Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662-0025
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review
Posted Date: 2020-03-12T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 49 (Thursday, March 12, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14526-14558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02369]

[[Page 14525]]

Vol. 85

Thursday,

No. 49

March 12, 2020

Part II

 Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 63

 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asphalt 
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Residual Risk and 
Technology Review; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 49 / Thursday, March 12, 2020 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 14526]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662; FRL-10005-06-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT34

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asphalt 
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Residual Risk and 
Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
(RTR) conducted for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing source categories regulated under national emission 
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are 
taking final action to: Correct and clarify regulatory provisions 
related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction (SSM); revise monitoring requirements for a control device 
used to comply with the particulate matter (PM) standards; add 
requirements for periodic performance testing; add electronic reporting 
of performance test results and reports, performance evaluation 
reports, compliance reports, and Notification of Compliance Status 
(NOCS) reports; and include other technical corrections to improve 
consistency and clarity. We are making no revisions to the numerical 
emission limits based on the residual risk analysis or technology 
review. Although these amendments are not anticipated to result in 
reductions in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), they will 
improve compliance and implementation of the rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 12, 2020. The 
incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the 
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 
12, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0662. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed, some information is not 
publicly available, e.g., confidential business information or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically through 
https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 
WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. 
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and 
the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Tonisha Dawson, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-
02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-1454; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email 
address: dawson.tonisha@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the 
risk assessment, contact Matthew Woody, Health and Environmental 
Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1535; fax 
number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: woody.matthew@epa.gov. For 
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular 
entity, contact John Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance (OECA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South 
Building (2221A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; 
telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and email address: cox.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and 
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA 
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

AEGL acute exposure guideline levels
APCD air pollution control device
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BACT best available control technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRA Congressional Review Act
DCOT digital camera opacity technique
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guidelines
FR Federal Register
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrogen chloride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NOCS Notification of Compliance Status
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RACT reasonably available control technology
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
THC total hydrocarbons
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS voluntary consensus standards

    Background information. On May 2, 2019, the EPA proposed results of 
the RTR and amendments to the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing NESHAP. In this action, we are finalizing decisions 
regarding the RTR and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of the 
more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed 
rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other 
public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those 
comments are available in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses 
for Risk and Technology Review for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt 
Roofing Manufacturing document, which is available in the docket, 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662. A ``track changes'' version of the 
regulatory language that

[[Page 14527]]

incorporates the changes in this action is also available in the 
docket.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What are the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing source categories and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP 
emissions from the source categories?
    C. What changes did we propose for the Asphalt Processing and 
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories in our May 2, 2019, 
RTR proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the residual risk 
review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 
source categories?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 
source categories?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions 
during periods of SSM?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source 
categories?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt 
Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories
    B. Technology Review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt 
Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories
    C. Amendments Addressing Emissions During Periods of SSM
    D. Technical Amendments to the MACT Standards
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR part 51
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           NAICS 1 Code
          Source category                  NESHAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asphalt Processing................  Asphalt Processing            324110
                                     and Asphalt Roofing
                                     Manufacturing.
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing.....  Asphalt Processing            324122
                                     and Asphalt Roofing
                                     Manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To 
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the 
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, 
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this 
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/asphalt-processing-and-asphalt-roofing-manufacturing-national. 
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the 
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same 
website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an 
overview of the RTR program, links to project websites for the RTR 
source categories, and detailed emissions and other data we used as 
inputs to the risk assessments.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the Court) by May 11, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person 
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public 
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for 
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and 
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. 
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the

[[Page 14528]]

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate 
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 
20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first 
stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of 
the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit, 
or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per 
year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For 
major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the 
maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after 
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section 
112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, 
processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited 
to those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through 
process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; 
enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, 
or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive 
emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational 
standards; or any combination of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor 
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See 
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can 
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish 
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of 
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the 
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the 
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology 
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them 
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk 
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after 
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, 
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The 
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of 
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In 
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority 
for this rule, see 84 FR 18926, May 2, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA 
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based 
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is 
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk 
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What are the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 
source categories and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from 
the source categories?

    The EPA promulgated the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing NESHAP on April 29, 2003 (68 FR 22975). The standards are 
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL. The asphalt processing 
industry consists of facilities that are engaged in the preparation and 
oxidation of asphalt flux. The asphalt roofing manufacturing industry 
consists of facilities that are engaged in the production of asphalt 
roofing products. As of December 15, 2019, there were eight facilities 
in operation and subject to the MACT standards. Four of the eight 
facilities are strictly asphalt processing facilities and the other 
four operate an asphalt roofing manufacturing facility collocated with 
an asphalt processing facility.
    As promulgated in 2003 and amended on May 17, 2005 (70 FR 28360), 
the NESHAP prescribes MACT standards for asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing facilities that are major sources of HAP. The 
MACT standards establish emission limits for PM and total hydrocarbons 
(THC) as surrogates for total organic HAP. The MACT standards also 
limit the opacity and visible emissions from certain emission sources. 
The source categories and the MACT standards are further described in 
the proposed rule. See 84 FR 18926, 18929 (May 2, 2019).

C. What changes did we propose for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt 
Roofing Manufacturing source categories in our May 2, 2019, RTR 
proposal?

    On May 2, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 
NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, that took into consideration the 
RTR analyses. We proposed to find that the risks from each of the 
source categories are acceptable and that additional or revised 
standards are not required in order to provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental 
effect. See 84 FR 18926, 18929 (May 2, 2019). In addition, pursuant to 
the technology review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing source categories, we proposed to conclude that no 
revisions to the current standards are necessary for asphalt loading 
racks, asphalt storage tanks, blowing stills, coating mixers, 
saturators (including wet loopers), coaters, sealant applicators, and 
adhesive applicators. The EPA also proposed to conclude that it is not 
necessary to promulgate a hydrogen chloride (HCl) emissions standard 
for blowing stills pursuant to the technology review.
    We also proposed the following amendments:
     Revisions to the SSM provisions of the NESHAP in order to 
ensure consistency with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 
F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted 
source owners and operators from the requirement to comply with 
otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during 
periods of SSM;

[[Page 14529]]

     a provision allowing owners and operators to use 
manufacturers' specifications to establish the maximum pressure drop 
across the control device used to comply with the PM standards;
     a provision allowing owners and operators to use the 
performance test average inlet temperature and apply an operating 
margin of +20 percent to determine maximum inlet gas temperature of a 
control device used to comply with the PM standards;
     periodic performance testing (i.e., at least once every 5 
years), using the same methods currently required for the initial 
compliance demonstration, of each air pollution control device (APCD) 
used to comply with the PM, THC, opacity, or visible emission 
standards, in addition to the current one-time initial performance 
testing and ongoing operating limit monitoring;
     a requirement for electronic submittal of performance test 
results and reports, performance evaluation reports, compliance 
reports, and NOCS reports;
     IBR of an alternative test method for EPA Test Method 9; 
and
     several minor editorial and technical changes in the 
subpart.
    In the same document, although we did not propose any rule 
amendments based on the residual risk or technology reviews, we 
requested comment on the relationship between the CAA section 112(d)(6) 
technology review and the CAA section 112(f) residual risk review; 
specifically, the extent to which findings that underlie a CAA section 
112(f) determination should be considered in making any determinations 
under CAA section 112(d)(6).

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR 
provisions of CAA section 112(f)(2) and CAA section 112(d)(6) for the 
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories. 
This action also finalizes other changes to the NESHAP, including 
corrections and clarifications to regulatory provisions related to 
emissions during periods of SSM; adding electronic reporting of 
performance test results and reports, performance evaluation reports, 
compliance reports, and NOCS reports; and other technical corrections 
to improve consistency and clarity. This action also includes a number 
of other amendments to the NESHAP generally similar to those proposed 
in the May 2, 2019, RTR proposal, such as amendments related to 
monitoring procedures and periodic performance testing, but with some 
modifications based on consideration of comments received during the 
public comment period as described in sections III.D and IV.D of this 
preamble.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the residual risk review 
for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source 
categories?

    This section describes the final actions regarding the Asphalt 
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP that the EPA is 
taking pursuant to CAA section 112(f). The EPA proposed no changes to 
these NESHAP based on the residual risk reviews conducted pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f). In this action, we are finalizing our proposed 
determination that risks due to emissions from the Asphalt Processing 
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories are acceptable, and 
that the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health and prevent an adverse environmental effect.
    The EPA received two emissions inventory updates for two specific 
facilities during the public comment period. After considering the 
updated information, the Agency decided to update certain modeling file 
records for those two facilities and to reanalyze risk for both source 
categories, in part because some of the emissions estimates were 
notably higher than the estimates we used for risk modeling for the 
proposal and we wanted to confirm that risks were still acceptable. The 
EPA reanalyzed risk using the same risk assessment methodology used for 
the proposed rule; however, this did not result in any change to our 
proposed determination. Based on our analyses (which include the 
emissions inventory updates received during the public comment period), 
we find that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. The 
EPA is, therefore, not revising the standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2) (for NESHAP 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL) based on the 
residual risk review. See sections IV.A.2 and IV.A.3 of this preamble 
for discussion of key comments and responses regarding the residual 
risk review, including details about the emissions inventory updates we 
received during the public comment period.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review 
for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source 
categories?

    The EPA is not finalizing the technology review as proposed 
regarding HCl emissions standards for blowing stills. As discussed in 
section IV.B of this preamble, the EPA determined that it is not 
appropriate to establish new standards for previously unregulated 
sources or pollutants as part of the technology review. The Agency is 
finalizing all required aspects of the technology review as proposed. 
The EPA has determined that there are no developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT 
standards for these source categories. Therefore, we are not finalizing 
revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). Section 
IV.B.3 of this preamble provides a summary of key comments we received 
on the technology review and our responses.

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during 
periods of SSM?

    The Agency is finalizing, as proposed, changes to the Asphalt 
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP to eliminate the 
SSM exemption. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), the EPA is establishing standards in this rule that apply 
at all times. Table 7 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 (General Provisions 
applicability table) is being revised to change several references 
related to requirements that apply during periods of SSM. The EPA 
eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
related to the eliminated SSM exemption. The EPA also made changes to 
the rule to remove or modify inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant 
language in the absence of the SSM exemption. The EPA determined that 
facilities in these source categories can meet the applicable emission 
standards in the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 
NESHAP at all times, including periods of startup and shutdown. 
Therefore, the EPA determined that no additional standards are needed 
to address emissions during these periods. Also, as stated in our 
proposal, the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions 
that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into 
development of CAA section 112 standards, and this reading has been 
upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 
579, 606-10 (2016). The legal rationale and detailed changes for SSM 
periods that are being finalized in this rule are set forth in the 
proposed rule. See 84 FR 18945 through 18949.

[[Page 14530]]

    The EPA is also finalizing a revision to the performance testing 
requirements at 40 CFR 63.8687(b). This final rule text states that 
each performance test must be conducted under normal operating 
conditions; and operations during periods of startup, shutdown, or 
nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions for purposes 
of conducting a performance test. The final rules also require that 
operators maintain records to document that operating conditions during 
the test represent normal operations. Section IV.C.3 of this preamble 
provides a summary of key comments we received on the SSM provisions 
and our responses.

D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

    This rule also finalizes, as proposed, revisions to several other 
NESHAP requirements. The revisions are briefly described in this 
section (refer to section IV.D of this preamble for further details).
    To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data 
accessibility, we are finalizing a requirement that owners and 
operators of facilities in the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing source categories submit electronic copies of certain 
required performance test results and reports, performance evaluation 
reports, compliance reports, and NOCS reports through the EPA's Central 
Data Exchange (CDX) website. Performance test and performance 
evaluation test reports are prepared using the EPA's Electronic 
Reporting Tool. We also are finalizing, as proposed, provisions that 
allow facility operators the ability to seek extensions for submitting 
electronic reports for circumstances beyond the control of the facility 
(i.e., a possible outage in the CDX or Compliance and Emissions Data 
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) or a force majeure event in the time just 
prior to a report's due date), as well as the process to assert such a 
claim. In addition, we are finalizing all revisions that we proposed 
for clarifying text or correcting typographical errors, grammatical 
errors, and cross-reference errors. These editorial corrections and 
clarifications are summarized in Table 4 of the proposal. See 54 FR 
18951 and 18952. We received no public comment on the editorial 
corrections and clarifications and these changes are being finalized as 
proposed.
    We are also finalizing amendments in the NESHAP for monitoring 
pressure drop and temperature of APCDs, and for periodic compliance 
testing, similar to the proposed amendments, but with some 
modifications in response to issues raised in comments on the proposed 
rulemaking. Regarding pressure drop, instead of using manufacturers' 
specifications or a performance test to establish only a maximum 
pressure drop across the control device used to comply with the PM 
standards as proposed, we are finalizing a requirement that requires 
owners and operators to establish a pressure drop range (i.e., a 
minimum and a maximum pressure drop) across the PM control device with 
the option to either use manufacturers' specifications or a performance 
test to establish the range. The addition of a minimum limitation to 
the operating range of the PM control device mirrors the approach in 
the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing area source 
NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAAAA, and provides an indication of 
breakthrough or bypass of the control device, as a drop in the 
differential pressure below that established by the manufacturer's 
specification would indicate that potentially either the control device 
has been inadvertently bypassed (leaking around the filter) or tearing 
or distortion of the filter has occurred. As stated in the proposal, 
allowing the use of manufacturers' specifications provides flexibility 
and alleviates the need for a facility to have to retest the PM control 
device to reestablish new operating limits due to the inability of a 
source to ``dial in'' the differential pressure of their control device 
for a particular performance test as the differential pressure 
increases over time as a result of particulate deposition. With regard 
to monitoring temperature, similar to proposal, the Agency is 
finalizing a requirement that allows owners and operators to use the 
performance test average inlet temperature and apply an operating 
margin of +20 percent to determine maximum inlet gas temperature of a 
control device used to comply with the PM standards; however, in the 
final rule, the Agency is clarifying the operating margin applies to 
temperatures expressed in units of degrees Celsius or degrees 
Fahrenheit. The EPA acknowledges that the use of Celsius will result in 
a slightly more conservative temperature range (6.4 degrees Fahrenheit 
less when compared to the corresponding Fahrenheit range), but it is 
appropriate to provide the flexibility for facilities to use either 
temperature scale as either scale will ensure the control devices are 
operating properly. On the other hand, the application of a 20-percent 
margin to temperature expressed in absolute temperature (Rankin or 
Kelvin scales) would result in too large of an operating limit window. 
Therefore, we are not allowing the use of an absolute temperature 
scale. Finally, to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards, the 
EPA is finalizing requirements for periodic performance testing for 
each APCD used to comply with the PM, THC, opacity, and visible 
emission standards, in addition to the current one-time initial 
performance testing and ongoing operating limit monitoring. The EPA is 
requiring that the performance tests must be conducted at least once 
every 5 years, as proposed; however, the Agency is adding language to 
the final rule text to allow facilities to synchronize their periodic 
performance testing schedule with a previously conducted emission test 
provided they can demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that 
the previously-conducted testing meets the requirements of this rule.

E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on March 12, 2020. The EPA is finalizing three 
changes that would affect ongoing compliance requirements for this 
subpart. First, we are changing the requirements for SSM by removing 
the provisions that provide an exemption from the requirements to meet 
the standard during SSM periods. Second, we are removing the 
requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. Finally, we are 
adding a requirement that performance test results and reports, 
performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and NOCS reports be 
submitted electronically. From the assessment of the timeframe needed 
for implementing the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA 
proposed a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance 
period practicable. No opposing comments were received during the 
public comment period, and the 180-day period is being finalized as 
proposed. Thus, the compliance date of the final amendments for all 
affected sources is September 8, 2020.
    Also, we are adding requirements to conduct ongoing periodic 
performance testing every 5 years. The EPA proposed that each existing 
affected source, and each new and reconstructed affected source that 
commences construction or reconstruction after November 21, 2001, and 
on or before March 12, 2020 that uses an APCD to comply with the 
standards, must conduct the first periodic performance test on or 
before March 13, 2023 and conduct subsequent

[[Page 14531]]

periodic performance tests no later than 60 months thereafter following 
the previous performance test. The EPA also proposed that owners or 
operators of each new and reconstructed affected source that commences 
construction or reconstruction after March 12, 2020 that uses an APCD 
to comply with the standards, conduct the first periodic performance 
test no later than 60 months following the initial performance test and 
conduct subsequent periodic performance tests no later than 60 months 
thereafter following the previous performance test. If owners or 
operators used the alternative compliance option specified in 40 CFR 
63.8686(b) to comply with the initial performance test, then the EPA 
proposed that they must conduct the first periodic performance test no 
later than 60 months following the date they demonstrated to the 
Administrator that the requirements of 40 CFR 63.8686(b) had been met. 
These compliance dates are being finalized as proposed; however, based 
on a comment received during the public comment period, the EPA is 
including additional language that allows facilities to synchronize 
their periodic performance testing schedule with a previously conducted 
emission test provided they can demonstrate to the Administrator's 
satisfaction that the previously conducted testing meets the 
requirements of this rule (refer to section IV.D of this preamble for 
further details).

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source 
categories?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale 
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments 
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment 
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary 
and response document, Summary of Public Comments and Responses for 
Risk and Technology Review for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

A. Residual Risk Review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing Source Categories

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Asphalt 
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk 
review and presented the results of this review, along with our 
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of 
safety, in the May 2, 2019, proposed rule for 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
LLLLL (84 FR 18926). The key results of the risk assessment for the 
proposal are presented in Table 2 of this preamble. More detail may be 
found in the residual risk technical support document, Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 
Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review 
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

                        Table 2--Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Proposed Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Maximum individual      Estimated population at   Estimated annual cancer       Maximum chronic           Maximum
                                    cancer risk (in 1     increased risk of cancer    incidence (cases per         noncancer TOSHI       screening acute
                                       million) 2             >=1-in-1 million                year)          --------------------------   noncancer HQ
    Number of facilities 1     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------                          -----------------
                                     Based on actual           Based on actual           Based on actual           Based on actual       Based on actual
                                   emissions level 2 3        emissions level 3         emissions level 3         emissions level 3      emissions level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.............................                       <1                         0                    0.0007                       0.1   HQREL = 4
                                                                                                                                         (formaldehyde).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source categories.
3 Actual emissions equal allowable emissions; therefore, actual risks equal allowable risks.

    The results of the proposed inhalation risk assessment, as shown in 
Table 2 of this preamble, indicated that the cancer risk to the 
individual most exposed is below 1-in-1 million from both actual and 
allowable emissions, the estimated maximum chronic noncancer target 
organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) based on both actual and allowable 
emissions is 0.1, and the maximum acute noncancer hazard quotient (HQ) 
is 4 driven by formaldehyde based on the acute reference exposure level 
(REL). At proposal, the total annual cancer incidence (national) from 
these facilities based on actual emission levels was estimated to be 
0.0007 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 1,430 years.
    The maximum lifetime individual cancer risk posed by the eight 
facilities, based on whole facility emissions, was estimated to be 9-
in-1 million at proposal, with naphthalene and benzene emissions from 
facility-wide fugitive emissions and nickel compound emissions from 
flares from the Petroleum Refinery source category driving the risk. At 
proposal, the maximum chronic noncancer hazard index (HI) posed by 
whole facility emissions was estimated to be 0.1 (for the respiratory 
system) and occurred at two facilities.
    At proposal, the Agency identified emissions of HAP known to be 
persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment (PB-HAP): Cadmium 
compounds, lead compounds, mercury compounds, and polycyclic organic 
matter (POM) (of which polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons is a subset). 
The multipathway risk screening assessment resulted in a maximum Tier 2 
cancer screening value of 2 for POM. The Tier 2 screening values for 
all other PB-HAP emitted from the source categories (cadmium compounds, 
lead compounds, and mercury compounds) were less than 1.
    The ecological risk screening assessment indicated all modeled 
points were below the Tier 1 screening threshold based on actual and 
allowable emissions of PB-HAP and acid gases emitted by the source 
categories.
    We weighed all health risk factors, including those shown in Table 
2 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability determination and 
proposed that the risks posed by the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt 
Roofing Manufacturing source categories are acceptable (see section 
IV.B.1 of the proposal preamble, 84 FR 18939, May 2, 2019).

[[Page 14532]]

    The EPA then considered whether 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, 
provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health and 
whether, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other 
relevant factors, standards are required to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. In considering whether standards are required to 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, we 
considered the same risk factors that we considered for our 
acceptability determination and also considered the costs, 
technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to 
emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with 
emissions from the source category. The EPA proposed that additional or 
revised standards for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing source categories are not required to provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health. The Agency also proposed 
that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, 
taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant 
factors, an adverse environmental effect. See section IV.B.2 of the 
proposal preamble, 84 FR 18939, May 2, 2019.
2. How did the residual risk review change for the Asphalt Processing 
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories?
    As part of the final risk assessment, the EPA reanalyzed risks 
using emissions inventory updates that were received for two specific 
facilities during the public comment period. These updates included 
revised actual emissions, allowable emissions, and acute emissions for 
numerous pollutants from three different emission units at one facility 
(i.e., a blowing still and two asphalt storage tanks) and revised 
formaldehyde acute emission rates from four asphalt storage tanks at 
another facility. The revised emissions used to reanalyze risks are 
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    Our assessment of the effects of these changes resulted in no 
change to the maximum lifetime cancer risk for the source categories 
(i.e., the cancer risk to the individual most exposed is below 1-in-1 
million from both actual and allowable emissions). Also, the maximum 
chronic noncancer HI for the source categories remains less than 1. The 
maximum screening level acute HQ decreased from 4 to less than 1. Table 
3 summarizes the inhalation risk assessment results for the final rule. 
For the reanalyzed multipathway screening level assessment, the maximum 
Tier 2 PB-HAP screening value decreased from 2 to less than 1, based on 
revised emissions received during the comment period. Finally, the 
environmental risk screening level assessment indicated all modeled 
points were below the Tier 1 screening threshold for all PB-HAP and 
acid gases emitted by the source category. As described in other 
sections of this preamble, the updated HAP emissions estimates that we 
received in the public comments resulted in increased emissions for 
some HAP and decreased emissions for other HAP. After incorporating the 
new emissions data and rerunning the risk model, the estimated acute 
risk levels decreased because the emissions estimates for the acute 
risk driver HAP (i.e., acrolein and formaldehyde) were revised to lower 
estimates based on comments. The updated emissions estimates are 
provided in updated risk input files (i.e., HEM files) which are 
available in the docket. In summary, the new information and reanalyzed 
risks did not cause a change to the proposed determination that risks 
caused by emissions from these source categories are acceptable, and 
that the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Additional details 
of the reanalyzed risks can be found in the Residual Risk Assessment 
for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source 
Categories in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Final 
Rule, available in the docket for this rulemaking.

                         Table 3--Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Final Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Maximum individual      Estimated population at   Estimated annual cancer       Maximum chronic           Maximum
                                    cancer risk (in 1     increased risk of cancer    incidence (cases per         noncancer TOSHI       screening acute
                                       million) 2             >= 1-in-1 million               year)          --------------------------   noncancer HQ
    Number of facilities 1     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------                          -----------------
                                     Based on actual           Based on actual           Based on actual           Based on actual       Based on actual
                                   emissions level 2 3        emissions level 3         emissions level 3         emissions level 3      emissions level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.............................                       <1                         0                    0.0009                      0.03   HQREL = 0.5
                                                                                                                                        (arsenic).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source categories.
3 Actual emissions equal allowable emissions; therefore, actual risks equal allowable risks.

3. What key comments did we receive on the residual risk review, and 
what are our responses?
    Comment: One commenter said that the EPA's risk modeling file does 
not reflect the correct emission records for their facility 
(CertainTeed Corp, Shakopee MN), which they provided to the EPA in 
December 2017. The commenter submitted, in Microsoft Excel format, 
proposed revisions to the EPA's risk modeling file that mirror the 
corrections that were submitted to the EPA in December 2017 plus one 
additional correction; these revisions include updates to actual, 
allowable, and acute emissions for three different emission units 
(i.e., a blowing still and two asphalt storage tanks).
    Another commenter explained that they compared ``actual allowable'' 
annual emissions of risk-driving HAP (those HAP contributing at least 
10 percent of the overall maximum cancer risk and maximum chronic 
noncancer TOSHI) used in the EPA's risk modeling file against the most 
recent facility-provided responses to the CAA section 114 information 
collection request (ICR). The commenter claimed that there are two 
facilities (110000768312 and 110000347018) that have revisions to the 
CAA section 114 survey data that have not yet been incorporated into 
the assessment of chronic hazards and advocated that these facilities' 
revisions be incorporated into the final risk modeling. The commenter 
also stated that, other than these revisions, their review did not 
identify any significant errors in the inputs to the EPA's Human 
Exposure Model (HEM-3) risk modeling

[[Page 14533]]

results. The commenter stated that the EPA overestimated risk for 
acrolein emissions from a blowing still at Facility 110000768312. The 
commenter explained that the acrolein maximum hourly emission rate of 
the blowing still (HEM-3 source ID CESC0001) used in the EPA's risk 
modeling file should be revised to 0.0146 pounds per hour (0.0639 tpy) 
in lieu of the value used in the EPA's analysis (i.e., 19.4 tpy). The 
commenter contended that because this blowing still is the only source 
of acrolein emissions at this facility, the acute HQ decreases linearly 
with the emission rate; and the commenter estimated the revised maximum 
acute HQ to be 0.008. The commenter also noted that with their 
revisions to the acrolein emission rates, the acute risk driver for the 
facility becomes formaldehyde, which has a maximum acute HQ of 0.044. 
The commenter provided an aerial photo of the specific facility and the 
corresponding acute HQs for acrolein and formaldehyde at HEM-3 polar 
receptor locations.
    A third commenter stated that the EPA must subject CertainTeed's 
(Facility 110000768312) acrolein emissions to emission limits. The 
commenter stated that the EPA relied on the acute exposure guideline 
level (AEGL) value to conclude that an ample margin of safety was 
already provided, but that all the EPA reports is that the Agency did 
not ``identify any processes, practices, or control technologies'' to 
reduce acrolein emissions. The commenter disagreed with EPA's 
conclusion that, ``acrolein-specific standards . . . are not necessary 
to provide an ample margin of safety,'' stating that it is not clear 
how one follows from the other.
    The commenter stated that the EPA is not lost for options under 
this analysis if control technology and practices fail to provide an 
ample margin of safety, and that it must go beyond what may suffice for 
a technology review posture. The commenter argued that the EPA must 
consider setting emissions limits, rather than performance standards or 
control requirements, where--as with CertainTeed--a facility's emission 
levels and performance standards do not provide an ample margin of 
protection. The commenter alleged that the EPA ignored the fact that 
its own data show this facility to be the only facility with 
significant acrolein emissions, and the EPA doesn't bother to ask why 
this facility is an outlier.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Asphalt RRA Attachment_3--Actual allowable emissions Asphalt 
HEMInput HAPEmis Grp 1of 1 CatLevel 20171212. Docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0662-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The Agency first wants to clarify that one of the 
commenters revised their comment after the public comment period 
closed, by naming only one facility (110000768312) (and not Facility 
110000347018) as having revisions to the CAA section 114 survey data 
that had not yet been incorporated into risk modeling (see email from 
the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA) to the EPA dated 
July 8, 2019, which is available in the docket for this action). 
Second, regarding the corrected emission records that were provided to 
the EPA in December 2017 for this facility (110000768312), the 2017 
cover letter that was submitted to the EPA requested that the EPA 
correct the emissions in two specific cells pertaining to chromic acid 
emissions. The Agency corrected those chromic acid emissions as 
requested and they are reflected in the modeling file that was used for 
the proposed risk assessment. However, based on the comments received 
during the public comment period, we also learned that there were 
several other emissions data cells in the 2017 CAA section 114 ICR that 
the facility wanted corrected (i.e., changes to actual, allowable, and 
acute emissions for three different emission units, including a blowing 
still and two asphalt storage tanks). The EPA reviewed these revised 
emissions estimates and determined them to be valid. All of the 
revisions requested by the facility have been incorporated and correct 
the emissions originally entered in error. Some of these revisions 
correct overestimated values (by decreasing pollutant-specific 
emissions), and the remaining revisions correct underestimated values 
(by increasing pollutant-specific emissions). We assessed whether all 
of the revised emissions were reasonable by comparing the revised 
emissions to other similar emissions sources in the source category. We 
also confirmed that there were no changes to any stack parameters, 
dimensions of fugitive sources, coordinates, or other inputs not 
related to emissions. Using those revised emissions, the EPA reassessed 
risks from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing 
facilities. The revised emissions did not result in any changes to our 
proposed determination that risks caused by emissions from these source 
categories are acceptable, and that the standards provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. The revised maximum acute HQ screening value is 
0.5, based on a REL for arsenic compounds. The two HQ screening values 
that were greater than 1 in the risk assessment performed for the 
proposal (a refined, or off-site, HQ of 4 for formaldehyde and 2 for 
acrolein, both based on a REL) are now both less than 1 (0.3 and 0.08, 
respectively, and again based on a REL). Therefore, no pollutant 
exceeded any acute health benchmark (i.e., REL, AEGL, Emergency 
Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG)) in our screening-level acute 
assessment. More details on the revised risk assessment is available in 
the document, Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and 
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2019 
Risk and Technology Review Final Rule.
    Comment: One commenter submitted a correction to the EPA's risk 
modeling file for the formaldehyde maximum emission rate of four 
asphalt storage tanks (i.e., emission unit IDs T014, T015, T016, and 
T021) at the Owens Corning Medina County Plant, Facility Registry 
Service ID 110000388919. The commenter provided calculations showing 
that the formaldehyde maximum emission rate for each of these four 
storage tanks should be 0.0429 tpy. Similarly, another commenter 
attested that the EPA overestimated risk for formaldehyde emissions 
from these four storage tanks (at Facility 110000388919). Based on the 
facility corrected values, this commenter estimated the revised maximum 
acute HQ to be 0.2. The commenter provided an aerial photo of the 
specific facility and the corresponding acute HQs for formaldehyde at 
HEM-3 polar receptor locations.
    Another commenter argued that EPA's evaluation of potential control 
options for Owen Corning's formaldehyde emissions is flawed. The 
commenter disagreed with EPA's conclusion that ``additional emissions 
controls'' for storage tanks ``are not necessary to provide an ample 
margin of safety.'' The commenter stated that EPA's dismissal of 
formaldehyde controls must be revisited without consideration of costs 
and instead focus on whether these controls are necessary to provide an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health.
    The commenter noted the EPA's acknowledgement of the HQ of 4 but 
challenged the EPA's conclusion that eliminating this risk is a ``small 
risk reduction.'' The commenter stated that it is unclear why the EPA 
thinks cost-per-ton is the proper metric for the EPA's analysis of 
cost, when small amounts of highly toxic pollutants can present a 
significant risk. As an example, the commenter referenced the

[[Page 14534]]

EPA's finding that a moderate amount of emissions of formaldehyde from 
facilities overall contributed to about 48 percent of increased cancer 
incidence. The commenter stated that the EPA fails to consider the 
relevant factors--impact on health, public safety, and the risks 
posed--in favor of a misleadingly high cost-per-ton estimate.
    The commenter further argued that the EPA never explains how the 
current standards manage to both produce an HQ of 4--a threat to the 
health of the exposed public--while also providing an ample margin of 
safety for that same public; the EPA merely concludes that it is so. 
The commenter stated that the EPA cannot validly explain this 
conclusion because the two are irreconcilable, and that the EPA can 
only point to cost, which it is not statutorily allowed to consider.
    The commenter added that, even as-is, it is unclear why the EPA is 
even estimating the cost of control in its analysis, claiming the EPA 
should be able to get actual costs from existing facilities' records, 
or at minimum, an estimate from an actual control supplier rather than 
attempting to cobble its own together. The commenter argued that 
relying on estimates just injects more unnecessary uncertainty into the 
EPA's analysis.
    Response: The EPA reviewed the revised emissions estimates for 
formaldehyde provided during the comment period and determined those 
emissions were valid. The revised formaldehyde emission rates are based 
on corrections discovered during a permit review by Owens Corning of 
four asphalt storage tanks. Previously, the sum of emissions for all 
individual volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the four asphalt 
storage tanks exceeded the maximum potential to emit for THC, which is 
physically impossible and would greatly overestimate risk. Owens 
Corning revised the formaldehyde emission rates based on the emission 
factors listed in Jankousky (2003).\3\ The emission factors in the 
Jankousky study were subsequently peer-reviewed and published in a 
scientific research journal (Trumbore et al., 2005).\4\ Using those 
revised emissions, the EPA reassessed risks from asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities. The revised emissions did not 
cause us to change our proposed determination that risks due to 
emissions from these source categories are acceptable, and that the 
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health 
and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Based on the reassessment 
of risk, the maximum acute HQ screening value for the categories is 
0.5, based on an REL for arsenic compounds. The HQ screening value of 4 
for formaldehyde in the risk assessment performed for the proposal is 
now less than 1 (0.3). Therefore, no pollutant exceeded any acute 
health benchmark (i.e., REL, AEGL, ERPG) in our revised screening-level 
acute assessment. More details on the revised risk assessment is 
available in the document, Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt 
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in 
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Jankousky, Angela Libby. Proposed Emission Factors for 
Criteria Pollutants and Hazardous Air Pollutants from Asphalt 
Roofing Manufacturing. ARMA. May 12, 2003.
    \4\ Trumbore et al. Emission factors for asphalt[hyphen]related 
emissions in roofing manufacturing. October 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the comment about it being unclear why the EPA estimated 
control costs, as described in the proposed rule preamble, published on 
May 2, 2019 (84 FR 18926), under the risk review, the EPA follows a 
two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines whether risks 
are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health information, 
including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit 
on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) \5\ of approximately 
1 in 10 thousand.'' 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989. If risks are 
unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions standards necessary 
to reduce risk to an acceptable level without considering costs. In the 
second step of the approach, the EPA considers whether the emissions 
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health 
``in consideration of all health information, including the number of 
persons at risk levels higher than approximately 1 in 1 million, as 
well as other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts, 
technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each 
particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must promulgate emission standards 
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health. After conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, we 
consider whether a more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, 
taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant 
factors, an adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers 
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is 
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum 
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the proposed rule preamble (84 FR 18926), the EPA 
proposed that risks were acceptable for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt 
Roofing Manufacturing. Therefore, the EPA proceeded to the second step 
(i.e., the ample margin of safety analysis) for these source 
categories. Consistent with the framework described above, in the RTR 
proposal, under this second step, the EPA considered all the health 
information and other factors including costs to determine whether or 
not any revisions to the standards were warranted under CAA section 
112(f)(2). As explained in the proposal preamble and again in this 
preamble, we did not identify any cost-effective controls or other 
measures to reduce risks further. Therefore, we proposed that the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety and additional or 
revised standards are not warranted. Furthermore, as described in other 
sections of this final rule preamble, after considering the public 
comments and revising some of our analyses, we continue to conclude 
that risks are acceptable and that the current NESHAP provides an ample 
margin of safety.
    With regard to the derivation of our cost estimates, we used 
methodologies published in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost 
Manual.\6\ The EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual is widely used by 
the EPA in developing cost estimates for regulatory standards. The cost 
algorithms are considered sufficient for determining economic impacts 
and whether controls are cost effective. The manual's cost algorithms 
were originally developed from vendor information (and in many cases, 
this involves contact with hundreds of vendors and the assimilation of 
large amounts of data) and meant to apply to all situations where the 
control device can be used. The algorithms can also provide site-
specific costs by using site-specific inputs, such as flow rate, 
pollutants being controlled, temperature, etc. Site-specific costs are 
often difficult to obtain directly from facilities and are frequently 
considered proprietary by vendors. We maintain that using the EPA Air 
Pollution Control Cost Manual to estimate costs for regulatory 
standards is appropriate. Although industry average prices for certain 
cost components in our analyses have not been updated to one base year; 
we updated these component costs to 2017 dollars using the Chemical 
Engineering Plant Cost Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Available at: https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA's use of a ``low 
confidence'' Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) reference 
concentration

[[Page 14535]]

(RfC) of 0.02 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m\3\) to assess health 
risk from HCl. Instead, the commenter argued that the 2000 California 
Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Office of Environmental Health 
Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) value of 9 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\) (0.009 mg/m\3\) should be used to assess chronic noncancer risk. 
The commenter explained that the IRIS value was one that IRIS had 
stated it planned to update when additional data became available, but 
that update has not occurred, and that, in such circumstances, the 
EPA's own prioritization policy directs it to use the best available 
science, which would include the CalEPA OEHHA value.
    The commenter stated that, by not using the CalEPA OEHHA value, the 
EPA underestimates the chronic noncancer risk from HCl. Additionally, 
the commenter asserted that the EPA did not attempt to evaluate the 
cancer risk for HCl, and that the EPA has not conducted a ``complete 
evaluation and determination under'' the ``IRIS program for evidence of 
human carcinogenic potential.'' The commenter indicated that the Court 
has held that the EPA must analyze the carcinogenic potential of HCl in 
order to ``base its findings'' of no carcinogenic risk ``on substantial 
evidence,'' Sierra Club v. EPA, 895 F.3d 1, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2018), and 
that, therefore, underestimating HCl emissions impacts the EPA's 
findings of chronic noncancer and cancer risk. The commenter argued 
that ignoring the potential for carcinogenic risk from HCl is 
arbitrary.
    Response: For the CAA section 112(f)(2) risk reviews, we use dose-
response information that has been obtained from various sources and 
prioritized according to (1) conceptual consistency with the EPA risk 
assessment guidelines and (2) level of peer review received. The 
prioritization process is aimed at incorporating into our assessments 
the best available science with respect to dose-response information. 
The recommendations are based on the following sources: (1) The EPA, 
(2) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and (3) 
CalEPA.\7\ In selecting the appropriate chronic noncancer dose-response 
value for HCl for use in the risk assessment, in this case, the 1995 
EPA IRIS RfC, we followed this prioritization approach, and we reviewed 
newer values as part of that process. The 1995 EPA IRIS RfC for HCl of 
0.02 mg/m\3\ was based on the following studies: Sellakumar et al., 
1985 \8\ and Albert et al., 1982.\9\ The ATSDR has not established a 
chronic noncancer dose-response value for HCl. In 2000, CalEPA 
established a chronic REL of 9 [mu]g/m\3\ (9 x 10-3 mg/m\3\) 
\10\ based on Sellakumar et al., 1985. CalEPA did not use newer data 
than the EPA in establishing its chronic REL for HCl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Documentation of this approach is in the EPA report titled 
Risk and Technology (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review 
by the EPA's Science Advisory Board: Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum 
Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing. June 2009. EPA-
452/R-09-006. This approach is also documented in the risk 
assessment technical support document for the RTR NESHAP rulemaking 
(and included in the rulemaking docket).
    \8\ Sellakumar, A.R., C.A. Snyder, J.J. Solomon and R.E. Albert. 
1985. Carcinogenicity for formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride in 
rats. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 81: 401-406.
    \9\ Albert, R.E., A.R. Sellakumar, S. Laskin, M. Kuschner, N. 
Nelson and C.A. Snyder. 1982. Gaseous Formaldehyde and Hydrogen 
Chloride Induction of Nasal Cancer in Rats. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 
68(4): 597-603.
    \10\ Technical Support Document for the Derivation of Non-Cancer 
Reference Exposure Levels: Appendix D.3, pp. 309-312. (https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/appendixd3final.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In assessments completed prior to 2000, the EPA assigned confidence 
ratings (low, medium, high) to the dose-response value (e.g., RfC). The 
ratings assignment was based generally on the extent and robustness of 
the database (e.g., number and types of different toxicity test 
studies, quality of the studies, suitability of the test results for 
use in dose-response assessment). In the process of assessing the 
toxicity of a substance, if enough data from relevant studies and of 
acceptable quality do not exist, the EPA IRIS program does not 
establish a dose-response value. For HCl, the available data were 
judged adequate for establishment of an RfC.\11\ In recognition of 
limitations in the overall database and the principal study, the 
resultant RfC for HCl was given a confidence rating of low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ U.S. EPA. 1995. IRIS Chemical Assessment Summary for 
Hydrogen Chloride. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0396_summary.pdf#nameddest=rfc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA IRIS program has not assigned a carcinogenicity weight of 
evidence classification to HCl. Little research has been conducted on 
the carcinogenicity of HCl. (79 FR 75639.) There are limited studies on 
the carcinogenic potential of HCl in humans. Of these, two occupational 
studies failed to separate potential exposure of HCl from exposure to 
other substances shown to have carcinogenic activity and are, 
therefore, not appropriate to evaluate the carcinogenic potential of 
HCl (Steenland et al., 1988, Beaumont et al., 1986).12 13 
Another occupational study failed to show evidence of association 
between exposure to HCl and lung cancer among chemical manufacturing 
plant employees (Bond et al., 1991).\14\ (80 FR 65488.) Consistent with 
the human data, chronic inhalation studies in animals have reported no 
carcinogenic responses after chronic exposure to HCl (Albert et al., 
1982; Sellakumar et al., 1985).15 16 (80 FR 65488.) Hydrogen 
chloride has not been demonstrated to be genotoxic. The genotoxicity 
literature consists of two studies showing false positive results 
potentially associated with low pH in the test system (Morita et al., 
1992; Cifone et al., 1987).17 18 (80 FR 65488.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Steenland, K., T. Schnorr, J. Beaumont, W. Halperin, T. 
Bloom. 1988. Incidence of laryngeal cancer and exposure to acid 
mists. Br. J. of Ind. Med. 45: 766-776.
    \13\ Beaumont, J.J., J. Leveton, K. Knox, T. Bloom, T. 
McQuiston, M Young, R. Goldsmith, N.K. Steenland, D. Brown, W.E. 
Halperin. 1987. Lung cancer mortality in workers exposed to sulfuric 
acid mist and other acid mists. JNCI. 79: 911-921.
    \14\ Bond G.G., Flores G.H., Stafford B.A., Olsen G.W. Lung 
cancer and hydrogen chloride exposure: results from a nested case-
control study of chemical workers. 1991. J Occup Med; 33(9), 958-61.
    \15\ Albert, R.E., A.R. Sellakumar, S. Laskin, M. Kuschner, N. 
Nelson and C.A. Snyder. 1982. Gaseous formaldehyde and hydrogen 
chloride induction of nasal cancer in rats. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 
68(4): 597-603.
    \16\ Sellakumar, A.R., C.A. Snyder, J.J. Solomon and R.E. 
Albert. 1985. Carcinogenicity for formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride 
in rats. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 81: 401-406.
    \17\ Morita, T., T. Nagaki., I. Fukuda, K. Okumura. 1992. 
Clastogenicity of low pH to various cultured mammalian cells. Mutat. 
Res. 268: 297-305.
    \18\ Cifone, M.A., B. Myhr, A. Eiche, G. Bolcsfoldi. 1987. 
Effect of pH shifts on the mutant frequency at the thymidine kinase 
locus in mouse lymphoma L5178Y TK=/- cells. Mutat. Res. 189: 39-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) also 
classifies agents (chemicals and biologics) as to carcinogenicity. The 
IARC classifies HCl as ``not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to 
humans.'' \19\ Of the more than 1,000 agents classified by IARC, no 
agents are classified as ``probably not carcinogenic (IARC) to 
humans.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ IARC Monographs, Volume 54, https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono54.pdf.
    \20\ IARC Monographs, July 8, 2019 update. https://monographs.iarc.fr/agents-classified-by-the-iarc/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court decision cited by the commenter, Sierra Club v. EPA, 895 
F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2018), addressed the basis for setting a health-based 
emission limit for HCl under section 112(d)(4) of the CAA, and not for 
making a determination about risk acceptability under section 112(f)(2) 
of the CAA.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the residual risk review?
    As noted in the proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2)

[[Page 14536]]

using ``a two-step standard-setting approach, with an analytical first 
step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers all health 
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a 
presumptive limit on maximum individual risk (MIR) of ``approximately 
1-in-10 thousand'' (see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). We weigh all 
health risk measures and factors in the risk acceptability 
determination, including the cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum 
cancer TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer 
risks, the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed 
population, and the risk estimation uncertainties. As described above, 
in the second step, we also consider other factors including costs and 
economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors relevant 
to each particular decision.
    Since proposal, we reanalyzed risk after incorporating new 
emissions data that were received for several emission sources at two 
facilities; however, after revising risk estimates using these new 
emissions data, determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample 
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects have not changed. 
For the reasons explained in the proposed rule and in section IV.A.2 of 
this preamble, we determined that the risks from both source categories 
are acceptable, and the current standards provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental 
effect. Therefore, the EPA is not revising the standards pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f)(2) based on the residual risk review, and the Agency 
is readopting the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2).

B. Technology Review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing Source Categories

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the 
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA proposed to conclude 
that no revisions to the current standards are necessary for asphalt 
loading racks and asphalt storage tanks in the Asphalt Processing 
source category and for coaters, saturators, wet loopers, coating 
mixers, sealant and adhesive applicators, and asphalt storage tanks in 
the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source category. We did not find any 
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that 
could be applied to asphalt loading racks, asphalt storage tanks, 
coating mixers, saturators (including wet loopers), coaters, sealant 
applicators, or adhesive (laminate) applicators and that could be used 
to reduce emissions from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing facilities. The EPA also did not identify any 
developments in work practices, pollution prevention techniques, or 
process changes that could achieve emission reductions from these 
emissions sources.
    Also, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we proposed to conclude 
that no revisions to the current standards are necessary for blowing 
stills in the Asphalt Processing source category. We did not identify 
any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies, nor 
any developments in work practices, pollution prevention techniques, or 
process changes to control organic HAP from blowing stills at asphalt 
processing facilities. However, for owners or operators that use a 
chlorinated catalyst in the blowing still during asphalt processing, we 
identified two potential HCl (an inorganic HAP) emission reduction 
options: (1) Installing a packed bed scrubber at the outlet of the 
blowing still (or at the outlet of the combustion device controlling 
organic HAP emissions); and (2) installing a dry sorbent injection and 
fabric filter at the outlet of the blowing still. In addition, we 
considered whether it might be feasible for facilities that need to use 
a catalyst to only use non-chlorinated substitute catalysts. However, 
we did not identify a viable non-chlorinated catalyst substitute. We 
also note that the average capital costs for option 1 would be about 
$2,480,000 per facility, the average annualized costs would be about 
$500,000 per facility, and the average HCl cost would be about $60,000 
per ton. We also determined that the costs for option 2 would be higher 
than the costs for option 1. Because the estimated risks due to HCl 
emissions are low and based on the relatively high costs per facility 
for each of the options, we proposed to conclude that neither of these 
options is necessary for reducing HCl emissions from blowing stills 
that use chlorinated catalysts.
    In addition, we solicited comment on the relationship between the 
CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review and the CAA section 112(f) 
residual risk review. We solicited comment on whether revisions to the 
NESHAP are ``necessary,'' as the term is used in CAA section 112(d)(6), 
in situations where the EPA has determined that CAA section 112(d) 
standards evaluated pursuant to CAA section 112(f) provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. In other words, we solicited comment on whether 
it is ``necessary'' to revise the standards based on developments in 
technologies, practices, or processes under CAA section 112(d)(6) if 
remaining risks associated with air emissions from a source category 
have already been reduced to levels that provide an ample margin of 
safety under CAA section 112(f). See CAA section 112(d)(6) (``The 
Administrator shall review and revise as necessary (taking into account 
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies), 
emission standards promulgated under [CAA section 112] no less often 
than every 8 years.'').
2. How did the technology review change for the Asphalt Processing and 
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories?
    Although the EPA proposed to conduct a technology review for 
previously unregulated HCl emissions from blowing stills, we are 
withdrawing all aspects of the technology review proposal for HCl from 
blowing stills. Furthermore, we are clarifying that setting initial 
standards for previously unregulated emission points or pollutants is 
not part of the technology review that is required under CAA section 
112(d)(6) (refer to section IV.B.3 of this preamble) and that it would 
be contrary to the provisions and structure of CAA section 112 to 
establish such standards for the first time under CAA section 
112(d)(6). In short, under the CAA, while the EPA has the discretion 
(and authority) to set initial standards for previously unregulated 
emissions at the same time and in the same rulemaking process that it 
conducts a technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6), setting such 
initial standards is not part of the technology review required under 
CAA section 112(d)(6). We are finalizing all remaining aspects of the 
technology review as proposed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA has avoided their 
obligation to ``review and revise, as necessary (taking into account 
developments in practices, processes, and pollution control 
technologies), emission standards promulgated under this section no 
less often than every 8 years'' (CAA section 112(d)(6)), by refusing to 
demonstrate that it has completed an effective technology review and 
has assessed and accounted for developments, which is

[[Page 14537]]

unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter said that the EPA did not comply 
with the CAA section 112(d)(6) requirements in conducting the 
technology review. The commenter explained that the EPA only reviewed 
information it already had or technology it already mandated from three 
sources of information and did not look at state requirements, foreign 
control methods, different methods or brands of controls to see which 
was most effective, efficient, or reliable; requirements likely to 
promote future technological progress; or facility procedures or best 
practices, such as best practices to mitigate malfunctions. The 
commenter added that the EPA should have requested information from 
actual pollution control manufacturers and distributors and provided 
the information for notice and comment.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter that the EPA has failed to 
meet the CAA legal obligation to complete the technology review for the 
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories.
    With respect to the information underlying this review, in June 
2017, the EPA issued an ICR pursuant to CAA section 114, to collect 
information from facilities that are currently considered to be part of 
the Asphalt Processing source category and/or Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing source category. The responses to the CAA section 114 ICR 
reflect air regulations of national, state, and local jurisdictions. 
Companies completed the survey for their facilities and submitted 
responses to the EPA by September 30, 2017. As part of the CAA section 
114 ICR, the EPA requested information about process equipment, control 
technologies, point and fugitive emissions, and other aspects of 
facility operations. Specifically, with regard to the CAA section 
112(d)(6) review, the EPA asked each facility to ``. . . provide an 
operation date and a description of any developments in practices, 
processes, or control technologies that [the facility] implemented 
after the date [the facility] demonstrated initial compliance with 
either Subpart LLLLL or subpart AAAAAAA that resulted in an increase or 
decrease in HAP emissions from the emission unit.'' The responses to 
this question identify requirements likely to promote future 
technological progress, facility procedures, and best practices. 
Furthermore, we asked specific questions about APCDs, other methods of 
control, and compliance methods used by each facility for their blowing 
stills, asphalt loading racks, asphalt storage tanks, coating mixers, 
saturators (including wet loopers), coaters, sealant applicators, 
adhesive (laminate) applicators, and mineral handling and storage 
facilities. The EPA reviewed and compared the data received in response 
to the CAA section 114 ICR to identify developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies that have been implemented by 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities. Based 
on this analysis, facilities did not report developments in practices, 
processes, or control technologies. A summary of this analysis is 
included in Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Review for the Asphalt 
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories Final, 
which is available in the docket for this action.
    We also reviewed the EPA's Reasonable Available Control Technology 
(RACT), Best Available Control Technology (BACT), and Lowest Achievable 
Emission Rate (LAER) Clearinghouse (RBLC),\21\ which is a database that 
contains information on the best emission control technologies that 
have been required by state, local, and territorial air pollution 
control agencies. The search identified three facilities, and none of 
these facilities have more stringent emission control requirements than 
the 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, MACT standards. In addition, we 
conducted site visits to two asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing facilities subject to the NESHAP (and one asphalt roofing 
manufacturing facility not subject to the NESHAP). These site visits 
did not reveal any developments in practices, processes, or control 
technologies. Furthermore, the EPA reviewed the operating permits for 
all the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities 
that were major sources and subject to the NESHAP. These operating 
permits incorporate all relevant local, state, or regional emission 
limitations, as well as Federal limitations. In almost all cases, the 
EPA did not find local, state, or Regional emission limitation that 
could be compared to the emission limitations in the current NESHAP 
(given unit basis and format differences), and, thus, the EPA did not 
identify limits that were more stringent than the limits in the current 
NESHAP,\22\ neither did we find any facility using a control technology 
that was not considered during development of the NESHAP and reflected 
in the current standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ RACT/BACT/LAER apply to criteria pollutants only. However, 
data in the RBLC are not limited to sources subject to RACT, BACT, 
and LAER requirements. Noteworthy prevention and control technology 
decisions and information may be included in the database even if 
they are not related to past RACT, BACT, or LAER decisions.
    \22\ In one case, we identified a less stringent state-only VOC 
control efficiency requirement for an incinerator controlling 
emissions from blowing stills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the EPA is not aware of any advances in emission control 
technology that are being used elsewhere and that are applicable to 
these source categories. We are not aware of any applicable advances in 
emission control technology that are being used in other countries. We 
did not receive any comments from any air pollution control 
manufacturers or from the Institute of Clean Air Companies. No 
commenters provided any data or information on emissions control 
techniques beyond those techniques that we already have considered in 
conducting this technology review. It would not be feasible for the EPA 
to examine different brands of emission controls to see which was most 
effective, efficient, or reliable, as suggested by the commenter. That 
information is not currently available to the EPA, and even if it were, 
it would be difficult, if not impossible, to correlate that information 
with emissions performance and develop practical regulatory 
requirements. Instead, the current MACT floors are based on each type 
of process equipment used at asphalt processing facilities and on 
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines. The majority of data used for the 
MACT floor analysis were obtained from responses to a survey 
distributed by ARMA in 1995. To identify the best performing sources 
and amount of emission reduction, the level of control for each piece 
of process equipment was based on the type of control device installed 
and the operating characteristics of the control device. After the 
initial compliance demonstration, facilities using add-on controls must 
comply with operating limits to ensure the add-on controls continue to 
be properly operated and maintained and achieve the same level of 
performance as during the performance test. Facilities experiencing 
deviations from the emission limits or the operating limits must report 
these deviations to the EPA, and the Agency will then determine on a 
case-by-case basis whether the deviation constitutes a violation. Also, 
because of the diversity of factors that could lead to a malfunction in 
these source categories, it would not be practical for the EPA to 
prescribe the actions that must be taken to reduce the frequency of 
malfunctions or to minimize emissions in the event of a malfunction. 
However, as part of the required deviation record, owners and operators 
must specify the cause of each deviation, which could include a 
malfunction period as a cause (e.g., any

[[Page 14538]]

malfunction that leads to a deviation from an emission limit, operating 
limit, opacity limit, or visible emission limit).
    Comment: One commenter asserted that they had submitted a petition 
for rulemaking to the EPA, urging the EPA to set an emission standard 
for HCl from blowing stills that use chlorinated catalyst and to follow 
CAA section 112(d)(2)-(3) requirements in doing so. The commenter cited 
Petition of Natural Resources Defense Council & Sierra Club to 
Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, at 13 (January 14, 2009). The 
commenter contended that the EPA has provided no formal response to 
that petition for this or any source category and instead used CAA 
section 112(d)(6) rulemakings to add standards for previously 
unregulated HAP emissions sources on a source category-by-category 
basis.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The commenter cited the following rulemakings as examples 
where EPA has added standards for previously unregulated HAP 
emissions sources for certain emission points: Primary Lead NESHAP, 
Final Rule, 76 FR 70834 (November 15, 2011); Petroleum Refineries 
NESHAP, 74 FR 55670 (October 28, 2009); Generic MACT NESHAP, Final 
Rule, 79 FR 60898 (October 8, 2014); Polymers & Resins Group IV; 
Pesticide Active Ingredient Production; Polyether Polyols Prod. 
NESHAP, Final Rule, 79 FR 17340 (March 27, 2014); Polymers & Resins 
I NESHAP, Final Rule, 76 FR 22566, 22569 (April 21, 2011); and Oil 
and Gas NESHAP, 77 FR 49490, 49492, 49530 (August 16, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter claimed that the EPA has failed to satisfy the CAA 
because it has failed to recognize the need to set emission standards 
for currently unrestricted HAP--such as HCl--which is ``necessary'' and 
required by the CAA. The commenter added that, in this rulemaking, the 
EPA must review and follow the CAA and existing caselaw to ensure it 
sets a numerical limit for HCl and every other regulated HAP that 
satisfies CAA section 112(d)(2)-(3) and (d)(6).
    The commenter concluded that the best-performing sources emit no 
HCl and the EPA should have set the floor based on the best-performing 
sources. The commenter noted that HCl emissions from blowing stills 
account for 55 percent of emissions and no facility controls these 
emissions. The commenter pointed out that 37 out of 91 blowing stills 
at asphalt manufacturing plants use chloride-based catalysts, which 
cause HCl emissions. The commenter added that the EPA acknowledged that 
over 12 percent of blowing stills do not use a catalyst that emits HCl. 
This commenter objected to the EPA's decision not to regulate HCl 
emissions and objected to the bases for the EPA's decision, which 
include that: (1) Sources do not use control devices, and (2) 
chlorinated catalysts cannot be prohibited because doing so would 
require all manufacturers to use higher-quality asphalt flux feedstock, 
and higher-quality feedstock is not consistently available to all 
sources. The commenter cited the decision in National Lime Association 
v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, at 634 (D.C. Cir. 2000), stating that the EPA had 
a clear statutory obligation to set emission standards for each listed 
HAP. The commenter added that the EPA's assertions, that changes in 
non-technology factors were not appropriate or viable, cannot justify a 
no-control floor. The commenter added that the EPA has a statutory 
obligation to set emission limits regardless of whether the best-
performing sources in a given category are currently using air 
pollution control technology to limit their emissions. The commenter 
stated that if it fails to set emission limits for each HAP, the EPA 
will fail to complete the review and revision rulemaking as CAA section 
112(d)(6) requires and will violate the Court's order in California 
Communities Against Toxics v. Pruitt, 241 F. Supp. 3d 199 (D.D.C. 
2017).
    The commenter asserted that an HCl standard should have been set 
based on the performance of scrubbers used for other sources, noting 
specifically scrubbers reflected in the control options for the 
Hospital, Medical, and Infectious Waste Incinerators New Source 
Performance Standards. The commenter added that this is a development 
in practices, processes, and control technologies and the EPA has no 
valid basis under CAA section 112(d)(6) for not revising the standards 
to reflect or take this development into account. The commenter added 
that because the EPA has identified spray dryer absorbers as an 
additional type of control for HCl, these controls must be evaluated as 
``developments'' that could strengthen emission reductions of HCl. 
Furthermore, the commenter contended that there are also developments 
in monitoring of acid gases--particularly HCl. The commenter noted that 
the EPA has required monitoring of HCl in multiple national standards 
in recent years, and the EPA should strengthen monitoring in this rule 
due to these demonstrated developments.
    Another commenter argued that because the EPA identified blowing 
still technologies that emit no HCl, a standard for HCl emissions from 
new blowing stills should be established at zero. The commenter stated 
that while the EPA does ``not anticipate any air quality impacts'' from 
these emissions, this does not justify allowing emissions greater than 
the MACT floor.
    Response: CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review and 
revise, as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies), emission standards promulgated 
under this section. We do not agree with the commenter's assertion that 
the EPA must establish new standards for unregulated emission points or 
pollutants as part of a technology review of the existing standards. 
The EPA reads CAA section 112(d)(6) as a limited provision requiring 
the Agency to, at least every 8 years, review the emission standards 
already promulgated in the NESHAP and to revise those standards as 
necessary taking into account developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies. Nothing in CAA section 112(d)(6) directs the 
Agency, as part of or in conjunction with the mandatory 8-year 
technology review, to develop new emission standards to address HAP or 
emission points for which standards were not previously promulgated. As 
shown by the statutory text and the structure of CAA section 112, CAA 
section 112(d)(6) does not impose upon the Agency any obligation to 
promulgate emission standards for previously unregulated emissions.
    When the EPA establishes standards for previously unregulated 
emissions, we would not establish those initial standards pursuant to 
CAA section 112(d)(6) but instead would establish the standards under 
one of the provisions that govern initial standard setting--CAA 
sections 112(d)(2) and (3) or, if the prerequisites are met, CAA 
section 112(d)(4) or CAA section 112(h). Establishing emissions 
standards under these provisions of the CAA involves a different 
analytical approach from reviewing emissions standards under CAA 
section 112(d)(6).
    Though the EPA has discretion (and authority) to develop standards 
under CAA section 112(d)(2) through (4) and CAA section 112(h) for 
previously unregulated pollutants at the same time as the Agency 
completes the CAA section 112(d)(6) review, any such action is not part 
of the CAA section 112(d)(6) review, and there is no obligation to 
undertake such actions at the same time as the CAA section 112(d)(6) 
review. For this rulemaking, we do not have sufficient data to 
establish an emissions standard that reasonably reflects the 
performance of the best sources pursuant to the requirements of CAA 
section 112(d)(2) and (3).\24\ We have data from one

[[Page 14539]]

emission test from a single facility and it would take significant 
time, well beyond the court-ordered deadline for completing this 
rulemaking, to acquire sufficient additional data and other emissions 
information and perform the analyses needed to establish an appropriate 
standard under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). Further, given the court-
ordered deadline of March 13, 2020, we do not have time to collect the 
needed data and information. Therefore, it is impracticable for the EPA 
to establish new standards for previously unregulated emissions as part 
of this rulemaking.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ We also note that, given the currently available 
information, establishing standards for HCl from blowing stills 
under CAA section 112(d)(4) or (h) would not be appropriate.
    \25\ While not related to the technology review, we note that 
related to the residual risk review, we found the risks associated 
with the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source 
categories to be acceptable and that the current NESHAP provides an 
ample margin of safety in the absence of additional CAA section 
112(d)(2) and (3) standards for unregulated pollutants. The HCl 
emissions from blowing stills were included in the residual risk 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter contended that the EPA must evaluate and 
require use of the Digital Camera Opacity Technique (DCOT) as a method 
for assessing and demonstrating compliance with the opacity limits in 
the emission standards. The commenter noted that the Agency has 
required use of the DCOT in the Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese 
Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXX) and supported its use 
because it provides a photographic record of each of the opacity 
readings, allows for third-party evaluation, and provides better 
documentation of fugitive emissions. The commenter added that the EPA 
determined the DCOT is a development in monitoring and will improve the 
facility's, the EPA's, and the state's ability to assure compliance 
with the standards. The commenter stated that the EPA noted that the 
DCOT provides reliable, unbiased opacity readings and required this 
rather than the human eye-based, visual-only smoke assessment protocol 
of EPA Method 9. The commenter concluded that because DCOT is a 
``development'' within the meaning of CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA 
must take it into account and require use of it in this rule. The 
commenter contended that failing to do so would also be unlawful, 
arbitrary, and capricious.
    Response: We are not finalizing a requirement to use DCOT in place 
of EPA Method 9 for this rule. The DCOT system, as required in the 
Ferroalloys rule, uses a handheld American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) D7520-16 compliant camera system, which was only 
available from a single vendor at the time. There are currently no 
vendors supplying the portable ASTM D7520-16 compliant systems. The 
only DCOT systems currently available are customized fixed-location 
camera systems. We conclude that it is inappropriate to require the 
fixed location camera systems for this industry due to the relatively 
high cost associated with emplacing the large number of individual 
camera units that would be needed, one at each emission point for the 
intermittent opacity readings, in addition to the difficulty in 
positioning the fixed location cameras to obtain a suitable background 
and orientation with the sun and plume throughout the day at existing 
source locations. Further, the advantage of the DCOT system, as 
discussed in the preamble of the final Ferroalloys rule, is in having 
better documentation ``. . . in this specific case where fugitive 
emissions are driving the risk . . .'' Fugitive emissions are not the 
driving risk for the NESHAP for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt 
Roofing Manufacturing source categories. Nevertheless, the EPA is not 
precluding ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the 
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, from being used 
to comply with the opacity standards in this rule and, as proposed, has 
included this method with conditions as an acceptable alternative to 
EPA Method 9.
    Comment: One commenter stated the EPA should update its regulations 
regarding asphalt storage tanks to require controls of all storage 
tanks. The commenter added that the EPA acknowledged that currently 428 
out of 540 asphalt storage tanks are controlled using a packed bed 
scrubber or a thermal incinerator. The remaining 112 are uncontrolled 
and vent straight to the atmosphere. The commenter stated that the EPA 
should explain why it is not necessary to extend these control 
requirements to the remainder of the storage tanks.
    Response: Based on information received in response to the CAA 
section 114 ICR, we have determined that there are no uncontrolled 
asphalt storage tanks that are subject to the requirements for Group 2 
storage tanks under the 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, MACT standards. 
To clarify, it is true that, based on the CAA section 114 ICR, the EPA 
initially identified 428 asphalt storage tanks that are fixed roof 
tanks that vent to either a combustion control device or to a PM 
control device and another 112 asphalt storage tanks that are fixed 
roof tanks or horizontal tanks that vent to the atmosphere 
(uncontrolled). However, we also stated in our proposed technology 
review that the 112 uncontrolled asphalt storage tanks are either 
considered Group 2 under the 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, MACT 
standards or operate at an area source of HAP. After additional 
evaluation, we determined that only 11 of the 112 uncontrolled asphalt 
storage tanks that we identified from our CAA section 114 ICR could 
potentially be subject to the requirements for Group 2 storage tanks 
under the 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, MACT standards (because the 
other 101 tanks operate at an area source of HAP and are not subject to 
the 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, MACT standards). Of the 11 
uncontrolled Group 2 asphalt storage tanks, six are reported as shut 
down, and after further investigation using responses from an industry-
wide ICR on petroleum refineries (refer to section II.C of 79 FR 36886 
and 36887), we determined that the remaining five are located at one 
petroleum refinery, have low vapor pressures (e.g., about 3.38E-05 
pounds per square inch), and are subject to either 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart UU, or 40 CFR part 63, subpart Ka, Kb, or CC (and not 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart LLLLL). Finally, we want to clarify that Table 1 to 40 
CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, requires that Group 2 tanks be operated 
such that exhaust gases are limited to 0-percent opacity. Any control 
device or other method that can meet the 0-percent opacity standard for 
storage tanks can be used, and it is possible that some facilities may 
not need a control device to meet the opacity limit.
    Comment: One commenter noted that in the Petroleum Refinery Sector 
final rule at 80 FR 75178, 75193, and 75194 (December 1, 2015), the EPA 
recognized as a ``development'' the availability of fenceline 
monitoring technology and methods and, therefore, required all 
facilities to implement these tools. The commenter added that the use 
of fenceline monitoring, such as the passive samplers or absorbent 
tubes that the EPA required using EPA Methods 325A and 325B, reflects 
an up-to-date method to evaluate leaks of HAP. The commenter noted that 
although in the Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule the EPA chose the 
chemical benzene as the analyte, the tools the EPA required for 
refineries can monitor for other pollutants as well. The commenter 
added that since 2015, there have been even further ``developments'' in 
fenceline monitoring, and local and state jurisdictions have required 
implementation of real-time fenceline monitoring, using various types 
of technology selected by the facility from approved methods and 
presented for

[[Page 14540]]

public notice and comment. The commenter concluded that the EPA would 
violate CAA section 112(d)(6) by failing to consider and account for 
the ``developments'' in fenceline monitoring, and pollution controls 
here--particularly where data show significant health risks from 
emitted pollutants.
    Response: We are not finalizing any requirements for fenceline 
monitoring in the final rule. The passive samplers and adsorbent tubes 
of EPA Methods 325A and 325B are a method of evaluating potential 
fugitive and area source emissions of VOC and are not suitable for all 
HAP. Fenceline monitoring, as discussed in the preamble to the proposed 
Petroleum Refinery rule (79 FR 36920), may identify significant 
increases in emissions, but small increases in emissions are unlikely 
to impact the fenceline concentrations. The four refineries subject to 
the 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, MACT standards are also subject to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, and currently have fenceline monitoring in 
place under that rule. The potential for fugitive volatile organic HAP 
emissions at the remaining four subject facilities not collocated at a 
refinery is vastly lower as a result of the reduced amount of piping 
and the reduced storage of volatile organic materials. The EPA 
disagrees with the commenter that the data show significant health 
risks from emitted pollutants. As noted in the Residual Risk Assessment 
for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source 
Categories in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Final 
Rule, the maximum cancer risk from category emissions is less than 1-
in-1 million, and the maximum whole facility cancer risk is 9-in-1 
million, driven by non-category refinery emissions, at a facility which 
already has fenceline monitoring due to the Petroleum Refinery rule.
    Comment: We received two comments in response to our request for 
comments on the relationship between the technology review conducted 
under CAA section 112(d)(6) and the residual risk analysis under CAA 
section 112(f)(2) and whether it is necessary for the EPA to amend 
rules based on CAA section 112(d) to reflect the results of the CAA 
section 112(d)(6) technology review if the results of the residual risk 
analysis under CAA section 112(f)(2) show that the current rule 
provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent 
an adverse environmental effect. One commenter argued that the EPA must 
complete the technology review and propose standards based on the 
findings of that review, regardless of the results of the residual risk 
analysis. Another commenter argued technology reviews need not consider 
whether to reduce emission limits in response to developments in 
emission control technologies as long as the health-based ample margin 
of safety determination remains unchanged. For a more thorough summary 
of these comments, refer to the comment summary and response document, 
Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Risk and Technology Review 
for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing, which is 
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    Response: The EPA is not taking final action on the proposed 
interpretation that the EPA take into account in the CAA section 
112(d)(6) technology review the results of a residual risk analysis 
under CAA section 112(f)(2). Instead, the EPA is finalizing our 
determination that no revision to the NESHAP is necessary pursuant to 
CAA section 112(d)(6) based on our consideration of developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies, as explained above. 
Because we are not relying on the potential interpretation that was 
discussed in the proposal preamble in our final action, we are not 
addressing the comments we received regarding the relationship between 
the technology review conducted under CAA section 112(d)(6) and the 
residual risk review conducted under CAA section 112(f)(2).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    The EPA is not finalizing the technology review as proposed with 
regard to HCl emissions standards for blowing stills. As discussed in 
section IV.B of this preamble, we determined that it is not appropriate 
to establish new standards for previously unregulated sources or 
pollutants under the technology review. Pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6), we are finalizing all required aspects of the technology 
review as proposed. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we 
determined that there are no developments in practices, processes, or 
control technologies that warrant revisions to the standards. We 
evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's technology review and we 
determined no changes to the review are needed. More information 
concerning our technology review is in the memorandum titled Clean Air 
Act Section 112(d)(6) Review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt 
Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories Final, in the docket for this 
action, and in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 18939).

C. Amendments Addressing Emissions During Periods of SSM

1. What amendments did we propose to address emissions during periods 
of SSM?
    We proposed removing and revising provisions related to SSM that 
are not consistent with the requirement that standards apply at all 
times. More information concerning our proposal on SSM can be found in 
the proposed rule (84 FR 18939).
2. How did the SSM provisions change since proposal?
    Since proposal, the SSM provisions have not changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM revisions and what are 
our responses?
    Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA's claims that they 
have discretion to set standards for malfunctions ``where feasible.'' 
The commenter contended that the CAA denies the EPA authority to set 
malfunction-based standards or exemptions; and cited CAA section 
112(d), (h), and CAA section 302(k). The commenter also cited a 
reconsideration petition for the Refinery Sector Rule, where 
malfunction standards were developed, that the Court held in abeyance.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that it lacks the authority to set 
standards for malfunctions where feasible but notes that the EPA did 
not propose separate standards for periods of malfunction. The EPA's 
approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a 
reasonable interpretation of the statute. At proposal, we explained our 
interpretation of CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur 
during periods of malfunction to be factored into the development of 
CAA section 112 standards, and noted that this reading has been upheld 
as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 
606-10 (2016). (84 FR 18946.)
    The EPA further explained that ``[a]lthough no statutory language 
compels the EPA to set standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the 
discretion to do so where feasible.'' (84 FR 18946). We explained that, 
``[t]he EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting work 
practice standards for a particular type of malfunction and, if so, 
whether the EPA has sufficient information to

[[Page 14541]]

identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard 
for such malfunctions'' (84 FR 18946).
    The EPA is not finalizing separate standards for periods of 
malfunction. As explained at proposal, in the unlikely event that a 
source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards 
as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an 
appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith 
efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, 
including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause 
analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also 
consider whether the source's failure to comply with the CAA section 
112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 
preventable, and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or 
careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). If the EPA 
determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a 
source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the source 
can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the 
Federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is 
appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. 
Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can 
consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative 
penalties are appropriate (84 FR 18946).
    Comment: One commenter objected to the incorporation of 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(ii) because it removes the requirement for a source to 
correct a malfunction within a specified time period. The commenter 
stated that the incorporation of this provision into the rule can 
result in increased emissions; and it is unlikely that this potential 
increase in emissions was accounted for in the risk assessment 
conducted by the EPA. The commenter recommended the provision not be 
incorporated into the final rule, and instead sources should be 
required to initiate corrective action as soon as practicable but no 
later than 72 hours from the start of the malfunction.
    Response: The final rule does not incorporate 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) 
and (ii) as they are no longer applicable. The EPA is finalizing as 
proposed 40 CFR 63.8685(b), which incorporates the general duty to 
minimize emissions at all times. The finalized regulatory language at 
40 CFR 63.8685(b) characterizes what the general duty entails during 
periods of SSM. Since the EPA is eliminating the SSM exemption and the 
standards are applicable at all times, there is no need to distinguish 
among normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events 
in describing the general duty.
    Comment: One commenter said that because this rulemaking is being 
conducted on a shorter-than-normal timetable due to judicial deadlines, 
they did not have sufficient time to adequately study the proposed 
revisions to SSM requirements and are unable to respond to the EPA's 
request for recommendations on possible approaches. The commenter 
asserted that different emission standards should be adopted to reflect 
the realities of different operating conditions and reserves the right 
to propose such standards at a later date. The commenter stated that 
despite the EPA's interpretation of the Sierra Club v. EPA Court 
ruling, it is an unsupportable position to require emissions sources 
undergoing a condition of startup, shutdown or malfunction to comply 
with an emission standard developed to reflect normal operations. The 
commenter said that even to the extent that an acceptable work practice 
standard can be developed for startup and shutdown emissions, the use 
of ``enforcement discretion'' during periods of malfunction (when 
emissions cannot be readily controlled) fails to qualify as an 
attainable regulatory standard.
    The commenter also stated that if the EPA decides to finalize its 
proposal to eliminate the SSM exemptions, then they support the EPA's 
proposed revisions to Table 7 addressing the General Provision 
requirement to develop an SSM Plan and related provisions. The 
commenter also agrees with the EPA's proposed revisions to eliminate 
requirements that are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant 
consistent with the elimination of SSM provisions.
    Response: The final rule text at 40 CFR 63.8685(b) sets forth the 
general duty to minimize emissions, and states that, ``[a]t all times, 
you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated 
air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner 
consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for 
minimizing emissions.'' The regulatory text further explains that 
``[t]he general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make 
any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the 
applicable standard have been achieved.'' Id.
    As explained at proposal and as discussed earlier in this preamble 
(in response to another comment we received), in the unlikely event 
that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) 
standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine 
an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith 
efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, 
including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause 
analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also 
consider whether the source's failure to comply with the CAA section 
112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 
preventable, and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or 
careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). If the EPA 
determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a 
source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the source 
can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the 
Federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is 
appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. 
Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can 
consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative 
penalties are appropriate. In summary, the EPA's interpretation of the 
CAA and, in particular, CAA section 112, is reasonable and encourages 
practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial 
procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize 
that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can 
accommodate those situations. U.S. Sugar Corporation v. EPA, 830 F.3d 
579, 606-610 (2016) (84 FR 18946).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions to 
SSM-related Requirements?
    We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments 
to the SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule 
(84 FR 18939), we determined that these amendments remove and revise 
provisions related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement 
that the standards apply at all times. Therefore, we are finalizing the 
amendments to remove and revise provisions related to SSM, as proposed.

D. Technical Amendments to the MACT Standards

1. What other amendments did we propose for the Asphalt Processing and 
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories?
    We proposed to add an option at 40 CFR 63.8689(d) and Table 2 to 
subpart LLLLL of part 63 to allow the use of

[[Page 14542]]

manufacturers' specifications to establish the maximum pressure drop 
across the control device used to comply with the PM standards. We also 
proposed to add a footnote to Table 2 to subpart LLLLL of part 63, the 
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP, to allow 
owners and operators to use the performance test average inlet 
temperature and apply an operating margin of +20 percent to determine 
maximum inlet gas temperature of a control device used to comply with 
the PM standards. Furthermore, we proposed a requirement at 40 CFR 
63.8691(e) that periodic performance tests be conducted at least once 
every 5 years for each APCD used to comply with the PM, THC, opacity, 
or visible emission standards.
    We also proposed that owners and operators submit electronic copies 
of required performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, 
compliance reports, and NOCS reports through the EPA's CDX using the 
CEDRI, and we proposed two broad circumstances in which we may provide 
an extension to these requirements. We proposed at 40 CFR 63.8693(h) 
that an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or 
CEDRI that precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and 
submitting required reports. We also proposed at 40 CFR 63.8639(i) that 
an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, such as an 
act of nature, act of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety 
hazards beyond the control of the facility.
    Finally, we proposed numerous provisions clarifying text or 
correcting typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-
reference errors. These editorial corrections and clarifications are 
summarized in Table 4 of the proposal. See 54 FR 18951 and 18952.
2. How did the other amendments for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt 
Roofing Manufacturing source categories change since proposal?
    Instead of using manufacturers' specifications or a performance 
test to establish a maximum pressure drop across the control device 
used to comply with the PM standards as proposed, we are finalizing a 
requirement that requires owners and operators to establish a pressure 
drop range (i.e., a minimum and a maximum pressure drop) across the PM 
control device with the option to either use manufacturers' 
specifications or a performance test to establish the range. Also, 
although we are finalizing the proposed requirement that allows owners 
and operators to apply an operating margin of +20 percent to the 
performance test average inlet temperature to determine maximum inlet 
gas temperature of a control device used to comply with the PM 
standards, in the final rule, we are clarifying the operating margin 
applies to temperatures expressed in units of degrees Celsius or 
degrees Fahrenheit. Furthermore, in the final rule amendments, we have 
added language to the periodic performance testing requirements to 
allow facilities to synchronize their periodic performance testing 
schedule with a previously conducted emission test. Since proposal, the 
electronic reporting requirements and the technical and editorial 
corrections in Table 4 of the proposal (see 54 FR 18951 and 18952) have 
not changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the other amendments for the 
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories, 
and what are our responses?
    Comment: One commenter argued that the proposed amendment to 40 CFR 
63.8689(d) establishing maximum pressure drop as an operating limit for 
particulate control devices is not a reliable indicator of continued 
compliance because holes or other defects in the filter bags will 
result in decreased pressure drop and an increase in emissions.
    Response: The EPA agrees that the maximum pressure drop is 
insufficient in itself to demonstrate ongoing compliance, as 
malfunctions such as holes, leaks, and even bypass of the control 
device would not be indicated by an exceedance of the pressure drop 
maximum. The inclusion of pressure drop minimum, creating an operating 
range for the pressure drop, provides a more complete indication of 
filter bank performance. Therefore, to better assure proper operation 
of the particulate control device, we are requiring in the final rule 
at item 3 of Table 2 and item 3 of Table 5 that the operating criteria 
for each particulate control device include both a maximum and minimum 
pressure drop operating limit as opposed to solely a maximum pressure 
drop operating limit. The addition of a minimum limitation to the 
operating range of the PM control device mirrors the approach in the 
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing area source 
NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAAAA, and provides an indication of 
breakthrough or bypass of the control device, as a drop in the 
differential pressure below that established by the manufacturer's 
specification would indicate that potentially either the control device 
has been inadvertently bypassed (leaking around the filter) or possible 
tearing or distortion of the filter has occurred. As discussed later in 
this preamble (in response to another comment we received), we are also 
clarifying in the final rule at item 12 of Table 3 procedures for 
establishing the maximum and minimum pressure drop operating limits.
    Comment: Two commenters argued that the proposed amendment to 40 
CFR 63.8689(d) allowing the use of manufacturers' recommendations to 
establish operating limits for particulate control devices is not a 
reliable indicator of continued compliance.
    One commenter said that control system vendors may incorporate 
components from various manufacturers in their systems and the 
manufacturers may be unaware of the configuration. The commenter also 
said that control systems may also be reconfigured from time to time to 
reflect changes in the manufacturing process or the raw materials used, 
and manufacturers are unable to predict these changes. Similarly, 
another commenter asserted that the revisions change the limit from a 
demonstrated point to an assumed point of compliance. The commenter 
stated that manufacturer specifications may show where a control device 
should operate within compliance but are not sufficient to show whether 
a device is operating within compliance.
    One commenter contended that the change was proposed in response to 
industry's claim that tests to capture the maximum pressure drop and 
gas temperature are difficult due to their dependence on ambient 
temperature and operating life of the filter. The commenter added that 
the EPA previously acceded to industry requests for pressure limits but 
concluded that temperature was too important in evaluating emissions, 
because emissions are temperature dependent. The commenter added that 
the EPA made the change based on cost and cited the EPA's cost 
memorandum, which reports that the switch will save industry nearly 
half a million dollars, primarily by avoiding having to change out its 
filters as often. The commenter concluded that industry asked the EPA 
to save it some money by loosening its standards, and the EPA complied.
    A commenter said that the EPA neither cites any authority, nor 
supplies a reasoned explanation to demonstrate how this change 
satisfies the CAA. The commenter added that the EPA may not change the 
standards without demonstrating how the revised standard

[[Page 14543]]

satisfies CAA section 112(d)(2) through (3) and the EPA has no 
authority to weaken the existing standard under CAA section 112(d)(6) 
or otherwise. The commenter concluded that the EPA may not use cost to 
set or weaken floor standards under CAA section 112(d)(3) or to weaken 
standards below the ``maximum achievable degree of emission reduction'' 
under CAA section 112(d)(2).
    A commenter alleged that the EPA failed to provide the emission and 
health impacts of the revisions or the scientific or engineering basis 
for the decision. The commenter added that the EPA did not explain how 
or whether it validated industry claims that actually running tests 
created difficulties due to scheduling, whether this change risks an 
increase in malfunctions or emissions, the impact on the effectiveness 
of filters when not switching them more frequently, and why 
manufacturer specifications are sufficient to fit facilities that may 
vary in their ambient conditions, in their equipment, and in their 
production. The commenter added that by not providing these analyses, 
the EPA has deprived the public of the opportunity to file meaningful 
comments on the change, which is a violation of notice-and-comment 
rulemaking.
    Response: The EPA agrees that for some control technologies, 
manufacturers' specifications may not be sufficient to determine 
operating limits; however, manufacturers' specifications in conjunction 
with the periodic performance tests are sufficient to demonstrate 
compliance for the operation of filter banks such as those used in this 
source category (where the replaceable parts are limited to the filters 
themselves and the induced draft fan). Specifically, the EPA disagrees 
that the use of manufacturers' specifications for the maximum pressure 
drop is not a reliable indicator of filter bank performance at the 
upper end of filter bank pressure drop. The EPA further disagrees that 
the use of manufacturers' specifications in setting the maximum 
pressure drop is a loosening of the standard. The efficiency of a 
filter bank increases as the pressure drop increases through use 
because the deposition of material on the filter forms a layer of dust 
that decreases the effective pore size and increases capture 
efficiency. The purpose of a maximum pressure drop as a regulatory 
limit in the case of a filter bank is to prevent overloading of the 
filter, which may eventually cause breakthrough or result in structural 
damage to the filter or a possible bypass of the control device. The 
use of manufacturers' specifications as an option for setting the 
operating range allows for a facility to remain in compliance with the 
operating limits when the filter is replaced, because that is the 
moment at which the pressure drop of a properly functioning filter bank 
is the lowest. As stated in our proposal, allowing use of 
manufacturers' specifications to establish operating limits provides 
flexibility and alleviates the need for a facility to have to retest 
the PM control device to reestablish new operating limits due to the 
inability of a source to ``dial in'' the differential pressure of their 
control device for a particular performance test as the differential 
pressure increases over time as a result of particulate deposition. 
Finally, as discussed previously in this preamble (in response to 
another comment), we are requiring in the final rule at item 3 of Table 
2 and item 3 of Table 5 that the operating criteria for each 
particulate control device include both a maximum and minimum pressure 
drop as opposed to solely a maximum pressure drop operating limit. 
Therefore, in consideration of this comment and in order to provide 
additional flexibility, we are clarifying in the final rule at 40 CFR 
63.8689(d) that facilities may either use the manufacturers' 
specifications or a performance test to set each operating limit. For 
example, facilities may choose to establish the minimum pressure drop 
operating limit using the manufacturer's specifications and choose to 
establish the maximum pressure drop operating limit using a performance 
test. In this example, the facility could use the performance test to 
demonstrate that it can still meet the emission limit beyond the 
maximum pressure drop recommended by the manufacturer's specifications.
    Comment: One commenter supported allowing facilities a 20-percent 
margin of compliance on the average inlet temperature of a PM control 
device other than a thermal oxidizer. The commenter stated that it is 
typically necessary to schedule tests at least 1 to 2 months in advance 
to assure the availability of stack testing contractors. The commenter 
also agreed with the EPA that it is impractical to schedule testing at 
times of the year when maximum temperatures will occur because ambient 
temperatures cannot be precisely predicted in advance. The commenter 
stated that they appreciate that the EPA recognizes the variations in 
operating conditions that facilities may routinely experience 
consistent with the proper operation of such control devices within the 
manufacturer's specifications. However, the commenter suggested that 
the EPA clarify this 20-percent allowance applies to temperatures 
expressed in units of degrees Fahrenheit because the application of a 
20-percent margin to temperature expressed in other units of measure 
would not result in the same temperature.
    On the contrary, two other commenters opposed allowing facilities a 
20-percent margin of compliance on the average inlet temperature of a 
PM control device other than a thermal oxidizer.
    One commenter disagreed with the EPA's claims that the change 
addresses the high impact of ambient conditions on the inlet 
temperature and removes some of the scheduling uncertainty while still 
accounting for the temperature dependence of emissions. The commenter 
contended that the difficulty industry faces is in trying to capture 
the maximum gas inlet temperature at which they can achieve compliance, 
which is the maximum point at which that facility can show it can 
operate while being in compliance. The commenter contended that the 20-
percent extra allowance for temperature is a malfunction buffer and the 
EPA is statutorily barred from creating a malfunction exemption, and 
they cited Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2008) 
(citing CAA sections 112 and 302(k)).
    Additionally, the commenter contended that the EPA did not include 
an analysis that explains why it chose to add the 20-percent margin for 
temperature limits, the impact that this will have, and why this change 
to its prior standards is justified by the best available science. The 
commenter asserted that the EPA needs to also cite its authority for 
the proposed change, demonstrate how its proposal stays within the 
bounds of that authority, and explain and show its work, so that the 
public can evaluate and comment on it. Similarly, another commenter 
said the 20-percent extra allowance for temperature is unsupported by 
any data.
    A commenter stated that where condensable PM, including high 
boiling point asphalt components, is present, control efficiency is 
affected by the vapor pressure of the components, and emissions will 
increase at higher temperatures. The commenter suggested that 
facilities that are unable to maintain the operating limits established 
during a successful performance test conducted in the winter should be 
required to conduct an additional performance test in the summer to 
establish a seasonal operating limit. Further, the commenter said that 
there is no rationale to allow a 20-percent margin for facilities that

[[Page 14544]]

have conducted their performance tests in the summer. Additionally, the 
commenter pointed out that it is unclear whether the risk assessment 
included these potentially increased emissions (of condensable PM due 
to higher control device operating temperatures) and called attention 
to the statement in the preamble (84 FR 18952) that no air quality 
impacts are anticipated. The commenter said this statement in the 
preamble incorrectly ignores the increased emissions due to higher 
control device operating temperatures that would be allowed in the 
proposed amendments.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assessment that 
the proposed 20-percent extra allowance on the inlet gas temperature 
limit of the PM control device is a malfunction buffer. Malfunction is 
defined in 40 CFR 63.2 as ``any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably 
preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 
process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner 
which causes, or has the potential to cause, the emission limitations 
in an applicable standard to be exceeded.'' The potential temperature 
exceedance being addressed by this provision is not a failure to 
operate in a normal or usual manner, but a normal variation of inlet 
temperature in accordance with natural temperature variation. The 
temperature at the inlet to these PM control devices is highly 
dependent on the ``sweep'' air from the process area, a non-temperature 
controlled environment. The inlet temperature, thus, swings over the 
course of a day and through the seasons based upon the ambient 
temperature. Facilities are not equipped to modulate the inlet 
temperature. The issue facilities face is not one of testing in the 
winter and, thus, being out of compliance in the summer, as there is no 
lower temperature limit being set and facilities are not testing in the 
winter, but of trying to accurately predict the hottest day of the next 
5 summer weeks in advance to be sure that the temperature at the inlet 
is at its peak during the test event. An 85 degrees Fahrenheit day 
instead of an anticipated 95 degrees Fahrenheit day is sufficient to 
cause potential issues in the setting of maximum temperature 
limitations, as facilities do not have a mechanism for controlling the 
inlet temperature. The EPA has used operating margins in the setting of 
control device operating parameter limits for certain other rules such 
as 40 CFR part 63, subparts AA and BB, NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid 
Manufacturing Plants and Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants, 
respectively, where the daily average differential pressure across an 
absorber and the flow rate of the liquid to each absorber or the 
secondary voltage for a wet electrostatic precipitator is 20 percent of the baseline average; 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, 
NESHAP for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry, where the 
temperature of the inline kiln/raw mill during startup/shutdown may 
exceed the temperature limit by 10 percent; and 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
RRR, NESHAP for Secondary Aluminum Production, where the flow rate of 
the capture/collection system indicators is maintained at greater than 
90 percent of the flow rate measured during the performance test.
    The EPA anticipates no increases in emissions as a result of the 
change in the mechanism of determining the maximum allowable inlet 
temperature. As discussed above, facilities have no control over the 
inlet temperature; the temperature of the sweep air to a large extent 
defines the inlet temperature. Facilities will not be increasing the 
inlet operating temperature as a result of this change but will be 
better able to schedule their periodic performance test as a result. 
Facilities will likely continue to aim to perform their performance 
tests at the highest temperature possible in order to best insulate 
themselves from potentially exceeding their maximum temperature limit 
as a result of higher ambient temperatures. The inclusion of the 
periodic performance test will also help ensure that emissions are 
maintained below the emission limit through the recurring measurement 
of actual emissions.
    The EPA agrees that a clarification of which temperature scale the 
temperature is to be determined is necessary because the application of 
a 20-percent margin to temperature expressed in units other than 
degrees Celsius or degrees Fahrenheit would result in too large of an 
operating limit window (e.g., although 305 Kelvin is equal to about 90 
degrees Fahrenheit, 20 percent of 305 Kelvin is very different from 20 
percent of 90 degrees Fahrenheit). Therefore, the EPA is specifying in 
the final rule at item 12 of Table 3 that the temperature must be 
measured in units of degrees Celsius or degrees Fahrenheit. We 
acknowledge that the use of Celsius will result in a slightly more 
conservative temperature range (6.4 degrees Fahrenheit less when 
compared to the corresponding Fahrenheit range), but want to ensure the 
flexibility of either temperature scale for facilities.
    Comment: One commenter pointed out that Table 3 to the proposed 
rule does not specify a required frequency for the EPA Method 22 
visible emissions test. The commenter suggested EPA Method 22 should be 
conducted daily because it serves to ensure continued satisfactory 
performance of the emissions capture system. The commenter said that 
defects in the capture system and duct work leading to a control device 
should not be allowed to persist for 5 years before initiating 
corrective action.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the frequency 
for EPA Method 22 evaluations is not specified in the rule. Table 3 to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, presents the Requirements for 
Performance Tests; the frequency of these tests, after the initial 
Performance Test, is set in 40 CFR 63.8691(e). The EPA is clarifying 
that the visible emissions and opacity tests are included in the 
periodic performance tests by removing the phrase ``during the initial 
compliance period described in 63.8686'' from the appropriate rows in 
Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL (Initial and Continuous 
Compliance With Emissions Limitations), dealing with opacity and 
visible emissions measurements. The inclusion of the EPA Method 22 
visible emissions measurement during the performance test documents 
that, during the performance test, the emissions capture system was 
operating correctly and that emissions directed to the control device 
are maximized. The addition of a daily EPA Method 22 evaluation is not 
necessary. The requirement to limit visible emissions from the capture 
system is applicable at all times, and the continuing operation of the 
emissions capture system outside of the performance test is governed by 
the general duty to operate and maintain any affected source including 
the air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with safety 
and good air pollution control practices.
    Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's proposal to require 
performance testing within 3 years of publication and every 5 years 
thereafter, to ensure compliance. Another commenter said the 
requirement to perform testing once every 5 years is redundant with 
existing requirements. The commenter contended that facilities subject 
to the current NESHAP are subject to title V permitting, and many title 
V permits now require re-testing once every 5 years consistent with the 
title V renewal cycle.
    Response: The EPA is finalizing the requirement that the 
performance tests must be conducted at least once every

[[Page 14545]]

5 years, as proposed; however, we are adding language to the final rule 
text at 40 CFR 63.8691(e)(1) to clarify that facilities are allowed to 
synchronize their periodic performance testing schedule with a 
previously conducted emission test, such as a test associated with 
title V permit renewal, provided the facility can demonstrate to the 
Administrator's satisfaction that the testing meets the requirements of 
40 CFR 63.8686(b).
    Comment: One commenter suggested that if the EPA will not 
reconsider the regulation requiring periodic testing every 5 years, 
then the EPA should propose an approach that allows testing to be 
curtailed after a facility demonstrates repeated compliance in 
successive testing events.
    Response: The EPA is not revising the proposed rule to incorporate 
a reduction in testing frequency greater than 5 years. The EPA has, in 
some other rules, included a provision that allows for a reduction in 
the frequency of testing from annual to a 3 or 5-year period after 
multiple demonstrations of compliance. The 5-year interval for testing 
in this rule between performance tests would require at least 15 years 
to demonstrate a trend. Due to the timeframe of recurrent testing (once 
every 5 years) being promulgated in this rule, the EPA concludes that 
allowance for a reduced testing frequency is not warranted.
    Comment: One commenter declared that the requirement for periodic 
testing is overly broad and fails to acknowledge both the costs 
incurred (direct and indirect) and whether additional testing would 
result in any environmental benefit. The commenter said the proposed 
rule would require performance testing of each control device used to 
comply with NESHAP standards for PM, THC, opacity, or visible emissions 
but argued that NESHAP regulations typically require testing only for 
the control devices on larger sources, not all control devices. The 
commenter recommended that for smaller control devices, opacity 
controls (e.g., mist eliminators), and flares, it should be adequate to 
operate and maintain each control device as recommended by the 
manufacturer. The commenter pointed out that petroleum refineries are 
not required to do any periodic testing for flares subject to the 
Petroleum Refineries NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC). The commenter 
said that by focusing on only the largest emission sources, there is a 
clear environmental benefit from the testing, much less disruption to 
operations, and much less cost incurred by the operator. To the extent 
the EPA requires some periodic testing, the commenter recommended that 
the testing requirement exclude opacity and visible emission control 
devices, the testing requirement exclude flares, and the periodic 
testing should focus only on the largest emitting source, where risk is 
determined to be higher or above some specified threshold.
    Response: The EPA is finalizing the testing requirements as 
proposed. The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the 
NESHAP regulations typically require testing only for larger emissions 
sources. The periodic performance test on all sources (small and large) 
provides a demonstration that the control devices associated with these 
sources are continuing to operate as designed. The operation of mist 
eliminators is not merely to control opacity, but also to control 
emissions of the PM and organic compounds which cause the opacity. The 
visible emissions tests of the emissions capture system are integral to 
determining if the overall capture and control system are operating as 
designed. The commenter indicates that the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP 
(40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) does not have periodic testing for flares; 
however, the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP includes robust continuous 
monitoring requirements associated with flares that are not present in 
the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart LLLLL).
    Comment: One commenter argued that the net cost benefit that the 
EPA presents in its justification for added performance testing 
requirements is significantly overstated and may become a net burden. 
The commenter suggested the EPA develop more accurate estimates of 
testing costs to provide a more realistic estimate of the cost impact 
for the subject facilities. The commenter stated the EPA's cost 
estimate for performance testing assumes that each source to be tested 
has an existing emissions point that can actually be sampled, but this 
may not always be the case, and the costs of adding a stack, sampling 
ports, and/or sample platforms and ladders should be included. 
Additionally, the commenter said the EPA's performance test cost 
estimates for thermal oxidizers treating vent gas from blowing stills 
are too low. The commenter argued that the EPA underestimated the 
number of thermal oxidizer/blowing still tests required, and a test on 
a thermal oxidizer treating vent gas from one or more blowing stills 
typically requires testing over 3 separate workdays because only one 
test run can be completed in a typical workday. The commenter stated 
that blowing stills operate using a batch process that takes up to 6 
hours, and to assure the test measurements are representative of the 
batch cycle, testing is performed for the duration of a batch. The 
commenter said the cost for testing one thermal oxidizer associated 
with one or more blowing stills, with each test run covering an entire 
batch cycle of up to 6 hours, is $44,000. Using this value, the 
commenter estimated total testing costs to be $172,600 from an asphalt 
roofing facility that has five reactors controlled by two different 
thermal oxidizers which discharge to separate stacks. The commenter 
applied the increased blowing still/thermal oxidizer costs to the 
number of tests required for the four facilities that do not already 
have 5-year testing requirements under their respective state title V 
programs, and showed that the nationwide cost impact is $309,100 rather 
than the EPA's estimate of $138,800. The commenter said their cost 
estimate was more than double the estimate the EPA provided in Appendix 
A of the Cost Impacts memorandum. The commenter said their cost 
estimate is greater than the EPA's estimated cost savings of $221,100 
from proposed changes in monitoring requirements, resulting in a net 
cost burden rather than net cost benefit.
    Response: The EPA agrees that further review of the costs is 
warranted and based on this review, we have revised our proposed cost 
impacts analysis. All sources required to be tested have existing 
initial performance testing requirements and so have already been 
tested at least once. Therefore, the additional costs for adding a 
stack, sampling ports, and/or sample platforms and ladders have not 
been added to the burden of this rule because we have assumed these 
items already exist (due to the existing initial performance testing 
requirements). However, the EPA agrees that, based on the longer run 
time duration for the blowing stills, the initial cost estimates for 
these tests was low. Therefore, we revised our cost impacts analysis to 
reflect the commenter's recommended higher blowing still/thermal 
oxidizer testing costs (i.e., $44,000). We also revised the number of 
thermal oxidizer/blowing still tests required for one facility. Our 
revised analysis (even after considering the information provided by 
this commenter) still results in a net cost savings rather than a net 
cost burden as suggested by the commenter. We estimate that the final 
amendments will result in a nationwide net cost savings of $132,000 
(2017$) over the 5-year period following promulgation of the 
amendments. For further information on

[[Page 14546]]

the costs and cost savings associated with the final amendments, see 
the memoranda, Cost Impacts of Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing Risk and Technology Review Final and Economic Impact 
Analysis for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 
NESHAP RTR Final, which are available in the docket for this action.
    4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions 
for the other amendments for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing source categories?
    We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments 
for this subpart including the proposed technical and editorial 
corrections. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule (84 FR 
18939), and in sections III.D and IV.D.3 of this preamble, we are 
finalizing these amendments.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional 
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

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

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    Because we are not establishing new numerical emission limits and 
are not requiring additional controls, no air quality impacts are 
expected as a result of the final amendments to the rule. Requiring 
periodic performance testing has the potential to reduce excess 
emissions from sources using poorly performing add-on controls, even 
though facilities are required to be in compliance at all times.
    The final amendments will have no effect on the energy needs of the 
affected facilities in either source category and would, therefore, 
have no indirect or secondary air emissions impacts.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We revised our proposed cost impacts analysis based on a comment 
received during the public comment period (see section IV.D.3 of this 
preamble). We estimate that the final amendments will result in a 
nationwide net present value of net cost savings of $132,000 (2017$) 
over the 5-year period following promulgation of amendments (2019-
2023). The equivalent annualized value of these net cost savings is 
$32,000 per year when costs are discounted at a 7- percent discount 
rate. Because periodic performance testing would be required every 5 
years, we estimated and summarized the cost savings over a 5-year 
period. The costs associated with the final amendments are related to 
recordkeeping and reporting labor costs and periodic performance 
testing. The requirement for periodic testing of once every 5 years 
results in an estimated increase in the present value of costs of about 
$252,000 over the 5-year period in addition to an estimated present 
value of costs of about $4,000 for reviewing the final amendments. 
However, the changes to the monitoring requirements for PM control 
devices result in an estimated present value of cost savings of about 
$388,000 over the 5-year period. Therefore, overall, we estimate the 
net present value of net cost savings of about $132,000 for the 5-year 
period. The final amendments to the monitoring requirements are 
projected to alleviate some need for asphalt roofing manufacturing 
facilities to have to retest the PM control device for the sole purpose 
of reestablishing new temperature and pressure drop operating limits 
and to allow facilities to extend filter replacement by 3 months. For 
further information on the costs and cost savings associated with the 
final amendments, see the memoranda, Cost Impacts of Asphalt Processing 
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Risk and Technology Review Final and 
Economic Impact Analysis for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing NESHAP RTR Final, which are available in the docket for 
this action.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    As noted earlier, we estimated a nationwide cost savings associated 
with the final requirements over the 5-year period following 
promulgation of these amendments. This cost savings is not expected to 
have adverse economic impacts. For further information on the economic 
impacts associated with the final requirements, see the memorandum, 
Economic Impact Analysis for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing NESHAP RTR Final, which is available in the docket for 
this action.

E. What are the benefits?

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

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    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.
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source category, we performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual 
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km) 
and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the 
distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Asphalt 
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories across 
different demographic groups within the populations living near 
facilities.
    Results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for six of the 
11 demographic groups, African American, Native American, other and 
multiracial, ages 0-17, ages 18-64, and below the poverty level, the 
percentage of the population living within 5 km of facilities in the 
source categories is greater than the corresponding national percentage 
for the same demographic groups. When examining the risk levels of 
those exposed to emissions from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing facilities, we find that no one is exposed to a cancer 
risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater 
than 1.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis 
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Asphalt Processing 
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source

[[Page 14547]]

Categories Operations, available in the docket for this action.

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA concludes, based on the results of the risk assessment, 
that the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action 
do not present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's 
health and risk assessments are summarized in section IV.A of this 
preamble and are further documented in the risk report, Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 
Source Categories in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review 
Final Rule, available in the docket for this action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, 
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

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

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory 
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be 
found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits 
associated with this action. See document titled Economic Impact 
Analysis for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 
NESHAP RTR Final, which is available in the docket for this action.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    Information collection activities in this rule have been submitted 
for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA 
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2598.02. You can find a copy 
of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized 
here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until 
OMB approves them.
    The EPA is not revising the numerical emission limitation 
requirements for this subpart. The EPA is finalizing a requirement to 
conduct control device performance testing no less frequently than once 
every 5 years. The EPA has also revised the SSM provisions of the rule 
and is requiring the use of electronic data reporting for future 
performance test results and reports, performance evaluation reports, 
compliance reports, and NOCS reports. This information would be 
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of asphalt 
processing facilities and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart LLLLL).
    Estimated number of respondents: Eight (total).
    Frequency of response: Initial, semiannual, and annual.
    Total estimated burden: 69 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 
CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $95,900 (per year), which includes $88,400 
annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA concludes, based on the results of the risk assessment, 
that the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action 
do not present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's 
health and risk assessments are contained in section IV.A of this 
preamble.

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

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

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

    This rulemaking involves technical standards. As discussed in the 
preamble of the proposal, the EPA conducted searches for the Asphalt 
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP through the 
Enhanced National Standards Systems Network Database managed by the 
American National Standards Institute. We also contacted voluntary 
consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and searched their 
databases. We conducted searches for EPA Methods 3A, 5A, 9, 10, 22, and 
25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. During the EPA's VCS search, if the 
title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling 
and analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA's

[[Page 14548]]

reference method, the EPA reviewed it as a potential equivalent method.
    The EPA incorporates by reference ASTM D7520-16, ``Standard Test 
Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient 
Atmosphere,'' with conditions as an acceptable alternative to EPA 
Method 9. We note that this version of the method (i.e., ASTM D7520-16) 
is a newer version than what we proposed (i.e., ASTM D7520-2013). The 
same proposed conditions apply to this newer version; therefore, we are 
finalizing these conditions, as proposed. The method provides 
procedures for determining the opacity of a plume, using digital 
imagery and associated hardware and software. During the DCOT 
certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, the 
owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front 
of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions 
anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed 
backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand). The owner or operator 
must also have standard operating procedures in place, including daily 
or other frequency quality checks, to ensure the equipment is within 
manufacturing specifications as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-
16. The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping procedures 
outlined in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance 
report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEG formatted images used 
for opacity and certification determination. The owner or operator or 
the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four (4) independent technology 
users apply the software to determine the visible opacity of the 300 
certification plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the user may not 
exceed 15-percent opacity of any one reading, and the average error 
must not exceed 7.5-percent opacity. This approval does not provide or 
imply a certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or 
software. The onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or 
training of the DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with 
ASTM D7520-16 and this letter is on the facility, DCOT operator, and 
DCOT vendor. This method is available at ASTM International, 1850 M 
Street NW, Suite 1030, Washington, DC 20036. See https://www.astm.org/.
    The EPA decided not to include 11 other VCS; these methods are 
impractical as alternatives because of the lack of equivalency, 
documentation, validation date, and other important technical and 
policy considerations. The search and review results have been 
documented and are in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard 
Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing, which is 
available in the docket for this action.
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General 
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use 
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or 
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.

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

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

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: January 30, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA is amending 40 
CFR part 63 as follows:

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

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(102) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (102) ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the 
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1, 
2016, IBR approved for Sec.  63.1625(b) and table 3 to subpart LLLLL.
* * * * *

Subpart LLLLL--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing

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

Sec.  63.8681  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an 
asphalt processing facility or an asphalt roofing manufacturing 
facility, as defined in Sec.  63.8698, that is a major source as 
defined in Sec.  63.2, or is located at, or is part of a major source 
as defined in Sec.  63.2.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.8683 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) introductory 
text and (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8683  When must I comply with this subpart?

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

0
5. Section 63.8684 is amended by revising the section heading to read 
as follows:

[[Page 14549]]

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

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

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

    (a) Before September 9, 2020, you must be in compliance with the 
emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at 
all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. 
On and after September 9, 2020, you must be in compliance with the 
emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at 
all times, except during periods of nonoperation of the affected source 
(or specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions 
to which this subpart applies.
    (b) Before September 9, 2020, you must always operate and maintain 
your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment, according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i). On and 
after September 9, 2020, at all times, you must operate and maintain 
any affected source, including associated air pollution control 
equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety 
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The 
general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any 
further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the 
applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a 
source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance 
requirements will be based on information available to the 
Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, monitoring 
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of 
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the affected 
source.
    (c) Before September 9, 2020, you must develop a written startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in 
Sec.  63.6(e)(3). On and after September 9, 2020, a startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction plan is not required.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.8686 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(3); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(4).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

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

    (a) For existing affected sources, you must conduct initial 
performance tests no later than 180 days after the compliance date that 
is specified for your source in Sec.  63.8683 and according to the 
provisions in Sec.  63.7(a)(2).
    (b) * * *
    (3) The control device and process parameter values established 
during the previously-conducted emission test are used to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with this subpart; and
    (4) The previously-conducted emission test was completed within the 
last 60 months.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.8687 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and removing 
and reserving paragraph (c) to read as follows:

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

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

0
9. Section 63.8688 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) and (h) to 
read as follows:

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

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

0
10. Section 63.8689 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding 
paragraph (d) to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (b) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, you must 
establish each site-specific operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart 
that applies to you according to the requirements in Sec.  63.8687 and 
Table 3 to this subpart.
* * * * *
    (d) For control devices used to comply with the particulate matter 
standards in Table 1 to this subpart, you may establish any of the 
operating limits for pressure drop range (i.e., a minimum and a maximum 
pressure drop) across the control device using manufacturers' 
specifications in lieu of complying with paragraph (b) of this section.

0
11. Section 63.8690 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

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

* * * * *
    (b) Before September 9, 2020, except for monitor malfunctions, 
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control 
activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required 
zero and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously (or collect 
data at all required intervals) at all times that the affected source 
is operating including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
when the affected source is operating. On and after September 9, 2020, 
you must monitor and collect data at all times in accordance with Sec.  
63.8685(b), except during periods of nonoperation of the affected 
source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the 
emissions to which this subpart applies.
* * * * *

0
12. Section 63.8691 is amended by:

[[Page 14550]]

0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (d); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (e).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

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

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating 
limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the 
procedures specified in Table 5 to this subpart, and you must conduct 
performance tests as specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (b) Before September 9, 2020, you must report each instance in 
which you did not meet each operating limit in Table 5 to this subpart 
that applies to you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction. These instances are deviations from the emission 
limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.8693. On and after September 
9, 2020, you must report each instance in which you did not meet each 
operating limit in Table 5 to this subpart that applies to you, except 
during periods of nonoperation of the affected source (or specific 
portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to which this 
subpart applies.
* * * * *
    (d) Before September 9, 2020, consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) 
and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the 
Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with 
Sec.  63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will determine whether deviations 
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are 
violations, according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e). On and after 
September 9, 2020, this paragraph (d) no longer applies.
    (e) For each control device used to comply with the PM, THC, 
opacity, or visible emission standards of this subpart, you must 
conduct periodic performance tests using the applicable procedures 
specified in Sec.  63.8687 and Table 4 to this subpart to demonstrate 
compliance with Sec.  63.8684(a), and to confirm or reestablish the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.8684(b). You must conduct 
periodic performance tests according to the schedule specified in 
paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, for 
each existing affected source, and for each new and reconstructed 
affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after 
November 21, 2001 and on or before March 12, 2020, you must conduct the 
first periodic performance test on or before March 13, 2023. As an 
alternative to the first periodic performance test, you may use the 
results of a previously-conducted emission test to demonstrate 
compliance with the emission limitations in this subpart, such as tests 
for renewing your facility's operating permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 
40 CFR part 71, if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction 
that it meets the requirements of Sec.  63.8686(b)(1) through (4). The 
subsequent periodic performance tests must be conducted no later than 
60 months thereafter following the previous performance test.
    (2) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, for 
each new and reconstructed affected source that commences construction 
or reconstruction after March 12, 2020, you must conduct the first 
periodic performance test no later than 60 months following the initial 
performance test required by Sec.  63.8689. If you used the alternative 
compliance option specified in Sec.  63.8686(b) to comply with the 
initial performance test, then you must conduct the first periodic 
performance test no later than 60 months following the date you 
demonstrated to the Administrator that the requirements of Sec.  
63.8686(b) had been met.
    (3) If an affected source is not operating on the dates the 
periodic performance test is required to be conducted as specified in 
paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section, then you are not required to 
restart the affected source for the sole purpose of complying with 
paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section. Instead, upon restart of the 
affected source, you must conduct the first periodic performance test 
within 60 days of achieving normal operating conditions but no later 
than 180 days from startup. You must conduct subsequent periodic 
performance tests no later than 60 months thereafter following the 
previous performance test.

0
13. Section 63.8692 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (e), and (f) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8692  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all the notifications in Sec. Sec.  63.6(h)(4) 
and (5), 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f), and 63.9(b) through (f) and (h) that 
apply to you by the dates specified in these sections, except as 
provided in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design 
evaluation, opacity observation, visible emission observation, or other 
compliance demonstration as specified in Table 3 or 4 to this subpart, 
you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to Sec.  
63.9(h)(2)(ii). You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, 
including the performance test results, before the close of business on 
the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test 
according to Sec.  63.10(d)(2). On and after September 9, 2020, you 
must submit all subsequent Notification of Compliance Status reports to 
EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), 
which can be accessed through EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) 
(https://cdx.epa.gov/). If you claim some of the information required 
to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI), 
then submit a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, 
to EPA. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other 
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as 
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, 
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old 
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be 
submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph 
(e). You may assert a claim of EPA system outage or force majeure for 
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement in this 
paragraph (e) provided you meet the requirements outlined in Sec.  
63.8693(h) or (i), as applicable.
    (f) If you are using data from a previously-conducted emission test 
to serve as documentation of conformance with the emission standards 
and operating limits of this subpart as specified in Sec.  63.8686(b), 
you must submit the test data in lieu of the initial performance test 
results with the Notification of Compliance Status required under 
paragraph (e) of this section.

0
14. Section 63.8693 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(4) and (5), (d) introductory text, (d)(1) 
through (4), and (d)(6);
0
c. Adding paragraph (d)(13);
0
d. Revising paragraph (f); and
0
e. Adding paragraphs (g) through (i).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

[[Page 14551]]

Sec.  63.8693  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) On and after September 9, 2020, you must submit all compliance 
reports to EPA via the CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA's CDX 
(https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report 
template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date report templates become 
available will be listed on the CEDRI website. The report must be 
submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the 
method in which the report is submitted. If you claim some of the 
information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a 
complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The 
report must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI 
website or an alternate electronic file consistent with the extensible 
markup language (XML) schema listed on the CEDRI website. Submit the 
file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic 
storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic 
medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, 
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via 
EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph (b)(6). You may assert 
a claim of EPA system outage or force majeure for failure to timely 
comply with the reporting requirement in this paragraph (b)(6) provided 
you meet the requirements outlined in Sec.  63.8693(h) or (i), as 
applicable.
    (c) * * *
    (4) Before September 9, 2020, if you had a startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent 
with your SSMP, the compliance report must include the information in 
Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i). On and after September 9, 2020, this paragraph 
(c)(4) no longer applies.
    (5) For each reporting period, you must include in the compliance 
report the total number of deviations that occurred during the 
reporting period. If there are no deviations from any emission 
limitations (emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and 
visible emission limit) in Sec.  63.8684 that apply to you, then you 
must include a statement that there were no deviations from the 
emission limitations during the reporting period.
    (d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit, 
operating limit, opacity limit, and visible emission limit) in Sec.  
63.8684, you must include in the compliance report the information in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section, and the information in 
paragraphs (d)(1) through (13) of this section.
    (1) The start date, start time, and duration of each malfunction.
    (2) For each instance that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was inoperative, 
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks, the start date, 
start time, and duration that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was inoperative; 
the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS being 
inoperative; and descriptions of corrective actions taken.
    (3) For each instance that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was out-of-
control as specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), the start date, start time, 
and duration that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was out-of-control, including 
the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (4) Before September 9, 2020, the start date, start time, and 
duration of the deviation, and whether each deviation occurred during a 
period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. 
On and after September 9, 2020, the start date, start time, and 
duration of the deviation including a description of the deviation and 
the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  
63.8685(b). You must also include:
    (i) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the 
deviation occurred;
    (ii) The cause of the deviation (including unknown cause, if 
applicable); and
    (iii) Any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to 
its normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
    (6) Before September 9, 2020, a breakdown of the total duration of 
the deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to 
startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other 
known causes, and other unknown causes. On and after September 9, 2020, 
a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems, 
process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
* * * * *
    (13) On and after September 9, 2020, for each deviation from an 
emission limitation in Sec.  63.8684, you must include an estimate of 
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission 
limitation in Sec.  63.8684, and a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
    (f) On and after September 9, 2020, within 60 days after the date 
of completing each performance test required by this subpart, you must 
submit the results of the performance test following the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by EPA's Electronic 
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on EPA's ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test to EPA via the CEDRI, which can be accessed through 
EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file 
format generated through the use of EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may 
submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on 
EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. The 
results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in 
the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema 
listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or 
alternative file to EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) CBI. If you claim some of the information submitted under 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete 
file, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The file must be 
generated through the use of EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the 
file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic 
storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic 
medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, 
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via 
EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
    (g) On and after September 9, 2020, within 60 days after the date 
of completing each continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance 
evaluation (as defined in Sec.  63.2) as specified in your site-
specific monitoring plan, you must submit the results of the 
performance evaluation following the procedures specified in paragraphs 
(g)(1) through (3) of this section.

[[Page 14552]]

    (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test 
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by EPA's ERT as listed on 
EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the results of 
the performance evaluation to EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed 
through EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file format 
generated through the use of EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit 
an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT 
website.
    (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that 
are not supported by EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the 
time of the evaluation. The results of the performance evaluation must 
be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the 
ERT generated package or alternative file to EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) CBI. If you claim some of the information submitted under 
paragraph (g)(1) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete 
file, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The file must be 
generated through the use of EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the 
file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic 
storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic 
medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, 
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via 
EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
    (h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for 
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement in this 
section. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the 
requirements outlined in paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an 
outage of either EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is 
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow 
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion 
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (i) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for failure 
to timely comply with the reporting requirement in this section. To 
assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements 
outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such 
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), 
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond 
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.

0
15. Section 63.8694 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding 
paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8694  What records must I keep?

    (a) * * *
    (2) Before September 9, 2020, the records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) 
through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after 
September 9, 2020, this paragraph (a)(2) no longer applies.
* * * * *
    (e) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are 
submitted electronically via EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in 
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not 
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and 
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or EPA as part 
of an on-site compliance evaluation.

0
16. Section 63.8697 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.8697  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in Sec. Sec.  
63.8681, 63.8682, 63.8683, 63.8684, 63.8685, 63.8686, 63.8687, 63.8688, 
63.8689, 63.8690, and 63.8691.
* * * * *

0
17. Section 63.8698 is amended by revising definitions of ``Adhesive 
applicator,'' ``Deviation,'' and ``Sealant applicator'' to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.8698  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Adhesive applicator means the equipment that uses open pan-type 
application (e.g., a roller partially submerged in an open pan of 
adhesive) to apply adhesive to roofing shingles for

[[Page 14553]]

producing laminated or dimensional roofing shingles.
* * * * *
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit), or work practice standard;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart, and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Before September 9, 2020, fails to meet any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard in this 
subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether 
or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. On and after 
September 9, 2020, this paragraph (3) no longer applies.
* * * * *
    Sealant applicator means the equipment that uses open pan-type 
application (e.g., a roller partially submerged in an open pan of 
sealant) to apply a sealant strip to a roofing product. The sealant 
strip is used to seal overlapping pieces of roofing product after they 
have been applied.
* * * * *

0
18. Table 1 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by revising row 1 
and footnote b to read as follows:

        Table 1 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Emission Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           You must meet the following
                 For--                        emission limitation--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each blowing still, Group 1 asphalt   a. Reduce total hydrocarbon
 loading rack, and Group 1 asphalt        mass emissions by 95 percent,
 storage tank at existing, new, and       or to a concentration of 20
 reconstructed asphalt processing         ppmv, on a dry basis corrected
 facilities; and each Group 1 asphalt     to 3 percent oxygen;
 storage tank at existing, new, and      b. Route the emissions to a
 reconstructed asphalt roofing            combustion device achieving a
 manufacturing lines; and each coating    combustion efficiency of 99.5
 mixer, saturator (including wet          percent;
 looper), coater, sealant applicator,    c. Route the emissions to a
 and adhesive applicator at new and       combustion device that does
 reconstructed asphalt roofing            not use auxiliary fuel
 manufacturing lines.                     achieving a total hydrocarbon
                                          (THC) destruction efficiency
                                          of 95.8 percent;
                                         d. Route the emissions to a
                                          boiler or process heater with
                                          a design heat input capacity
                                          of 44 megawatts (MW) or
                                          greater;
                                         e. Introduce the emissions into
                                          the flame zone of a boiler or
                                          process heater; or
                                         f. Route emissions to a flare
                                          meeting the requirements of
                                          Sec.   63.11(b).
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 * * * * *
b The opacity limit can be exceeded for one consecutive 15-minute period
  in any 24-hour period when the storage tank transfer lines are being
  cleared. During this 15-minute period, the control device must not be
  bypassed. If the emissions from the asphalt storage tank are ducted to
  the saturator control device, the combined emissions from the
  saturator and storage tank must meet the 20 percent opacity limit
  (specified in 3.a of Table 1 to this subpart) during this 15-minute
  period. At any other time, the opacity limit applies to Group 2
  asphalt storage tanks.

0
19. Table 2 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by revising rows 3 
and 4 and footnotes a and c to read as follows:

          Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 For--                              You must a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
3. Control devices used to comply with   a. Maintain the 3-hour average
 the particulate matter standards..       b inlet gas temperature at or
                                          below the operating limit
                                          established during the
                                          performance test; and
                                         b. Maintain the 3-hour average
                                          b pressure drop across the
                                          device c within the operating
                                          range limits (i.e., at or
                                          above a minimum pressure drop
                                          and at or below a maximum
                                          pressure drop) established
                                          during the performance test,
                                          or as an alternative,
                                          established according to the
                                          manufacturer's specifications
                                          as specified in Sec.
                                          63.8689(d).
4. Other control devices that are        Maintain the approved
 neither a combustion device nor a        monitoring parameters within
 control device used to comply with the   the operating limits
 particulate matter emission standards.   established during the
                                          performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The operating limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart are
  applicable if you are monitoring control device operating parameters
  to demonstrate continuous compliance. If you are using a CEMS or COMS,
  you must maintain emissions below the value established during the
  initial performance test.
b A 15-minute averaging period can be used as an alternative to the 3-
  hour averaging period for this parameter.
c As an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control
  device, owners or operators using an ESP to achieve compliance with
  the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart can monitor
  the voltage to the ESP. If this option is selected, the ESP voltage
  must be maintained at or above the operating limit established during
  the performance test.

0
20. Table 3 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by revising rows 1, 
7, and 11 through 13 and footnotes a and c and adding footnotes d 
through f to read as follows:

[[Page 14554]]

                   Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      According to the following
               For--                       You must--                Using--                requirements--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All particulate matter, total     a. Select sampling      i. EPA test method 1    A. For demonstrating
 hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and    port's location and     or 1A in appendix A     compliance with the total
 carbon dioxide emission tests.       the number of           to part 60 of this      hydrocarbon percent
                                      traverse points.        chapter.                reduction standard, the
                                                                                      sampling sites must be
                                                                                      located at the inlet and
                                                                                      outlet of the control
                                                                                      device prior to any
                                                                                      releases to the
                                                                                      atmosphere.
                                                                                     B. For demonstrating
                                                                                      compliance with the
                                                                                      particulate matter mass
                                                                                      emission rate, THC
                                                                                      destruction efficiency,
                                                                                      THC outlet concentration,
                                                                                      or combustion efficiency
                                                                                      standards, the sampling
                                                                                      sites must be located at
                                                                                      the outlet of the control
                                                                                      device prior to any
                                                                                      releases to the
                                                                                      atmosphere.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
7. All opacity tests...............  Conduct opacity         EPA test method 9 in    Conduct opacity
                                      observations.           appendix A to part 60   observations for at least
                                                              of this chapter, or     3 hours and obtain 30, 6-
                                                              ASTM D7520-16 d f.      minute averages.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
11. Each combustion device.........  Establish a site-       Data from the CPMS and  You must collect combustion
                                      specific combustion     the applicable          zone temperature data
                                      zone temperature        performance test        every 15 minutes during
                                      operating limit.        method(s).              the entire period of the 3-
                                                                                      hour performance test, and
                                                                                      determine the average
                                                                                      combustion zone
                                                                                      temperature over the 3-
                                                                                      hour performance test by
                                                                                      computing the average of
                                                                                      all of the 15-minute
                                                                                      readings.
12. Each control device used to      Establish a site-       Data from the CPMS and  You must collect the inlet
 comply with the particulate matter   specific inlet gas      the applicable          gas temperature and
 emission standards.                  temperature operating   performance test        pressure drop b data every
                                      limit; and if not       method(s).              15 minutes during the
                                      complying with Sec.                             entire period of the 3-
                                      63.8689(d), also                                hour performance test, and
                                      establish site-                                 determine the average
                                      specific limits for                             inlet gas temperature and
                                      the pressure drop                               pressure drop c over the 3-
                                      range (i.e., a                                  hour performance test by
                                      minimum and a maximum                           computing the average of
                                      pressure drop) across                           all of the 15-minute
                                      the device e.                                   readings. The inlet gas
                                                                                      temperature operating
                                                                                      limit is set at +20
                                                                                      percent of the test run
                                                                                      average inlet gas
                                                                                      temperature measured in
                                                                                      units of degrees Celsius
                                                                                      or degrees Fahrenheit. The
                                                                                      maximum (or minimum)
                                                                                      pressure drop is set as
                                                                                      the maximum (or minimum)
                                                                                      average pressure drop of
                                                                                      the performance test runs
                                                                                      which demonstrated
                                                                                      compliance with the
                                                                                      applicable emission limit.
13. Each control device that is      Establish site-         Process data and data   You must collect monitoring
 neither a combustion device nor a    specific monitoring     from the CPMS and the   parameter data every 15
 control device used to comply with   parameters.             applicable              minutes during the entire
 the particulate matter emission                              performance test        period of the 3-hour
 standards.                                                   method(s).              performance test, and
                                                                                      determine the average
                                                                                      monitoring parameter
                                                                                      values over the 3-hour
                                                                                      performance test by
                                                                                      computing the average of
                                                                                      all of the 15-minute
                                                                                      readings.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a For initial performance tests, as specified in Sec.   63.8686(b), you may request that data from a previously-
  conducted emission test serve as documentation of conformance with the emission standards and operating limits
  of this subpart.
b Performance tests are not required if: (1) The emissions are routed to a boiler or process heater with a
  design heat input capacity of 44 MW or greater; or (2) the emissions are introduced into the flame zone of a
  boiler or process heater.
c As an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control device, owners or operators using an ESP
  to achieve compliance with the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart can monitor the voltage to
  the ESP.
d If you use ASTM D7520-16 in lieu of EPA test method 9, then you must comply with the conditions specified in
  this footnote. During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) certification procedure outlined in Section
  9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, you or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various backgrounds of color
  and contrast representing conditions anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed
  backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand). You must also have standard operating procedures in place
  including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing
  specifications as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16. You must follow the record keeping procedures
  outlined in Sec.   63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data sheets, and all raw
  unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification determination. You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum
  of four (4) independent technology users apply the software to determine the visible opacity of the 300
  certification plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of any one reading
  and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity. This approval does not provide or imply a
  certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain and verify the
  certification and/or training of the DCOT camera, software and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 and
  this letter is on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
e You may conduct two separate performance tests to establish the operating limits for pressure drop range
  (i.e., one performance test to establish a minimum pressure drop operating limit and one performance test to
  establish a maximum pressure drop operating limit); however, you may choose to establish either, or both, the
  minimum and maximum pressure drop operating limits using the requirements of Sec.   63.8689(d) in lieu of the
  requirements specified in this Table.
f Incorporated by reference, see Sec.   63.14.

0
21. Table 4 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by revising the 
table heading, the fourth column heading, and rows 4 and 5 to read as 
follows:

 Table 4 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Initial and Continuous Compliance
                        With Emission Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                For the following         You have
            For--             emission limitation--     demonstrated
                                                       compliance if--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
4. Each saturator (including  a. Limit visible      The visible
 wet looper) and coater at     emissions from the    emissions, measured
 an existing, new, or          emissions capture     using EPA test
 reconstructed asphalt         system to 20          method 22 in
 roofing manufacturing line.   percent of any        appendix A to part
                               period of             60 of this chapter,
                               consecutive valid     for any period of
                               observations          consecutive valid
                               totaling 60 minutes.  observations
                                                     totaling 60 minutes
                                                     do not exceed 20
                                                     percent.
                              b. Limit opacity      The opacity,
                               emissions to 20       measured using EPA
                               percent.              test method 9 in
                                                     appendix A to part
                                                     60 of this chapter,
                                                     for each of the
                                                     first 30 6-minute
                                                     averages does not
                                                     exceed 20 percent.

[[Page 14555]]

 
5. Each Group 2 asphalt       Limit exhaust gases   The opacity,
 storage tank at existing,     to 0 percent          measured using EPA
 new, and reconstructed        opacity.              test method 9 in
 asphalt processing                                  appendix A to part
 facilities and asphalt                              60 of this chapter,
 roofing manufacturing lines.                        for each of the
                                                     first 30 6-minute
                                                     averages does not
                                                     exceed 0 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
22. Table 5 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by revising rows 3 
and 4 and footnotes a and d to read as follows:

     Table 5 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With
                           Operating Limits a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    You must demonstrate
                                For the following        continuous
            For--               operating limit--      compliance by--
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
3. Control devices used to    a. Maintain the 3-    i. Passing the
 comply with the particulate   hour c average        emissions through
 matter emission standards.    inlet gas             the control device;
                               temperature at or     and
                               below the operating  ii. Collecting the
                               limit established     inlet gas
                               during the            temperature and
                               performance test;     pressure drop d
                               and.                  data according to
                                                     Sec.   63.8688(b)
                                                     and (c); and
                              b. Maintain the 3-    iii. Reducing inlet
                               hour c average        gas temperature and
                               pressure drop         pressure drop d
                               across device d       data to 3-hour c
                               within the            averages according
                               operating range       to calculations in
                               limits that were      Table 3 to this
                               established           subpart; and
                               pursuant to Sec.     iv. Maintaining the
                               63.8689(b) and/or     3-hour c average
                               (d).                  inlet gas
                                                     temperature within
                                                     the level
                                                     established during
                                                     the performance
                                                     test; and
                                                    v. Maintaining the 3-
                                                     hour c average
                                                     pressure drop
                                                     across device d
                                                     within the level
                                                     established
                                                     pursuant to Sec.
                                                     63.8689(b) and/or
                                                     (d).
4. Other control devices      a. Maintain the       i. Passing the
 that are neither a            monitoring            emissions through
 combustion device nor a       parameters within     the devices;
 control device used to        the operating        ii. Collecting the
 comply with the particulate   limits established    monitoring
 matter emission standards.    during the            parameter data
                               performance test.     according to Sec.
                                                     63.8688(d); and
                                                    iii. Reducing the
                                                     monitoring
                                                     parameter data to 3-
                                                     hour c averages
                                                     according to
                                                     calculations in
                                                     Table 3 to this
                                                     subpart; and
                                                    iv. Maintaining the
                                                     monitoring
                                                     parameters within
                                                     the level
                                                     established during
                                                     the performance
                                                     test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The operating limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart and the
  requirements specified in Table 5 to this subpart are applicable if
  you are monitoring control device operating parameters to demonstrate
  continuous compliance. If you use a CEMS or COMS to demonstrate
  compliance with the emission limits, you are not required to record
  control device operating parameters. However, you must maintain
  emissions below the value established during the initial performance
  test. Data from the CEMS and COMS must be reduced as specified in Sec.
   Sec.   63.8690 and 63.8(g)(1) through (4).
 * * * * * * *
c A 15-minute averaging period can be used as an alternative to the 3-
  hour averaging period for this parameter.
d As an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control
  device, owners or operators using an ESP to achieve compliance with
  the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart can monitor
  the voltage to the ESP. If this option is selected, the ESP voltage
  must be maintained at or above the operating limit established during
  the performance test.

0
23. Table 6 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by revising rows 4, 
5, and 6 and adding row 7 to read as follows:

      Table 6 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 The report must     You must submit the
      You must submit--             contain--             report--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
4. Notification of            The information in    According to the
 compliance status.            Sec.   63.9(h)(2)     requirements in
                               through (5), as       Sec.  Sec.
                               applicable.           63.8692(e) and
                                                     63.9(h)(2) through
                                                     (5), as applicable.

[[Page 14556]]

 
5. A compliance report......  a. A statement that   Semiannually
                               there were no         according to the
                               deviations from the   requirements in
                               emission              Sec.   63.8693(b).
                               limitations during
                               the reporting
                               period, if there
                               are no deviations
                               from any emission
                               limitations
                               (emission limit,
                               operating limit,
                               opacity limit, and
                               visible emission
                               limit) that apply
                               to you.
                              b. If there were no   Semiannually
                               periods during        according to the
                               which the CPMS,       requirements in
                               CEMS, or COMS was     Sec.   63.8693(b).
                               out-of-control as
                               specified in Sec.
                               63.8(c)(7), a
                               statement that
                               there were no
                               periods during
                               which the CPMS,
                               CEMS, or COMS was
                               out-of-control
                               during the
                               reporting period.
                              c. If you have a      Semiannually
                               deviation from any    according to the
                               emission limitation   requirements in
                               (emission limit,      Sec.   63.8693(b).
                               operating limit,
                               opacity limit, and
                               visible emission
                               limit), the report
                               must contain the
                               information in Sec.
                                 63.8693(c) and
                               (d).
                              d. Before September   Semiannually
                               9, 2020, if you had   according to the
                               a startup, shutdown   requirements in
                               or malfunction        Sec.   63.8693(b).
                               during the
                               reporting period
                               and you took
                               actions consistent
                               with your startup,
                               shutdown, and
                               malfunction plan,
                               the compliance
                               report must include
                               the information in
                               Sec.
                               63.10(d)(5)(i). On
                               and after September
                               9, 2020, this
                               paragraph no longer
                               applies.
6. An immediate startup,      The information in    By fax or telephone
 shutdown, and malfunction     Sec.                  within 2 working
 report if you have a          63.10(d)(5)(ii).      days after starting
 startup, shutdown, or                               actions
 malfunction during the                              inconsistent with
 reporting period before                             the plan followed
 September 9, 2020, and                              by a letter within
 actions taken were not                              7 working days
 consistent with your                                after the end of
 startup, shutdown, and                              the event unless
 malfunction plan. On and                            you have made
 after September 9, 2020,                            alternative
 this paragraph no longer                            arrangements with
 applies.                                            the permitting
                                                     authority.
7. Performance test report..  The information in    Within 60 days after
                               Sec.   63.7.          completion of the
                                                     performance test
                                                     according to the
                                                     requirements in
                                                     Sec.   63.8693(f).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
24. Table 7 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the entry for Sec.  63.6(e)(1) and adding entries in 
numerical order for Sec. Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii), and 
63.6(e)(1)(iii);
0
b. Revising the entries for Sec. Sec.  63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1), 
63.6(h)(1), and 63.7(e)(1);
0
c. Adding an entry in numerical order for Sec.  63.7(e)(4);
0
d. Removing the entry for Sec.  63.8(c)(1);
0
e. Revising the entries for Sec. Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(i), 63.8(c)(1)(ii), 
63.8(c)(1)(iii), and 63.8(d);
0
f. Removing the entry for Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(i)-(v);
0
g. Adding entries in numerical order for Sec. Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(i), 
63.10(b)(2)(ii), 63.10(b)(2)(iii), 63.10(b)(2)(iv), and 63.10(b)(2)(v); 
and
0
h. Revising the entry for Sec.  63.10(d)(5).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

            Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart LLLLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Applies to subpart
               Citation                        Subject             Brief description              LLLLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i).................  Operation & Maintenance  Operate to minimize      Yes before September 9,
                                                                 emissions at all times.  2020. No on and after
                                                                                          September 9, 2020. See
                                                                                          Sec.   63.8685(b) for
                                                                                          general duty
                                                                                          requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)................  Operation & Maintenance  Correct malfunctions as  Yes before September 9,
                                                                 soon as practicable.     2020. No on and after
                                                                                          September 9, 2020.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)...............  Operation & Maintenance  Operation and            Yes.
                                                                 maintenance
                                                                 requirements
                                                                 independently
                                                                 enforceable;
                                                                 information
                                                                 Administrator will use
                                                                 to determine if
                                                                 operation and
                                                                 maintenance
                                                                 requirements were met.
 

[[Page 14557]]

 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)....................  Startup, Shutdown, and   1. Requirement for SSM   Yes before September 9,
                                        Malfunction (SSM) Plan   and startup, shutdown,   2020. No on and after
                                        (SSMP).                  malfunction plan.        September 9, 2020.
                                                                2. Content of SSMP.....
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)....................  Compliance Except        You must comply with     Yes before September 9,
                                        During SSM.              emission standards at    2020. No on and after
                                                                 all times except         September 9, 2020.
                                                                 during SSM.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(h)(1)....................  Compliance with Opacity/ You must comply with     Yes before September 9,
                                        VE Standards.            opacity/VE emission      2020. No on and after
                                                                 limitations at all       September 9, 2020.
                                                                 times except during
                                                                 SSM.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)....................  Conditions for           1. Performance tests     Yes before September 9,
                                        Conducting Performance   must be conducted        2020. No on and after
                                        Tests.                   under representative     September 9, 2020. See
                                                                 conditions. Cannot       Sec.   63.8687.
                                                                 conduct performance
                                                                 tests during SSM.
                                                                2. Not a violation to
                                                                 exceed standard during
                                                                 SSM.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.7(e)(4)....................  Conduct of performance   Administrator's          Yes.
                                        tests.                   authority to require
                                                                 testing under section
                                                                 114 of the Act.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i).................  Routine and predictable  1. Keep parts for        Yes before September 9,
                                        CMS malfunction.         routine repairs          2020. No on and after
                                                                 readily available.       September 9, 2020.
                                                                2. Reporting
                                                                 requirements for CMS
                                                                 malfunction when
                                                                 action is described in
                                                                 SSM plan.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)................  CMS malfunction not in   Keep the necessary       Yes.
                                        SSP plan.                parts for routine
                                                                 repairs if CMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)...............  Compliance with          Develop a written        Yes before September 9,
                                        Operation and            startup, shutdown, and   2020. No on and after
                                        Maintenance              malfunction plan for     September 9, 2020.
                                        Requirements.            CMS.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.8(d).......................  CMS Quality Control....  1. Requirements for CMS  Yes.
                                                                 quality control,
                                                                 including calibration,
                                                                 etc.
                                                                2. Must keep quality
                                                                 control plan on record
                                                                 for the life of the
                                                                 affected source.
                                                                3. Keep old versions
                                                                 for 5 years after
                                                                 revisions.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)................  Records related to       Occurrence of each of    Yes before September 9,
                                        Startup and Shutdown.    operation (process       2020. No on and after
                                                                 equipment).              September 9, 2020.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)...............  Recordkeeping Relevant   Occurrence of each       Yes before September 9,
                                        to Malfunction Periods   malfunction of air       2020. No on and after
                                        and CMS.                 pollution equipment.     September 9, 2020.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)..............  Recordkeeping Relevant   Maintenance on air       Yes.
                                        to Maintenance of Air    pollution control
                                        Pollution Control and    equipment.
                                        Monitoring Equipment.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)...............  Recordkeeping Relevant   Actions during startup,  Yes before September 9,
                                        to Startup, Shutdown,    shutdown, and            2020. No on and after
                                        and Malfunction          malfunction.             September 9, 2020.
                                        Periods and CMS.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(v)................  Recordkeeping Relevant   Actions during startup,  Yes before September 9,
                                        to Startup, Shutdown,    shutdown, and            2020. No on and after
                                        and Malfunction          malfunction.             September 9, 2020.
                                        Periods and CMS.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)...................  Startup, Shutdown, and   Contents and submission  Yes before September 9,
                                        Malfunction Reports.                              2020. No on and after
                                                                                          September 9, 2020.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 14558]]

[FR Doc. 2020-02369 Filed 3-11-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P