator may exempt an 

area source category from title V if (s)he 

determines that compliance with title V 

requirements is ‘‘impracticable, 

infeasible, or unnecessarily 

burdensome’’ on an area source 

category. See CAA section 502(a). In 

December 2005, in a national 

rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA 

section 502 and developed a four-factor 

balancing test for determining whether 

title V is unnecessarily burdensome for 

a particular area source category, such 

that an exemption from title V is 

appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December 

19, 2005 (Exemption Rule). 

The four factors that EPA identified in 

the Exemption Rule for determining 

whether title V is unnecessarily 

burdensome on a particular area source 

category include: (1) Whether title V 

would result in significant 

improvements to the compliance 

requirements, including monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting, that are 

proposed for an area source category (70 

FR 75323); (2) whether title V 

permitting would impose significant 

burdens on the area source category and 

whether the burdens would be 

aggravated by any difficulty the sources 

may have in obtaining assistance from 

permitting agencies (70 FR 75324); (3) 

whether the costs of title V permitting 

for the area source category would be 

justified, taking into consideration any 

potential gains in compliance likely to 

occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); 

and (4) whether there are 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place that are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the NESHAP for 

the area source category, without relying 

on title V permits (70 FR 75326). 

In discussing these factors in the 

Exemption Rule, we further explained 

that we considered on ‘‘a case-by-case 

basis the extent to which one or more 

of the four factors supported title V 

exemptions for a given source category, 

and then we assessed whether 

considered together those factors 

demonstrated that compliance with title 

V requirements would be ‘unnecessarily 

burdensome’ on the category, consistent 

with section 502(a) of the Act.’’ See 70 

FR 75323. Thus, in the Exemption Rule, 

we explained that not all of the four 

factors must weigh in favor of 

exemption for EPA to determine that 

title V is unnecessarily burdensome for 

a particular area source category. 

Instead, the factors are to be considered 

in combination, and EPA determines 

whether the factors, taken together, 

support an exemption from title V for a 

particular source category. 

In the Exemption Rule, in addition to 

determining whether compliance with 

title V requirements would be 

unnecessarily burdensome on an area 

source category, we considered, 

consistent with the guidance provided 

by the legislative history of section 

502(a), whether exempting an area 

source category would adversely affect 

public health, welfare or the 

environment. See 70 FR 15254–15255, 

March 25, 2005. As explained below, we 

propose that title V permitting is 

unreasonably burdensome for the area 

source category at issue in this proposed 

rule. We have also determined that the 

proposed exemptions from title V would 

not adversely affect public health, 

welfare and the environment. Our 

rationale for this decision follows here. 

In considering the exemption from 

title V requirements for sources in the 

category affected by this proposed rule, 

we first compared the title V 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements (factor one) to 

the requirements in the proposed 

NESHAP for the area source category. 

The proposed rule requires facilities to 

comply with an emission limit using 

either process changes or add-on 

controls. Continuous compliance would 

be demonstrated using parametric 

monitoring of the process or a control 

device. Facilities that can comply with 

the proposed standards without the use 

of add-on control devices must monitor 

approved process parameters and 

maintain those parameters within the 

range or value established during the 

initial performance test. For add-on 

control devices (i.e., PM control devices 

and thermal oxidizers) used to comply 

with the emission limits, the proposed 

rule specifies the monitoring parameters 

and averaging periods. For PM control 

devices, the proposed standards would 

require that the inlet gas temperature be 

maintained at or below the average 3- 

hour value established during the 

performance assessment. The pressure 

drop across any filter media, if used by 

the control device, must also be 

maintained at or below the average 3- 

hour values established during the 

performance assessment. If an 

electrostatic precipitator is used as the 

PM control device, the proposed 

standards would require that the 3-hour 

average ESP voltage be maintained at or 

above the operating value established 

during the initial performance test. For 

other types of controls, the proposed 

standards would allow owners or 

operators to establish approved 

monitoring parameters and maintain the 

value of those parameters within the 

operating values established during the 

initial performance test. For thermal 

oxidizers, the proposed rule would 

require the owner or operator to 

maintain the 3-hour average combustion 

zone temperature at or above the 

temperature established during the 

initial compliance demonstration. 

Existing sources would be allowed to 

use previously conducted performance 

tests to demonstrate compliance 

provided that the tests were conducted 

within the past 5 years and the emission 

measurements were made using the test 

methods specified in the proposed 

standards. 

Additionally, the owner or operator 

must be able to demonstrate that no 

process changes have been made since 

the date of the previous test, or that the 

results of the performance test, with or 

without adjustments, reliably 

demonstrate compliance despite any 

process changes. New sources would be 

required to conduct initial performance 

tests. 

The proposed rule also requires the 

preparation of a semi-annual 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32829 

compliance certification report and 

submission of this report, which would 

include any deviations from the 

emission or operating limits that 

occurred during the reporting period, to 

the State agency. The semi-annual 

report would call attention to those 

facilities in need of inspection to the 

State agency in the same way as a title 

V permit. Records would be required to 

ensure that the compliance 

requirements are followed and that any 

needed corrective actions are taken. 

Therefore, this proposed rule contains 

monitoring requirements that are 

sufficient to assure compliance with the 

proposed rule. 

As part of the first factor, in addition 

to monitoring, we have considered the 

extent to which title V could potentially 

enhance compliance for area sources 

covered by this proposed rule through 

recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements. We have considered the 

various title V recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements, including 

requirements for a 6-month monitoring 

report, deviation reports, and an annual 

certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6. 

For any affected area source in this 

category, this proposed rule would 

require an Initial Notification and a 

Notification of Compliance Status. In 

addition, owners or operators or affected 

facilities must maintain records that 

show on-going compliance with the 

emission limits and the established 

monitoring parameters. The information 

in the semi-annual compliance reports 

is consistent with the information that 

must be provided in the monitoring 

reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) 

and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3). 

We acknowledge that title V might 

impose additional compliance 

requirements on this category, but we 

believe the monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements of this 

proposed NESHAP for the asphalt 

processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing source category would be 

sufficient to assure compliance with the 

provisions of this NESHAP, and title V 

would not significantly improve those 

compliance requirements. 

For the second factor, we determined 

whether title V permitting would 

impose a significant burden on the area 

sources in the category and whether that 

burden would be aggravated by any 

difficulty the source may have in 

obtaining assistance from the permitting 

agency. Subjecting any source to title V 

permitting imposes certain burdens and 

costs that do not exist outside of the title 

V program. EPA estimated that the 

average cost of obtaining and complying 

with a title V permit was $65,700 per 

source for a 5-year permit period, 

including fees. See Information 

Collection Request for Part 70 Operating 

Permit Regulations, June 2007, EPA ICR 

Number 1587.07. EPA does not have 

specific estimates for the burdens and 

costs of permitting these specific types 

of area sources; however, there are 

certain activities associated with the 

part 70 and 71 rules. These activities are 

mandatory and impose burdens on the 

facility. They include reading and 

understanding permit program guidance 

and regulations; obtaining and 

understanding permit application forms; 

answering follow-up questions from 

permitting authorities after the 

application is submitted; reviewing and 

understanding the permit; collecting 

records; preparing and submitting 

monitoring reports on a 6-month or 

more frequent basis; preparing and 

submitting prompt deviation reports, as 

defined by the State, which may include 

a combination of written, verbal, and 

other communications methods; 

collecting information, preparing, and 

submitting the annual compliance 

certification; preparing applications for 

permit revisions every 5 years; and, as 

needed, preparing and submitting 

applications for permit revisions. In 

addition, although not required by the 

permit rules, many sources obtain the 

contractual services of consultants to 

help them understand and meet the 

permitting program’s requirements. The 

ICR for part 70 provides additional 

information on the overall burdens and 

costs, as well as the relative burdens of 

each activity described here. Also, for a 

more comprehensive list of 

requirements imposed on part 70 

sources (hence, burden on sources), see 

the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 

70.6, and 70.7. 

In assessing the second factor for 

facilities affected by this proposal, 

approximately 33 currently have title V 

permits leaving approximately 42 

facilities that do not. Based upon the 

permits reviewed for this proposed 

rulemaking, we believe that none of the 

facilities that currently have title V 

permits are small entities. There are 

approximately 11 facilities owned and 

operated by small entities. As discussed 

above, title V permitting would impose 

significant costs on these area sources, 

and, accordingly, we conclude that title 

V is a significant burden for sources in 

this category. Furthermore, given the 

number of sources in the category that 

currently do not have a title V permit, 

it may be difficult for them to obtain 

sufficient assistance from the permitting 

authority. Thus, we conclude that factor 

two supports title V exemption for this 

category. 

The third factor, which is closely 

related to the second factor, is whether 

the costs of title V permitting for these 

area sources would be justified, taking 

into consideration any potential gains in 

compliance likely to occur for such 

sources. As explained above for the 

second factor, the costs of compliance 

with title V would impose a significant 

burden on facilities that do not 

currently have title V operating permits. 

Although title V might impose 

additional requirements, we believe in 

considering the first factor the 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in this proposed 

NESHAP assure compliance with the 

emission standards imposed in the 

NESHAP as proposed. In addition, in 

our consideration of the fourth factor, 

we find that there are adequate 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place to assure compliance 

with the NESHAP. Because the costs, 

both economic and non-economic, of 

compliance with title V are high for any 

small entity, and the potential for gains 

in compliance is low, title V permitting 

is not justified for this source category. 

Accordingly, the third factor supports 

title V exemptions for this area source 

category. 

The fourth factor we considered in 

determining if title V is unnecessarily 

burdensome is whether there are 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place that are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the NESHAP 

without relying on title V permits. EPA 

has implemented regulations that 

provide States the opportunity to take 

delegation of area source NESHAP, and 

we believe that States’ delegated 

programs are sufficient to assure 

compliance with this NESHAP. See 40 

CFR part 63, subpart E (States must have 

adequate programs to enforce the 

section 112 regulations and provide 

assurances that they will enforce the 

NESHAP before EPA will delegate the 

program). We also noted that EPA 

retains authority to enforce this 

NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 

112, 113 and 114. Also, States and EPA 

often conduct voluntary compliance 

assistance, outreach, and education 

programs (compliance assistance 

programs), which are not required by 

statute. We determined that these 

additional programs will supplement 

and enhance the success of compliance 

with these proposed standards. We 

believe that the statutory requirements 

for implementation and enforcement of 

this NESHAP by the delegated States 

and EPA and the additional assistance 

programs described above together are 

sufficient to assure compliance with 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
32830 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

these proposed standards without 

relying on title V permitting. 

In light of all the information 

presented here, we believe that there are 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place that are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the proposed 

standards without relying on title V 

permitting. 

Balancing the four factors for this area 

source category strongly supports the 

proposed finding that title V is 

unnecessarily burdensome in this 

situation. While title V might add 

additional compliance requirements if 

imposed, we believe that there would 

not be significant improvements to the 

compliance requirements in this 

proposed rule because the proposed rule 

requirements are specifically designed 

to assure compliance with the emission 

standards imposed on this area source 

category. We further maintain that the 

costs of compliance with title V would 

impose a significant burden on the 42 

facilities that do not currently have a 

title V permit. We determined that the 

high relative costs would not be 

justified given that there is likely to be 

little or no potential gain in compliance 

if title V permitting were required. And, 

finally, there are adequate 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place to assure compliance 

with these proposed standards. Thus, 

we propose that title V permitting is 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ for this 

area source category. 

In addition to evaluating whether 

compliance with title V requirements is 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome,’’ EPA also 

considered, consistent with guidance 

provided by the legislative history of 

section 502(a), whether exempting this 

area source category from title V 

requirements would adversely affect 

public health, welfare, or the 

environment. Exemption of this area 

source category from title V 

requirements would not adversely affect 

public health, welfare, or the 

environment because the level of 

control would remain the same if a 

permit were required. The title V permit 

program does not impose new 

substantive air quality control 

requirements on sources, but instead 

requires that certain procedural 

measures be followed, particularly with 

respect to determining compliance with 

applicable requirements. As stated in 

our consideration of factor one for this 

category, title V would not lead to 

significant improvements in the 

compliance requirements applicable to 

existing or new area sources. 

Furthermore, we explained in the 

Exemption Rule that requiring permits 

for a relatively small number of area 

source facilities subject to these 

proposed standards could, at least in the 

first few years of implementation, 

potentially adversely affect public 

health, welfare, or the environment by 

shifting State agency resources away 

from assuring compliance for major 

sources with existing permits to issuing 

new permits for these area sources, 

potentially reducing overall air program 

effectiveness. Based on the above 

analysis, we conclude that title V 

exemptions for these area sources will 

not adversely affect public health, 

welfare, or the environment for all of the 

reasons explained above. 

For the reasons stated here, we are 

proposing to exempt this area source 

category from title V permitting 

requirements. 

V. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed 

Standards 

A. What are the air impacts? 

Since 1990, in addition to the 

increased use of add-on controls due to 

Federal and State permitting 

requirements, the asphalt processing 

and asphalt roofing manufacturing 

industry has further reduced its air 

impacts by reducing the amount of 

asphalt used to manufacture roofing 

products (reformulation), largely 

through the use of inorganic substrates 

which do not require the asphaltintensive step of saturating the 

substrate. These process improvements 

have reduced the generation rate of PAH 

emissions by approximately 0.0015 lbs/ 

ton of product manufactured before 

controls are applied. In addition to the 

PAH emission reductions, the process 

improvements undertaken by the 

industry since 1990 have resulted in 

reductions of approximately 0.02 lbs of 

total HAP, 0.29 lbs of THC, and 0.58 lbs 

of PM per ton of product manufactured. 

We believe that the proposed 

standards codify the reductions in PAH 

emissions, and co-control of total HAP, 

THC, and PM emissions, that have been 

achieved by the asphalt refining and 

asphalt roofing manufacturing industry 

since 1990 by requiring compliance 

with the level of control that can be 

achieved via use of current GACT 

coupled with the reduced rate of asphalt 

used by the industry. 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

We believe that all asphalt processing 

and asphalt roofing manufacturing 

facilities will be able to meet the 

proposed standards using existing 

controls; some facilities may need to 

conduct emission tests to demonstrate 

compliance. Therefore, no additional air 

pollution control devices would be 

required. However, we have assumed 

that 38 facilities (50 percent) will need 

to install a pressure drop monitoring 

system for existing controls. No other 

capital costs are associated with this 

proposed rule and no new operational 

and maintenance costs are expected 

because, absent any data to demonstrate 

otherwise, we have assumed that 

existing facilities are already following 

the manufacturer’s instructions for 

operation and maintenance of pollution 

control devices and systems. 

The annual cost of monitoring, 

reporting, and recordkeeping for this 

proposed rule is estimated at 

approximately $3,000 per facility per 

year for the first 3 years following 

promulgation. The costs are expected to 

be less than 1 percent of revenues. The 

annual estimate includes 8 hours per 

facility per year for preparing 

semiannual compliance reports. 

The total number of labor hours for 

the first 3 years following promulgation 

in this annual cost estimate is 12,442 

hours. This total includes 173 hours 

industry-wide for preparation of the 

Initial Notification in the first year and 

173 hours industry-wide for preparation 

of the Notification of Compliance Status 

in the first year. The average total labor 

hour burden in the first year is 71 hours 

per facility, which include 15 hours per 

facility for monitoring activities. 

Information on our cost impact 

estimates on the sources is available in 

the docket for this proposed rule. (See 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0027). 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

The only measurable costs 

attributable to these proposed standards 

are associated with the monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. These proposed standards 

are estimated to impact a total of 75 area 

source facilities. We estimate that 11 of 

these facilities are owned by small 

businesses. Our analysis indicates that 

this proposed rule would not impose a 

significant adverse impact on any 

facilities, large or small, because these 

costs are less than 1 percent of the 

individual company revenues. 

D. What are the non-air health, 

environmental, and energy impacts? 

No detrimental secondary impacts are 

expected to occur from the asphalt 

processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing sources because all 

facilities are currently achieving the 

GACT level of control. No additional 

solid waste would be generated as a 

result of the PAH and PM emissions 

collected and there are no additional 

energy impacts associated with the 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32831 

operation of control devices or 

monitoring systems for the asphalt 

refining and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing sources. We expect no 

increase in the generation of wastewater 

or other water quality impacts. None of 

the control measures considered for this 

proposed rule generates a wastewater 

stream. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ because it may raise novel legal 

or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA 

submitted this action to the OMB for 

review under EO 12866 and any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document 

prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA 

ICR number 2352.01. 

The recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in this proposed rule are 

based on the requirements in EPA’s 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements in the 

General Provisions are mandatory 

pursuant to section 114 of the CAA (42 

U.S.C. 7414). All information other than 

emissions data submitted to EPA 

pursuant to the information collection 

requirements for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made is safeguarded 

according to CAA section 114(c) and the 

Agency’s implementing regulations at 

40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

This proposed NESHAP would 

require asphalt roofing manufacturing 

area sources to submit an Initial 

Notification and a Notification of 

Compliance Status and to conduct 

continuous parametric monitoring and 

submit semi-annual compliance reports 

according to the requirements in 40 CFR 

63.9 of the General Provisions (subpart 

A). The annual burden for this 

information collection averaged over the 

first three years of this ICR is estimated 

to be a total of 4,147 labor hours per 

year at a cost of $224,085 or 

approximately $3,000 per facility. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, EPA has established 

a public docket for this rule, which 

includes this ICR, under Docket ID 

number [EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0027]. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to EPA. 

Send comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. 

Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after July 9, 2009, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by August 10, 2009. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

For the purposes of assessing the 

impacts of the proposed area source 

NESHAP on small entities, small entity 

is defined as: (1) A small business that 

meets the Small Business 

Administration size standards for small 

businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 

(less than 750 for NAICS 324122); (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district, or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rule is estimated to 

impact all new and existing asphalt 

roofing manufacturing area source 

facilities. We estimate that 11 facilities 

are owned by small entities. Although 

some small entities may incur capital 

costs to install additional monitoring 

equipment (e.g., pressure drop 

monitoring system for existing controls), 

we have determined that small entity 

compliance costs, as assessed by the 

facilities’ cost-to-sales ratio, are 

expected to be less than 1 percent. The 

costs are so small that the impact is not 

expected to be significant. Although this 

proposed rule contains requirements for 

new area sources, we are not aware of 

any new area sources being constructed 

now or planned in the next year, and 

consequently, we did not estimate any 

impacts for new sources. 

Although this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this proposed rule on small 

entities. The standards represent 

practices and controls that are common 

throughout the asphalt roofing 

manufacturing industry. The standards 

also require only the essential 

recordkeeping and reporting needed to 

demonstrate and verify compliance. 

These standards were developed based 

on information obtained for small 

businesses in the data provided by 

ARMA and obtained through online 

permit database searches, consultation 

with small business representatives on 

the State and national level, and 

industry representatives that are 

affiliated with small businesses. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed 

action on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, and tribal 

governments or the private sector. This 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any State, local, tribal governments or 

the private sector. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

proposed rules contain no requirements 

that apply to such governments, and 

impose no obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999) requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
32832 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This proposed 

rule does not impose any requirements 

on State and local governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this proposed rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This action would not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

The action imposes requirements on 

owners and operators of specified area 

sources and not tribal governments. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5– 

501 of the Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This action is 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is based solely on technology 

performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

Further, we have concluded that this 

proposed rule is not likely to have any 

adverse energy impacts. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. The EPA proposes 

in this rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 

2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5A, 

and 23. Consistent with the NTTAA, 

EPA conducted searches to identify 

voluntary consensus standards in 

addition to these EPA methods. No 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards were identified. 

Under § 63.7(f) and § 63.8(f) of subpart 

A of the General Provisions, a source 

may apply to EPA for permission to use 

alternative test methods or alternative 

monitoring requirements in place of any 

required testing methods, performance 

specifications, or procedures. 

EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of this proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

This proposed rule will establish 

national standards for the asphalt 

processing and asphalt roofing 

manufacturing area source category. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: July 2, 2009. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2. Part 63 is amended by adding 

subpart AAAAAAA to read as follows: 

Subpart AAAAAAA—National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Area Sources: Asphalt 

Processing and Asphalt Roofing 

Manufacturing Applicability and 

Compliance Dates 

Sec. 

63.11559 Am I subject to this subpart? 

63.11560 What are my compliance dates? 

Standards and Compliance Requirements 

63.11561 What are my standards and 

management practices? 

63.11562 What are my initial compliance 

requirements? 

63.11563 What are my monitoring 

requirements? 

63.11564 What are my notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements? 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32833 

Other Requirements and Information 

63.11565 What General Provisions sections 

apply to this subpart? 

63.11566 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

63.11567 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

Tables 

Table 1 to Subpart AAAAAAA—Emission 

Limits for Asphalt Processing Operations 

Table 2 to Subpart AAAAAAA—Emission 

Limits for Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 

Operations 

Table 3 to Subpart AAAAAAA—Test 

Methods 

Table 4 to Subpart AAAAAAA—Operating 

Limits 

Table 5 to Subpart AAAAAAA— 

Applicability of General Provisions to 

Subpart AAAAAAA 

Applicability and Compliance Dates 

§ 63.11559 Am I subject to this subpart? 

(a) You are subject to this subpart if 

you own or operate an asphalt 

processing operation and/or asphalt 

roofing manufacturing operation that is 

an area source of hazardous air 

pollutant (HAP) emissions, as defined in 

§ 63.2. 

(b) This subpart applies to each new 

or existing affected source as defined in 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this 

section. 

(1) Asphalt processing. The affected 

source for asphalt processing operations 

is the collection of all blowing stills, as 

defined in § 63.11566, at an asphalt 

processing operation. 

(2) Asphalt roofing manufacturing. 

The affected source for asphalt roofing 

manufacturing operations is the 

collection of all asphalt coating 

equipment, as defined in § 63.11566, at 

an asphalt roofing manufacturing 

operation. 

(c) This subpart does not apply to hot 

mix asphalt plant operations that are 

used in the paving of roads or 

hardstand, or operations where asphalt 

may be used in the fabrication of a builtup roof. 

(d) An affected source is a new 

affected source if you commenced 

construction after July 9, 2009. 

(e) An affected source is reconstructed 

if it meets the criteria as defined in 

§ 63.2. 

(f) An affected source is an existing 

source if it is not new or reconstructed. 

(g) On and after [Insert date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

FEDERAL REGISTER], if your asphalt 

processing or asphalt roofing 

manufacturing operation becomes a 

major source, as defined in § 63.2, you 

must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart LLLLL. 

(h) This subpart does not apply to 

research or laboratory facilities, as 

defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean 

Air Act. 

(i) You are exempt from the obligation 

to obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 

or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not 

otherwise required to obtain a permit 

under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a). 

Notwithstanding the previous sentence, 

you must continue to comply with the 

provisions of this subpart. 

§ 63.11560 What are my compliance 

dates? 

(a) If you own or operate an existing 

affected source, you must be in 

compliance with the applicable 

provisions in this subpart no later than 

[Insert date one year after publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register]. 

As specified in § 63.11562(f), you must 

demonstrate initial compliance within 

180 calendar days after [Insert date one 

year after publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register]. 

(b) If you own or operate a new 

affected source, you must be in 

compliance with the provisions in this 

subpart on or before [Insert date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register] or upon startup, 

whichever date is later. As specified in 

§ 63.11562(g), you must demonstrate 

initial compliance with the applicable 

emission limits no later than 180 

calendar days after [Insert date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register] or within 180 calendar 

days after startup of the source, 

whichever is later. 

Standards and Compliance 

Requirements 

§ 63.11561 What are my standards and 

management practices? 

(a) For asphalt processing operations, 

you must meet the emission limits 

specified in Table 1 of this subpart. 

(b) For asphalt roofing manufacturing 

lines, you must meet the applicable 

emission limits specified in Table 2 of 

this subpart. 

(c) These standards apply at all times. 

§ 63.11562 What are my initial compliance 

requirements? 

(a) For asphalt processing operations, 

you must demonstrate compliance with 

the emission limits specified in Table 1 

of this subpart by conducting emission 

tests using the methods specified in 

Table 3 of this subpart. 

(b) For asphalt roofing manufacturing 

lines that include a saturator, you must 

demonstrate initial compliance with the 

applicable emission limits specified in 

Table 2 of this subpart by conducting 

emission tests using the methods 

specified in Table 3 of this subpart. 

(c) For asphalt roofing manufacturing 

lines that do not include a saturator, you 

must demonstrate initial compliance 

with the applicable emission limits 

specified in Table 2 of this subpart by: 

(1) Conducting emission tests using 

the methods specified in Table 3 of this 

subpart, or 

(2) Using process knowledge and 

engineering calculations. 

(d) During the emission tests specified 

in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)(1) of this 

section, you must establish the value of 

the monitoring parameters specified in 

Table 4 to this subpart. If you are using 

process knowledge and engineering 

calculations to demonstrate initial 

compliance, as specified in paragraph 

(c)(2) of this section, you must identify 

the process parameters and 

corresponding parameter values that 

you will monitor and maintain to 

demonstrate continuous compliance. 

(e) As an alternative to the emission 

testing requirement specified in 

paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this 

section, you may use the results of a 

previously-conducted emission test to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limitations in this subpart for 

existing sources if: 

(1) The test was conducted within the 

last 5 years; 

(2) No changes have been made to the 

process since the time of the emission 

test; 

(3) The operating conditions and test 

methods used for the previous test 

conform to the requirements of this 

subpart; and 

(4) The control device and process 

parameter values established during the 

previously-conducted emission test are 

used to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with this subpart. 

(f) For existing sources, you must 

demonstrate initial compliance no later 

than 180 calendar days after [Insert date 

one year after publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register]. 

(g) For new sources, you must 

demonstrate initial compliance no later 

than 180 calendar days after [Insert date 

of publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register] or within 180 calendar 

days after startup of the source, 

whichever is later. 

(h) For emission tests conducted to 

demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limits specified in Tables 1 

and 2, you must follow the requirements 

specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through 

(h)(5) of this section. 

(1) You must conduct the tests under 

conditions that represent normal 

operation. You may not conduct 

performance tests during periods of 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
32834 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as 

specified in § 63.7(e)(1). 

(2) You must conduct a minimum of 

three separate test runs for each 

performance test required in this 

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

sampling time and sample volume of 

each test run must be as follows: 

(i) For asphalt processing operations, 

the sampling time and sample volume 

for each test run must be at least 90 

minutes or the duration of the coating 

blow or non-coating blow, whichever is 

greater, and 2.25 dscm (79.4 dscf). 

(ii) For asphalt coating operations, the 

sampling time and sample volume for 

each test run must be at least 120 

minutes and 3.00 dscm (106 dscf). 

(3) For asphalt processing operations, 

you must use the following equations to 

calculate the asphalt charging rate (P). 

(i) P=(Vd)/(K′ Q) 

Where: 

P = asphalt charging rate to blowing still, Mg/ 

hr (ton/hr). 

V = volume of asphalt charged, m3 (ft3). 

d = density of asphalt, kg/m3 (lb/ft3). 

K′ = conversion factor, 1000 kg/Mg (2000 lb/ 

ton). 

Q = duration of test run, hr. 

(ii) 

d=Ki¥KiT 

Where: 

d = Density of the asphalt, kg/m3 (lb/ft3) 

K1= 1056.1 kg/m3 (metric units) 

= 64.70 lb/ft3 (English Units) 

K2= 0.6176 kg/(m3 °C) (metric units) 

= 0.0694 lb/(ft3 °F) (English Units) 

Ti= temperature at the start of the blow, °C 

(°F) 

(4) You must use the following 

equation to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limits specified in 

Table 2 of this subpart: 

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

Where: 

E = emission rate of particulate matter, kg/ 

Mg (lb/ton). 

C = concentration of particulate matter, g/ 

dscm (gr/dscf). 

Q = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, 

dscm/hr (dscf/hr). 

P = asphalt roofing production rate or asphalt 

charging rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr). 

K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg [7000 (gr/ 

lb)]. 

(5) For coating operations, you must 

conduct the performance test while 

manufacturing one of the following final 

products: 

(i) A 106.6-kg (235-lb) shingle or 

mineral-surfaced roll roofing. 

(ii) A 6.8-kg (15-lb) saturated felt or 

smooth-surfaced roll roofing. 

(iii) A 100-kg (220-lb) fiberglass 

shingle. 

§ 63.11563 What are my monitoring 

requirements? 

(a) If you are using a control device 

to comply with the emission limits 

specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this 

subpart, you must establish site-specific 

control device parameter values during 

the initial emission test and maintain 

those parameters as specified in Table 4 

of this subpart. 

(b) If you are using an emission test 

to demonstrate that no add-on control 

devices are required to comply with the 

emission limits specified in Tables 1 

and 2 of this subpart, you must establish 

site-specific process parameter values 

during the initial emission test and 

maintain those parameters as specified 

in Table 4 of this subpart. 

(c) If you are using means other than 

those listed in paragraphs (a) or (b) of 

this section to comply with the emission 

limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this 

subpart, you must apply to the 

Administrator for approval of an 

alternative monitoring plan under 

§ 63.8(f). The plan must specify how 

process parameters identified in the 

initial compliance demonstration under 

§ 63.11562(c)(2) will be monitored and 

maintained to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. 

(d) If you are using a control device 

to comply with the emission limits 

specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this 

subpart, you must install, operate, and 

maintain a continuous parameter 

monitoring system (CPMS) as specified 

in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) of 

this section. 

(1) The CPMS must complete a 

minimum of one cycle of operation for 

each successive 15-minute period. 

(2) To determine the 3-hour average, 

you must: 

(i) Have a minimum of four successive 

cycles of operation to have a valid hour 

of data. 

(ii) Have valid data from at least three 

of four equally spaced data values for 

that hour from a CPMS that is not outof-control according to your site-specific 

monitoring plan. 

(iii) Determine the 3-hour average of 

all recorded readings for each operating 

day, except as stated in paragraph (b) of 

this section. You must have at least two 

of the three hourly averages for that 

period using only hourly average values 

that are based on valid data (i.e., not 

from out-of-control periods). 

(3) You must record the results of 

each inspection, calibration, and 

validation check of the CPMS. 

(e) For each temperature monitoring 

device, you must meet the CPMS 

requirements in paragraph (d) of this 

section and the following: 

(1) Locate the temperature sensor in a 

position that provides a representative 

temperature. 

(2) For a noncryogenic temperature 

range, use a temperature sensor with a 

minimum measurement sensitivity of 

2.8 °C or 1.0 percent of the temperature 

value, whichever is larger. 

(3) If a chart recorder is used, the 

recorder sensitivity in the minor 

division must be at least 20 °F. 

(4) Perform an accuracy check at least 

semiannually or following an operating 

parameter deviation: 

(i) According to the procedures in the 

manufacturer’s documentation; or 

(ii) By comparing the sensor output to 

redundant sensor output; or 

(iii) By comparing the sensor output 

to the output from a calibrated 

temperature measurement device; or 

(iv) By comparing the sensor output to 

the output from a temperature 

simulator. 

(5) Conduct accuracy checks any time 

the sensor exceeds the manufacturer’s 

specified maximum operating 

temperature range or install a new 

temperature sensor. 

(6) At least quarterly or following an 

operating parameter deviation, perform 

visual inspections of components if 

redundant sensors are not used. 

(f) For each pressure measurement 

device, you must meet the CPMS 

requirements of paragraph (d) of this 

section and the following: 

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

as close as possible, to a position that 

provides a representative measurement 

of the pressure. 

(2) Use a gauge with a minimum 

measurement sensitivity of 0.12 

kiloPascals or a transducer with a 

minimum measurement sensitivity of 5 

percent of the pressure range. 

(3) Check pressure tap pluggage daily. 

Perform an accuracy check at least 

quarterly or following an operating 

parameter deviation: 

(i) According to the manufacturer’s 

procedures; or 

(ii) By comparing the sensor output to 

redundant sensor output. 

(4) Conduct calibration checks any 

time the sensor exceeds the 

manufacturer’s specified maximum 

operating pressure range or install a new 

pressure sensor. 

(5) At least monthly or following an 

operating parameter deviation, perform 

a leak check of all components for 

integrity, all electrical connections for 

continuity, and all mechanical 

connections for leakage. 

(6) At least quarterly or following an 

operating parameter deviation, perform 

visible inspections on all components if 

redundant sensors are not used. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32835 

(g) For each electrostatic precipitator 

(ESP) used to control emissions, you 

must install and operate a CPMS to 

provide representative measurements of 

the voltage supplied to the ESP. 

(h) As an alternative to installing the 

CPMS specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section, you may install a continuous 

emissions monitoring system (CEMS) 

that meets the requirements specified in 

§ 63.8 and the applicable performance 

specifications of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix B. 

(i) You may not use data recorded 

during monitoring malfunctions, 

associated repairs, and required quality 

assurance or control activities in data 

averages and calculations used to report 

emission or operating levels, nor may 

such data be used in fulfilling a 

minimum data availability requirement, 

if applicable. You must use all the data 

collected during all other periods in 

assessing the operation of the control 

device and associated control system. 

(j) For each monitoring system 

required in this section, you must 

develop and make available for 

inspection by the permitting authority, 

upon request, a site-specific monitoring 

plan that addresses the following: 

(1) Installation of the CPMS or CEMS 

sampling probe or other interface at a 

measurement location relative to each 

affected process unit such that the 

measurement is representative of 

control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., 

on or downstream of the last control 

device); 

(2) Performance and equipment 

specifications for the sample interface, 

the pollutant concentration or 

parametric signal analyzer, and the data 

collection and reduction system; and 

(3) Performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., 

calibrations). 

(k) In your site-specific monitoring 

plan, you must also address the 

following: 

(1) Ongoing operation and 

maintenance procedures in accordance 

with the general requirements of 

§ 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). 

(l) You must conduct a performance 

evaluation of each CPMS or CEMS in 

accordance with your site-specific 

monitoring plan. 

(m) You must operate and maintain 

the CPMS or CEMS in continuous 

operation according to the site-specific 

monitoring plan. 

(n) At all times the owner or operator 

must operate and maintain any affected 

source, including associated air 

pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment, in a manner 

consistent with safety and good air 

pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. The general duty 

to minimize emissions does not require 

the owner or operator to make any 

further efforts to reduce emissions if 

levels required by this standard have 

been achieved. Determination of 

whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

will be based on information available 

to the Administrator which may 

include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation 

and maintenance procedures, review of 

operation and maintenance records, and 

inspection of the source. 

§ 63.11564 What are my notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements? 

(a) You must submit the notifications 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(6) of this section. 

(1) You must submit all of the 

notifications in §§ 63.5(b), 63.7(b); 

63.8(e) and (f); 63.9(b) through (e); and 

63.9(g) and (h) that apply to you by the 

dates specified in those sections. 

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

have an existing affected source, you 

must submit an Initial Notification not 

later than 120 calendar days after [Insert 

date of publication]. 

(3) As specified in § 63.9(b)(4) and (5), 

if you have a new affected source, you 

must submit an Initial Notification not 

later than 120 calendar days after you 

become subject to this subpart. 

(4) You must submit a notification of 

intent to conduct a performance test at 

least 60 calendar days before the 

performance test is scheduled to begin, 

as required in § 63.7(b)(1). 

(5) 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). 

(6) If you are using data from a 

previously-conducted emission test to 

serve as documentation of conformance 

with the emission standards and 

operating limits of this subpart, you 

must submit the test data in lieu of the 

initial performance test results with the 

Notification of Compliance Status 

required under paragraph (a)(5) of this 

section. 

(b) You must submit a compliance 

report as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (b)(3) of this section. 

(1) During periods for which there are 

no deviations from any emission 

limitations (emission limit or operating 

limit) that apply to you, the compliance 

report must contain the information 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(b)(1)(v) of this section. 

(i) Company name and address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official 

with that official’s name, title, and 

signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, 

and completeness of the content of the 

report. 

(iii) Date of report and beginning and 

ending dates of the reporting period. 

(iv) A statement that there were no 

deviations from the emission limitations 

during the reporting period. 

(v) If there were no periods during 

which the CPMS or CEMS was out-ofcontrol as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), a 

statement that there were no periods 

during which the CPMS or CEMS was 

out-of-control during the reporting 

period. 

(2) For each deviation from an 

emission limitation (emission limit and 

operating limit), including periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction, 

you must include the information in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 

(i) The date and time that each 

malfunction started and stopped. 

(ii) The date and time that each CPMS 

or CEMS was inoperative, except for 

zero (low-level) and high-level checks. 

(iii) The date, time and duration that 

each CPMS or CEMS was out-of-control, 

including the information in 

§ 63.8(c)(8). 

(iv) The date and time that each 

deviation started and stopped, and 

whether each deviation occurred during 

a period of startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction or during another period. 

(v) A summary of the total duration of 

the deviation during the reporting 

period and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating 

time during that reporting period. 

(vi) A breakdown of the total duration 

of the deviations during the reporting 

period into those that are due to startup, 

shutdown, control equipment problems, 

process problems, other known causes, 

and other unknown causes. 

(vii) A summary of the total duration 

of CPMS or CEMS downtime during the 

reporting period and the total duration 

of CPMS or CEMS downtime as a 

percent of the total source operating 

time during that reporting period. 

(viii) An identification of each air 

pollutant that was monitored at the 

affected source. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
32836 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(ix) A brief description of the process 

units. 

(x) A brief description of the CPMS or 

CEMS. 

(xi) The date of the latest CPMS or 

CEMS certification or audit. 

(xii) A description of any changes in 

CPMS, CEMS, processes, or controls 

since the last reporting period. 

(3) Unless the Administrator has 

approved a different schedule for 

submission of reports under § 63.10(a), 

you must submit each report in Table 4 

to this subpart and according to the 

following dates: 

(i) The first compliance report must 

cover the period beginning on the 

compliance date that is specified for 

your affected source in § 63.11560 and 

ending on June 30 or December 31, 

whichever date is the first date 

following the end of the first calendar 

half after the compliance date that is 

specified for your source in § 63.11560. 

(ii) The first compliance report must 

be postmarked or delivered no later than 

July 31 or January 31, whichever date 

follows the end of the first calendar half 

after the compliance date that is 

specified for your affected source in 

§ 63.11560. 

(iii) Each subsequent compliance 

report must cover the semiannual 

reporting period from January 1 through 

June 30 or the semiannual reporting 

period from July 1 through December 

31. 

(iv) Each subsequent compliance 

report must be postmarked or delivered 

no later than July 31 or January 31, 

whichever date is the first date 

following the end of the semiannual 

reporting period. 

(c) You must maintain the records 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through 

(c)(7) of this section. 

(1) A copy of each notification and 

report that you submitted to comply 

with this subpart, including all 

documentation supporting any Initial 

Notification or Notification of 

Compliance Status that you submitted, 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv). 

(2) Records of performance tests and 

performance evaluations as required in 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(viii). 

(3) Documentation identifying the 

emissions limit of the compliance 

alternative specified in § 63.11561(c)(1) 

or (c)(2), if an alternative is used, and 

the calculations that show that the 

emission reductions achieved by the 

compliance alternative are at least as 

stringent as those achieved by 

complying with the applicable emission 

limits specified in § 63.11561(a) and (b). 

(4) Calculations and supporting 

documentation that shows compliance 

with the applicable emission limits 

specified in Table 2 of this subpart if the 

initial compliance demonstration is 

based upon process knowledge and 

engineering calculations as specified in 

§ 63.11562(c)(2). 

(5) Documentation that shows that the 

following conditions are true, if you use 

a previously-conducted emission test to 

demonstrate initial compliance as 

specified in § 63.11562(d): 

(i) The test was conducted within the 

last 5 years; 

(ii) No changes have been made to the 

process since the time of the emission 

test; 

(iii) The operating conditions and test 

methods used for the previous test 

conform to the requirements of this 

subpart; and 

(iv) The control device and process 

parameter values established during the 

previously-conducted emission test are 

used to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with this subpart. 

(6) A copy of the approved alternative 

monitoring plan required under 

§ 63.11563(c). 

(7) Records required in Table 4 to this 

subpart to show continuous compliance 

with each operating limit that applies to 

you. 

Other Requirements and Information 

§ 63.11565 What General Provisions 

sections apply to this subpart? 

You must comply with the 

requirements of the General Provisions 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart A) according to 

Table 5 of this subpart. 

§ 63.11566 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

Asphalt flux means the organic 

residual material from distillation of 

crude oil that is generally used in 

asphalt roofing manufacturing and 

paving and non-paving asphalt 

products. 

Asphalt coating equipment means the 

saturators, coating mixers, and coaters 

used to apply asphalt to substrate to 

manufacture roofing products (e.g., 

shingles, roll roofing). 

Asphalt processing operation means 

any operation engaged in the 

preparation of asphalt flux at standalone asphalt processing facilities, 

petroleum refineries, and asphalt 

roofing facilities. Asphalt preparation, 

called ‘‘blowing,’’ is the oxidation of 

asphalt flux, achieved by bubbling air 

through the heated asphalt, to raise the 

softening point and to reduce 

penetration of the oxidized asphalt. An 

asphalt processing facility includes one 

or more asphalt flux blowing stills. 

Asphalt roofing manufacturing 

operation coating equipment means the 

collection of equipment used to 

manufacture asphalt roofing products 

through a series of sequential process 

steps. The equipment configuration of 

an asphalt roofing manufacturing 

process varies depending upon the type 

of substrate used (i.e., organic or 

inorganic). For example, an asphalt 

roofing manufacturing line that uses 

organic substrate (e.g., felt) typically 

would consist of a saturator (and wet 

looper), coating mixer, and coater 

(although the saturator could be 

bypassed if the line manufacturers 

multiple types of products). An asphalt 

roofing manufacturing line that uses 

inorganic (fiberglass mat) substrate 

typically would consist of a coating 

mixer and coater. 

Blowing still means the equipment in 

which air is blown through asphalt flux 

to change the softening point and 

penetration rate of the asphalt flux, 

creating oxidized asphalt. 

Coater means the equipment used to 

apply amended (filled or modified) 

asphalt to the top and bottom of the 

substrate (typically fiberglass mat) used 

to manufacture shingles and rolled 

roofing products. 

Coating mixer means the equipment 

used to mix coating asphalt and a 

mineral stabilizer, prior to applying the 

stabilized coating asphalt to the 

substrate. 

Responsible official is defined in 

§ 63.2. 

Saturator means the equipment in 

which substrate (predominantly organic 

felt) is impregnated with asphalt. 

Saturators are predominantly used for 

the manufacture of saturated felt 

products. The term saturator includes 

the saturator and wet looper. 

§ 63.11567 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(a) This subpart can be implemented 

and enforced by us, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA), or a delegated authority such as 

your State, local, or tribal agency. If the 

U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated 

authority to your State, local, or tribal 

agency, then that agency, in addition to 

the U.S. EPA, has the authority to 

implement and enforce this subpart. 

You should contact your U.S. EPA 

Regional Office to find out if 

implementation and enforcement of this 

subpart is delegated. 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority of this subpart to 

a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 

CFR part 63, subpart E, the following 

authorities are retained by the 

Administrator of U.S. EPA: 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32837 

(1) Approval of alternatives to the 

requirements in §§ 63.11559, 63.11560, 

63.11561, 63.11562, and 63.11563. 

(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. 

Tables to Subpart AAAAAAA of Part 

63 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART AAAAAAA OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS FOR ASPHALT PROCESSING (REFINING) OPERATIONS

For . . . You must meet the following emission limits . . . 

1. Blowing stills ................................................... a. Limit PAH emissions to 0.003 lb/ton of asphalt charged to the blowing stills; or 

b. Limit PM emissions to 1.2 lb/ton of asphalt charged to the blowing stills. 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART AAAAAAA OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS FOR ASPHALT ROOFING MANUFACTURING (COATING) 

OPERATIONS

For . . . 

1. Coater-only production lines ........................... a. Limit PAH emissions to 0.0002 lb/ton of asphalt roofing product manufactured; or 

b. Limit PM emissions to 0.03 lb/ton of asphalt roofing product manufactured. 

2. Saturator-only production lines ....................... a. Limit PAH emissions to 0.0004 lb/ton of asphalt roofing product manufactured; or 

b. Limit PM emissions to 0.05 lb/ton of asphalt roofing product manufactured. 

3. Combined saturator/coater production lines. a. Limit PAH emissions to 0.0006 lb/ton of asphalt roofing product manufactured; or 

b. Limit PM emissions to 0.07 lb/ton of asphalt roofing product manufactured. 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART AAAAAAA OF PART 63—TEST METHODS

For . . . You must use . . . 

1. Selecting the sampling locations a and the number of traverse points EPA test method 1 or in appendix A to part 60. 

2. Determining the velocity and volumetric flow rate ................................ EPA test method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G, as appropriate, in appendix 

A to part 60. 

3. Determining the gas molecular weight used for flow rate determination.EPA test method 3, 3A, 3B, as appropriate, in appendix A to part 60. 

4. Measuring the moisture content of the stack gas ................................ EPA test method 4 in appendix A to part 60. 

5. Measuring the PM emissions ............................................................... EPA test method 5A in appendix A to part 60. 

6. Measuring the PAH emissions ............................................................. EPA test method 23 b with analysis by SW–846 Method 8270D. 

aThe sampling locations must be located at the outlet of the process equipment (or control device, if applicable), prior to any releases to the 

atmosphere. bWhen using EPA Method 23, the toluene extraction step specified in section 3.1.2.1 of the method should be omitted. 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART AAAAAAA OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITS

For this type of control device . . . You must establish an operating 

value for a . . . And maintain b . . . 

1. Thermal oxidizer ......................... Combustion zone temperature ...... The 3-hour average combustion zone temperature at or above the 

operating value established during the initial emission test. 

2. High-efficiency air filter or fiber 

bed filter.

a. Inlet gas temperature, and ........ The 3-hour average inlet gas temperature at or below the operating 

value established during the initial emission test. 

b. Pressure drop across device .... The 3-hour average pressure drop across device at or below the operating value established during the initial emission test. 

3. Electrostatic precipitator (ESP) ... Voltage to the ESP ........................ The 3-hour average ESP voltage at or above the operating value established during the initial emission test. 

4. Process equipment management 

whereby no add-on control device is required.

Approved process monitoring parameters.The monitoring parameters within the operating values established 

during the initial emission test. 

aThe operating limits specified in Table 4 are applicable if you are monitoring control device operating parameters to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. If you are using a CEMS, you must maintain emissions below the value established during the initial performance test. If you are 

using process modifications in lieu of a control device, you must maintain the approved process monitoring parameters below the values established during the initial performance test. bThe 3-hour averaging period applies during operating conditions other than startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), as defined in § 63.2. 

For an hour within which an SSM event occurs, a 24-hour average may be used for all 24 hour periods that include that hour. For all periods that 

do not include an hour within which an SSM event occurs, the 3-hour average must be used. 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART AAAAAAA OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART AAAAAAA 

Citation Subject Applies to subpart AAAAAAA 

§ 63.1 .............................. Applicability ................................................................................. Yes. 

§ 63.2 .............................. Definitions ................................................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.3 .............................. Units and Abbreviations ............................................................. Yes. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
32838 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART AAAAAAA OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART AAAAAAA— 

Continued 

Citation Subject Applies to subpart AAAAAAA 

§ 63.4 .............................. Prohibited Activities .................................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.5 .............................. Construction/Reconstruction ....................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.6(a)–(d) ................... Compliance With Standards and Maintenance Requirements .. Yes. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) .................. Operation and Maintenance Requirements ............................... No. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii)-(iii) ........... Operation and Maintenance Requirements ............................... Yes. 

§ 63.6(e)(2) ..................... [Reserved] 

§ 63.6(e)(3) ..................... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan .................................. No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not require startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction plans. 

§ 63.6(f)(1) ...................... Compliance with Nonopacity Emission Standards ..................... No. The emission limits apply at all times. 

§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ................ Methods for Determining Compliance and Finding of Compliance.Yes. 

§ 63.6(h) ......................... Opacity/Visible Emission (VE) Standards .................................. No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not contain opacity or 

VE standards. 

§ 63.6(i) ........................... Compliance Extension ................................................................ Yes. 

§ 63.6(j) ........................... Presidential Compliance Exemption ........................................... Yes. 

§ 63.7 .............................. Performance Testing Requirements ........................................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(1) ..................... Applicability of Monitoring Requirements ................................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(2) ..................... Performance Specifications ........................................................ Yes, if CEMS used. 

§ 63.8(a)(3) ..................... [Reserved] 

§ 63.8(a)(4) ..................... Monitoring with Flares ................................................................ Yes. 

§ 63.8(b)(1) ..................... Monitoring ................................................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(b)(2)–(3) ............... Multiple Effluents and Multiple Monitoring Systems .................. Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1) ..................... Monitoring System Operation and Maintenance ........................ Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) .................. CMS maintenance ...................................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ................. Spare Parts for CMS Malfunction .............................................. Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ................ Compliance with Operation and Maintenance Requirements .... No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not require startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction plans. 

§ 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ............... Monitoring System Installation ................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(4) ..................... CMS Requirements .................................................................... No; § 63.11563 specifies the CMS requirements. 

§ 63.8(c)(5) ..................... COMS Minimum Procedures ...................................................... No. Subpart AAAAAAA does not contain opacity or 

VE standards. 

§ 63.8(c)(6) ..................... CMS Requirements .................................................................... No; § 63.11563 specifies the CMS requirements. 

§ 63.8(c)(7)–(8) ............... CMS Requirements .................................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(d) ......................... CMS Quality Control .................................................................. No; § 63.11563 specifies the CMS requirements. 

§ 63.8(e)–(g) ................... CMS Performance Evaluation .................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.9 .............................. Notification Requirements .......................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.10 ............................ Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements ............................ Yes. 

§ 63.11 ............................ Control Device and Work Practice Requirements ..................... Yes. 

§ 63.12 ............................ State Authority and Delegations ................................................. Yes. 

§ 63.13 ............................ Addresses of State Air Pollution Control Agencies and EPA 

Regional Offices.

Yes. 

§ 63.14 ............................ Incorporations by Reference ...................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.15 ............................ Availability of Information and Confidentiality ............................ Yes. 

§ 63.16 ............................ Performance Track Provisions ................................................... No. 

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

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[FDMS Docket No.: EPA–R04–RCRA–2008– 

0900; FRL–8922–2] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a 

petition submitted by The Valero 

Refining Company—Tennessee, L.L.C. 

(Valero) to exclude or ‘‘delist’’ a certain 

sediment generated by its Memphis 

Refinery in Memphis, Tennessee from 

the lists of hazardous wastes. EPA used 

the Delisting Risk Assessment Software 

(DRAS) in the evaluation of the 

potential impact of the petitioned waste 

on human health and the environment. 

EPA bases its proposed decision to grant 

the petition based on an evaluation of 

waste-specific information provided by 

Valero (the petitioner). This proposed 

decision, if finalized, would 

conditionally exclude the petitioned 

waste from the requirements of the 

hazardous waste regulations under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). 

This exclusion would be valid only 

when the Storm Water Basin Sediment 

is disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill 

that is permitted, licensed, or registered 

by a State to manage industrial solid 

waste. 

If finalized, EPA would conclude that 

Valero’s petitioned waste is 

nonhazardous with respect to the 

original listing criteria and that there are 

no other factors that would cause the 

waste to be hazardous. 

DATES: EPA will accept public 

comments on this proposed decision 

until August 10, 2009. EPA will stamp 

comments received after the close of the 

comment period as late. These late 

comments may not be considered in 

formulating a final decision. Any person 

may request a hearing on this proposed 

decision by filing a request to EPA by 

July 24, 2009. The request must contain 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS