Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing national emissions standards for the control of emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category. These proposed emissions standards for new and existing sources are based upon EPA's proposed determination as to what constitutes the generally available control technology or management practices (GACT) for the source category
Comments must be received on or before August 10, 2009 unless a public hearing is requested by July 20, 2009. If a hearing is requested on the proposed rules, written comments must be received by August 24, 2009. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before August 10, 2009.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0027, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mr. Warren Johnson, Outreach and Information Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MC–C404–05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541–5124; fax number: (919) 541–0242; e-mail address:
The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by the proposed standards include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11559 of subpart AAAAAAA (NESHAP for Area Sources: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your EPA Regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).
Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address:
If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing concerning the proposed rule by July 20, 2009, we will hold a public hearing on July 24, 2009. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony at the hearing, or inquiring as to whether a hearing will be held, should contact Ms. Christine Adams at (919) 541–5590 at least two days in advance of the hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at EPA's Campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby.
Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to establish national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for both major and area sources of HAP that are listed for regulation under CAA section 112(c). A major source emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. An area source is a stationary source that is not a major source.
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least 30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in the Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the “30 urban HAP.” Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to regulation. A primary goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent reduction in cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources.
Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards or requirements for area sources “which provide for the use of generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT) by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.” Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate report on the legislation (Senate Report Number 101–228, December 20, 1989), which describes GACT as:
We are proposing these national emission standards in response to a court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for 4 source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) by August 17, 2009 (
We listed the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing source category under CAA section 112(c)(3) in one of a series of amendments (November 22, 2002, 67 FR 70427) to the original source category list included in the 1999 Integrated Urban Strategy. The inclusion of this source category on the section 112(c)(3) area source category list is based on 1990 emissions data, as EPA used 1990 as the baseline year for that listing. Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to regulation. The asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing source category was listed for its contributions toward meeting the 90 percent requirement for polycyclic organic matter in the form of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).
The two production operations for which this category was listed are: (1) The asphalt processing operation (performed in blowing stills); and (2) the roofing product manufacturing operation, where substrates are coated with asphalt and other materials to produce various roofing products (
The production operation with the largest potential to emit PAH is the processing operation. To our knowledge, all existing blowing still process vents are controlled by combustion devices that reduce total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions through thermal oxidation, which also reduces particulate matter (PM) and PAH emissions (PM is a component of THC and PAHs are components of PM). We believe that thermal oxidation controls are the only type of emission control applied to blowing stills in this source category. We did not identify any management practices that would reduce PAH emissions from the asphalt processing operation.
The other production operation with the potential to emit PAH at these facilities is the manufacturing (coating) operation. The equipment configuration of coating operations varies depending on the type of roofing product manufactured at the facility. Three types of manufacturing operations (coating line configurations) are used in the industry: (1) Lines with coaters only (these lines manufacture roofing products using inorganic substrates), (2) lines that have both saturators/wet loopers and coaters (these lines can manufacture roofing products using either inorganic or organic substrates), and (3) lines that have saturators/wet loopers only (these lines manufacture roofing products using organic substrates). Each of these manufacturing operation types have a unique emission characteristic profile.
Based on available information, we believe PM controls (
The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Asphalt
In addition to the asphalt NSPS, the major source NESHAP for asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL) regulates HAP emissions from the same types of equipment (
The proposed subpart AAAAAAA standards would apply to each existing and new area source facility that processes asphalt and/or manufactures roofing products using saturation and/or coating processes. The standards do not apply to research or laboratory facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA.
All existing area source facilities subject to this proposed rule would be required to comply with the rule requirements no later than one year after the date of publication of the final rule in the
Because the majority of existing sources in this category are already well-controlled, we believe that one year is a reasonable amount of time to allow existing sources to conduct performance testing and prepare compliance demonstrations with the proposed rule.
As discussed in section II.C of this preamble, the two production operations for which this category was listed are: (1) Asphalt processing (refining) operations; and (2) roofing product manufacturing operations.
For asphalt processing, the proposed standards would require the owner or operator to limit PAH emissions to 0.003 lb/ton of asphalt charged to the asphalt refining (blowing still) operation. Alternatively, owners or operators may choose to comply with a PM emissions limit of 1.2 lb/ton of asphalt charged to the asphalt refining operation. The proposed standards for new refining operations are the same as for existing sources.
For the asphalt roofing product manufacturing operations, we examined the process operations and other factors and determined that subcategories are justified to reflect the unique emission characteristic profiles of the different equipment configurations. We developed three subcategories based upon the various equipment configurations used in the industry: (1) Production lines that use a coater only, (2) production lines that use a saturator only, and (3) production lines that use saturators and coaters. See section IV.D of this preamble for a discussion of how GACT was determined.
For existing coater-only production lines, the proposed standards would require the owner or operator to limit PAH emissions from all coating mixers and coaters to 0.0002 lb/ton of product manufactured. Alternatively, owners or operators may choose to comply with a PM emission limit of 0.03 lb/ton of product manufactured.
For existing saturator-only production lines, the proposed standards would require the owner or operator to limit PAH emissions from all saturators (and wet loopers) to 0.0004 lb/ton of product manufactured. The proposed standards for saturator-only production lines would alternatively allow owners or operators to comply with a PM emissions limit of 0.05 lb/ton of product manufactured.
For existing combined saturator and coater production lines, the proposed standards would require the owner or operator to limit PAH emissions from all saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, and coaters to 0.0006 lb/ton of product manufactured. The proposed standards for combined saturator and coater production lines would alternatively allow owners or operators to comply with a PM emissions limit of 0.07 lb/ton of product manufactured. This alternative emission limit is at least as stringent as GACT for PAH emissions.
The proposed standards for new roofing product manufacturing operations for all subcategories are the same as for existing sources.
The proposed standards would require an initial performance assessment of the process emissions or control device outlet to demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable standard, and to establish the range of parameter values (
Initial compliance with proposed emission limits for existing and new asphalt processing operations and asphalt roofing manufacturing lines that include a saturator must be demonstrated by conducting emission tests. For existing and new asphalt roofing manufacturing lines that do not include a saturator, the proposed standards would allow owners or operators to demonstrate initial compliance and establish continuous monitoring parameters:
• By conducting emissions tests, or
• By using process knowledge and engineering calculations.
As an alternative to conducting emission tests to demonstrate initial compliance with the asphalt processing or asphalt roofing manufacturing emission limits, an owner or operator of an existing source may use the results from an emission test conducted in the past five years. Owners or operators can use the results of the previously-conducted test only if the emission measurements were made using the test methods specified in the proposed standards. Additionally, the owner or operator must be able to demonstrate that no process changes have been made since the date of the previous test, or that the results of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite any process changes.
Continuous compliance with the proposed emission limits would be demonstrated by monitoring parameters
Affected new and existing sources would be required to comply with certain requirements set forth in the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), as identified in Table 5 of this proposed rule. The General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, recordkeeping, and reporting. Among other requirements, each facility would be required to submit an initial notification that complies with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9(b) of the General Provisions within 120 days of the effective date of the final rule and a notification of compliance status that complies with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9(h) within 60 days after completion of the compliance assessment. Facilities would also be required to submit semi-annual compliance summary reports.
As described in section II.B, we listed the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing source category under CAA section 112(c)(3) on November 22, 2002 (67 FR 70427). The inclusion of this source category on the area source category list was based on data from the CAA section 112(k) inventory, which represents 1990 urban air information. The asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category was listed as contributing a percentage of the total area source urban HAP emissions for PAH.
In developing the proposed standards for this source category, we relied upon information on the production operations, emission sources, and prevalent emission controls employed by area sources: (1) Obtained from the industry trade association; (2) gleaned from published literature; and (3) derived from reviewing operating permits. We also held discussions with industry representatives, State permitting organizations, and EPA experts. This research confirmed that the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing source category emits PAH.
“Affected source” means the collection of equipment and processes in the source category or subcategory to which the subpart applies. We selected the affected source for this subpart based upon the processes identified in the CAA section 112(k) inventory data for this category as emitting PAH. The affected source is comprised of two operations, which are: (1) Asphalt processing (refining) operations; and (2) asphalt manufacturing (coating) operations. Some facilities conduct both of these operations, while others conduct only asphalt coating operations.
The proposed rule includes both a PAH emission limit and an equivalent PM emission limit. We have determined that it is appropriate to treat PM as a surrogate for PAH. PAH are a fractional constituent of the PM currently being controlled by affected sources. Thus, reductions in PM emissions necessarily result in proportional reductions in PAH emissions since the PM control devices used by sources in the category also effectively control PAH emissions. As we have been able to quantify the relationship between PM emissions and PAH emissions, we believe that it is appropriate to allow owners and operators to monitor and quantify PM emissions in lieu of monitoring and quantifying PAH emissions. This approach is particularly appropriate for this source category since the existing Federal regulations that cover these sources (
As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), we are proposing standards representing GACT to regulate PAH emissions from the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing source category. The CAA allows the Agency to establish standards for area sources listed pursuant to section 112(c) based on GACT. The statute does not set any condition precedent for issuing standards under section 112(d)(5) other than that the area source category or subcategory at issue must be one that EPA listed pursuant to section 112(c), which is the case here.
In establishing GACT, we considered the control technologies currently used by facilities in the source category that reduce PAH emissions from the refining operations and coating operations described in section II.C. of this preamble, and the costs and incremental emissions reduction achieved by more stringent controls. We were unable to identify any management practices which effectively reduced PAH emissions.
1. Asphalt processing.
Based upon the process equipment and control device configuration data supplied by the industry trade association (the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association, ARMA) and data obtained through online permit database searches, all of the existing blowing stills are controlled using thermal oxidation. Thermal oxidizers at existing sources reduce PAH to 0.003 lb/ton of asphalt charged to the blowing stills. Consequently, we consider GACT
For new blowing stills, we are also proposing that GACT is a PAH emissions limit of 0.003 lb/ton of asphalt charged to the blowing stills, or a PM emissions limit of 1.2 lb/ton of asphalt charged to the blowing stills. Based upon the information currently available, we did not identify any technologies beyond thermal oxidation for which we would propose more stringent emission limits for new blowing stills in this source category.
2. Asphalt roofing manufacturing.
For roofing manufacturing operations, we estimated the baseline level of control in the industry using process equipment and control device configuration data supplied by ARMA and data obtained through online permit database searches. We also conducted a Web search and obtained operating permits for 9 non-ARMA facilities. Using the emissions data collected to support development of the asphalt NESHAP, we determined that establishing separate subcategories for coater-only, saturator-only, and combined saturator/coater production lines is appropriate to address the different types of equipment configurations. Saturators manufacture roofing products using organic substrates (
We established the proposed emission limits indicative of GACT for each of these subcategories by applying the average reduction performance for PAH and PM emissions achieved by the controls identified at baseline for each type of process. For existing roofing production lines, we established GACT as follows for each subcategory:
• PAH emission limit of 0.0002 lb/ton of product manufactured or an alternative, equivalent PM emission limit of 0.03 lb/ton of product manufactured for coater-only lines;
• PAH emission limit of 0.0004 lb/ton of product manufactured or an alternative, equivalent PM emission limit of 0.05 lb/ton of product manufactured for saturator-only lines; and
• PAH emission limit of 0.0006 lb/ton of product manufactured or an alternative, equivalent PM emission limit of 0.07 lb/ton of product manufactured for combined saturator/coater lines.
For new sources, we established the GACT level of control at the same level as GACT for existing sources, which reflects the use of fiber-bed or high-efficiency air filters. We considered requiring that new sources reduce PAH emission using thermal oxidizers. However, we rejected this option because of the high cost-effectiveness value ($5,000,000/ton of PAH reduced) which is due to the very low levels of PAH emissions and the high capital and annual costs associated with thermal oxidizers, when compared to less expensive PM controls.
We are proposing testing, monitoring, notification, and recordkeeping requirements that are adequate to assure continuous compliance with the requirements of the rule. These provisions are based, in part, on requirements that have been applied to industries with similar control devices in other rulemakings. We selected these requirements based upon our determination of the information necessary to ensure emissions controls are maintained and operated properly on a continuing basis. We believe the proposed requirements would ensure continuous compliance with the emission reduction requirements of this proposed rule without posing a significant additional burden for facilities that must implement them.
We are proposing that compliance with the emission limits for blowing stills be demonstrated by monitoring the combustion zone operating temperature and maintaining the 3-hour average combustion zone operating temperature at or above the temperature established during the initial compliance demonstration.
The performance of thermal oxidizers is dictated by the turbulence and residence time of the gases in the combustion zone and by the combustion zone temperature. For a given flow rate, the turbulence and residence time are fixed properties. Therefore, the remaining parameter necessary for determining the operation of the thermal oxidizer is combustion zone temperature. Additionally, most thermal oxidizers are already equipped with systems for monitoring and recording operating temperature. Monitoring of combustion zone temperature for blowing still thermal oxidizers is also required by the asphalt NSPS. For the initial compliance demonstration, facilities would be allowed to use the results from performance tests used to demonstrate compliance with Federal or State regulations that are at least as stringent as the proposed emission limits, provided that the performance test was conducted within the last 5 years and the test methods used were the same as the test methods specified in the proposed rule. Additionally, the owner or operator must be able to demonstrate that no process changes have been made since the date of the previous test, or that the results of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite any process changes. We are proposing to allow the use of existing performance tests to reduce the potential compliance burden on asphalt area sources.
We are proposing that compliance with the emission limits for saturators, coating mixers, and coaters using add-on controls be demonstrated by monitoring the gas temperature at the inlet of the PM control device and the pressure drop across the device. Facilities must maintain the 3-hour average inlet gas temperature and the 3-hour average pressure drop across the control device at or below the operating limits established during the initial compliance demonstration. We believe that, for this source category, the removal performance of PM control devices is adequately characterized by the inlet gas temperature and pressure drop across the device. For all PM control devices, the inlet gas temperature would have to be at or below the temperature at which the performance test was conducted to ensure that a sufficient amount of PM has condensed from the vent gas prior to entering the PM control device. The control device pressure drop would have to be at or below the value established during the performance test to ensure that the control device is providing sufficient removal of PM and that the removal mechanism (
Facilities that can comply with the proposed standards without the use of add-on control devices must monitor approved process parameters and maintain those parameters within the range of values established during the initial performance test.
For the reasons described below, we are proposing exemption from title V permitting requirements for affected sources in the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category that are not already required to have a title V permit for other reasons. We estimate that approximately 33 of the 75 area source facilities in this industry currently have title V permits. We are not proposing that sources in this category that already have a title V permit be exempt from title V permitting requirements.
Section 502(a) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may exempt an area source category from title V if (s)he determines that compliance with title V requirements is “impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome” on an area source category. See CAA section 502(a). In December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term “unnecessarily burdensome” in CAA section 502 and developed a four-factor balancing test for determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category, such that an exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December 19, 2005 (Exemption Rule).
The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome on a particular area source category include: (1) Whether title V would result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V permitting would impose significant burdens on the area source category and whether the burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the sources may have in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 FR 75324); (3) whether the costs of title V permitting for the area source category would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); and (4) whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP for the area source category, without relying on title V permits (70 FR 75326).
In discussing these factors in the Exemption Rule, we further explained that we considered on “a case-by-case basis the extent to which one or more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for a given source category, and then we assessed whether considered together those factors demonstrated that compliance with title V requirements would be `unnecessarily burdensome' on the category, consistent with section 502(a) of the Act.” See 70 FR 75323. Thus, in the Exemption Rule, we explained that not all of the four factors must weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to determine that title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category. Instead, the factors are to be considered in combination, and EPA determines whether the factors, taken together, support an exemption from title V for a particular source category.
In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome on an area source category, we considered, consistent with the guidance provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether exempting an area source category would adversely affect public health, welfare or the environment. See 70 FR 15254–15255, March 25, 2005. As explained below, we propose that title V permitting is unreasonably burdensome for the area source category at issue in this proposed rule. We have also determined that the proposed exemptions from title V would not adversely affect public health, welfare and the environment. Our rationale for this decision follows here.
In considering the exemption from title V requirements for sources in the category affected by this proposed rule, we first compared the title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements (factor one) to the requirements in the proposed NESHAP for the area source category. The proposed rule requires facilities to comply with an emission limit using either process changes or add-on controls. Continuous compliance would be demonstrated using parametric monitoring of the process or a control device. Facilities that can comply with the proposed standards without the use of add-on control devices must monitor approved process parameters and maintain those parameters within the range or value established during the initial performance test. For add-on control devices (
Additionally, the owner or operator must be able to demonstrate that no process changes have been made since the date of the previous test, or that the results of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite any process changes. New sources would be required to conduct initial performance tests.
The proposed rule also requires the preparation of a semi-annual
As part of the first factor, in addition to monitoring, we have considered the extent to which title V could potentially enhance compliance for area sources covered by this proposed rule through recordkeeping or reporting requirements. We have considered the various title V recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including requirements for a 6-month monitoring report, deviation reports, and an annual certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6. For any affected area source in this category, this proposed rule would require an Initial Notification and a Notification of Compliance Status. In addition, owners or operators or affected facilities must maintain records that show on-going compliance with the emission limits and the established monitoring parameters. The information in the semi-annual compliance reports is consistent with the information that must be provided in the monitoring reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3).
We acknowledge that title V might impose additional compliance requirements on this category, but we believe the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this proposed NESHAP for the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing source category would be sufficient to assure compliance with the provisions of this NESHAP, and title V would not significantly improve those compliance requirements.
For the second factor, we determined whether title V permitting would impose a significant burden on the area sources in the category and whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency. Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. EPA estimated that the average cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit was $65,700 per source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. See Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, June 2007, EPA ICR Number 1587.07. EPA does not have specific estimates for the burdens and costs of permitting these specific types of area sources; however, there are certain activities associated with the part 70 and 71 rules. These activities are mandatory and impose burdens on the facility. They include reading and understanding permit program guidance and regulations; obtaining and understanding permit application forms; answering follow-up questions from permitting authorities after the application is submitted; reviewing and understanding the permit; collecting records; preparing and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-month or more frequent basis; preparing and submitting prompt deviation reports, as defined by the State, which may include a combination of written, verbal, and other communications methods; collecting information, preparing, and submitting the annual compliance certification; preparing applications for permit revisions every 5 years; and, as needed, preparing and submitting applications for permit revisions. In addition, although not required by the permit rules, many sources obtain the contractual services of consultants to help them understand and meet the permitting program's requirements. The ICR for part 70 provides additional information on the overall burdens and costs, as well as the relative burdens of each activity described here. Also, for a more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70 sources (hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
In assessing the second factor for facilities affected by this proposal, approximately 33 currently have title V permits leaving approximately 42 facilities that do not. Based upon the permits reviewed for this proposed rulemaking, we believe that none of the facilities that currently have title V permits are small entities. There are approximately 11 facilities owned and operated by small entities. As discussed above, title V permitting would impose significant costs on these area sources, and, accordingly, we conclude that title V is a significant burden for sources in this category. Furthermore, given the number of sources in the category that currently do not have a title V permit, it may be difficult for them to obtain sufficient assistance from the permitting authority. Thus, we conclude that factor two supports title V exemption for this category.
The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources. As explained above for the second factor, the costs of compliance with title V would impose a significant burden on facilities that do not currently have title V operating permits. Although title V might impose additional requirements, we believe in considering the first factor the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this proposed NESHAP assure compliance with the emission standards imposed in the NESHAP as proposed. In addition, in our consideration of the fourth factor, we find that there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP. Because the costs, both economic and non-economic, of compliance with title V are high for any small entity, and the potential for gains in compliance is low, title V permitting is not justified for this source category. Accordingly, the third factor supports title V exemptions for this area source category.
The fourth factor we considered in determining if title V is unnecessarily burdensome is whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP without relying on title V permits. EPA has implemented regulations that provide States the opportunity to take delegation of area source NESHAP, and we believe that States' delegated programs are sufficient to assure compliance with this NESHAP. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E (States must have adequate programs to enforce the section 112 regulations and provide assurances that they will enforce the NESHAP before EPA will delegate the program). We also noted that EPA retains authority to enforce this NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. Also, States and EPA often conduct voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs (compliance assistance programs), which are not required by statute. We determined that these additional programs will supplement and enhance the success of compliance with these proposed standards. We believe that the statutory requirements for implementation and enforcement of this NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA and the additional assistance programs described above together are sufficient to assure compliance with
In light of all the information presented here, we believe that there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the proposed standards without relying on title V permitting.
Balancing the four factors for this area source category strongly supports the proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome in this situation. While title V might add additional compliance requirements if imposed, we believe that there would not be significant improvements to the compliance requirements in this proposed rule because the proposed rule requirements are specifically designed to assure compliance with the emission standards imposed on this area source category. We further maintain that the costs of compliance with title V would impose a significant burden on the 42 facilities that do not currently have a title V permit. We determined that the high relative costs would not be justified given that there is likely to be little or no potential gain in compliance if title V permitting were required. And, finally, there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with these proposed standards. Thus, we propose that title V permitting is “unnecessarily burdensome” for this area source category.
In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V requirements is “unnecessarily burdensome,” EPA also considered, consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether exempting this area source category from title V requirements would adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment. Exemption of this area source category from title V requirements would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment because the level of control would remain the same if a permit were required. The title V permit program does not impose new substantive air quality control requirements on sources, but instead requires that certain procedural measures be followed, particularly with respect to determining compliance with applicable requirements. As stated in our consideration of factor one for this category, title V would not lead to significant improvements in the compliance requirements applicable to existing or new area sources.
Furthermore, we explained in the Exemption Rule that requiring permits for a relatively small number of area source facilities subject to these proposed standards could, at least in the first few years of implementation, potentially adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment by shifting State agency resources away from assuring compliance for major sources with existing permits to issuing new permits for these area sources, potentially reducing overall air program effectiveness. Based on the above analysis, we conclude that title V exemptions for these area sources will not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment for all of the reasons explained above.
For the reasons stated here, we are proposing to exempt this area source category from title V permitting requirements.
Since 1990, in addition to the increased use of add-on controls due to Federal and State permitting requirements, the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing industry has further reduced its air impacts by reducing the amount of asphalt used to manufacture roofing products (reformulation), largely through the use of inorganic substrates which do not require the asphalt-intensive step of saturating the substrate. These process improvements have reduced the generation rate of PAH emissions by approximately 0.0015 lbs/ton of product manufactured before controls are applied. In addition to the PAH emission reductions, the process improvements undertaken by the industry since 1990 have resulted in reductions of approximately 0.02 lbs of total HAP, 0.29 lbs of THC, and 0.58 lbs of PM per ton of product manufactured.
We believe that the proposed standards codify the reductions in PAH emissions, and co-control of total HAP, THC, and PM emissions, that have been achieved by the asphalt refining and asphalt roofing manufacturing industry since 1990 by requiring compliance with the level of control that can be achieved via use of current GACT coupled with the reduced rate of asphalt used by the industry.
We believe that all asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities will be able to meet the proposed standards using existing controls; some facilities may need to conduct emission tests to demonstrate compliance. Therefore, no additional air pollution control devices would be required. However, we have assumed that 38 facilities (50 percent) will need to install a pressure drop monitoring system for existing controls. No other capital costs are associated with this proposed rule and no new operational and maintenance costs are expected because, absent any data to demonstrate otherwise, we have assumed that existing facilities are already following the manufacturer's instructions for operation and maintenance of pollution control devices and systems.
The annual cost of monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping for this proposed rule is estimated at approximately $3,000 per facility per year for the first 3 years following promulgation. The costs are expected to be less than 1 percent of revenues. The annual estimate includes 8 hours per facility per year for preparing semiannual compliance reports.
The total number of labor hours for the first 3 years following promulgation in this annual cost estimate is 12,442 hours. This total includes 173 hours industry-wide for preparation of the Initial Notification in the first year and 173 hours industry-wide for preparation of the Notification of Compliance Status in the first year. The average total labor hour burden in the first year is 71 hours per facility, which include 15 hours per facility for monitoring activities.
Information on our cost impact estimates on the sources is available in the docket for this proposed rule. (See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0027).
The only measurable costs attributable to these proposed standards are associated with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. These proposed standards are estimated to impact a total of 75 area source facilities. We estimate that 11 of these facilities are owned by small businesses. Our analysis indicates that this proposed rule would not impose a significant adverse impact on any facilities, large or small, because these costs are less than 1 percent of the individual company revenues.
No detrimental secondary impacts are expected to occur from the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing sources because all facilities are currently achieving the GACT level of control. No additional solid waste would be generated as a result of the PAH and PM emissions collected and there are no additional energy impacts associated with the
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action” because it may raise novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the OMB for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this proposed rule are based on the requirements in EPA's NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the General Provisions are mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than emissions data submitted to EPA pursuant to the information collection requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to CAA section 114(c) and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
This proposed NESHAP would require asphalt roofing manufacturing area sources to submit an Initial Notification and a Notification of Compliance Status and to conduct continuous parametric monitoring and submit semi-annual compliance reports according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the General Provisions (subpart A). The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the first three years of this ICR is estimated to be a total of 4,147 labor hours per year at a cost of $224,085 or approximately $3,000 per facility.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number [EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0027]. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed area source NESHAP on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 750 for NAICS 324122); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule is estimated to impact all new and existing asphalt roofing manufacturing area source facilities. We estimate that 11 facilities are owned by small entities. Although some small entities may incur capital costs to install additional monitoring equipment (
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The standards represent practices and controls that are common throughout the asphalt roofing manufacturing industry. The standards also require only the essential recordkeeping and reporting needed to demonstrate and verify compliance. These standards were developed based on information obtained for small businesses in the data provided by ARMA and obtained through online permit database searches, consultation with small business representatives on the State and national level, and industry representatives that are affiliated with small businesses.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this proposed action on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, tribal governments or the private sector.
This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The proposed rules contain no requirements that apply to such governments, and impose no obligations upon them.
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule does not impose any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action would not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. The action imposes requirements on owners and operators of specified area sources and not tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology performance.
This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this proposed rule is not likely to have any adverse energy impacts.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA proposes in this rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5A, and 23. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified.
Under § 63.7(f) and § 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of this proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. This proposed rule will establish national standards for the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart AAAAAAA to read as follows:
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an asphalt processing operation and/or asphalt roofing manufacturing operation that is an area source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions, as defined in § 63.2.
(b) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source as defined in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
(1)
(2)
(c) This subpart does not apply to hot mix asphalt plant operations that are used in the paving of roads or hardstand, or operations where asphalt may be used in the fabrication of a built-up roof.
(d) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced construction after July 9, 2009.
(e) An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the criteria as defined in § 63.2.
(f) An affected source is an existing source if it is not new or reconstructed.
(g) On and after [Insert date of publication of the final rule in the FEDERAL REGISTER], if your asphalt processing or asphalt roofing manufacturing operation becomes a major source, as defined in § 63.2, you must meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL.
(h) This subpart does not apply to research or laboratory facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act.
(i) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a). Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with the provisions of this subpart.
(a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must be in compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart no later than [Insert date one year after publication of the final rule in the
(b) If you own or operate a new affected source, you must be in compliance with the provisions in this subpart on or before [Insert date of publication of the final rule in the
(a) For asphalt processing operations, you must meet the emission limits specified in Table 1 of this subpart.
(b) For asphalt roofing manufacturing lines, you must meet the applicable emission limits specified in Table 2 of this subpart.
(c) These standards apply at all times.
(a) For asphalt processing operations, you must demonstrate compliance with the emission limits specified in Table 1 of this subpart by conducting emission tests using the methods specified in Table 3 of this subpart.
(b) For asphalt roofing manufacturing lines that include a saturator, you must demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable emission limits specified in Table 2 of this subpart by conducting emission tests using the methods specified in Table 3 of this subpart.
(c) For asphalt roofing manufacturing lines that do not include a saturator, you must demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable emission limits specified in Table 2 of this subpart by:
(1) Conducting emission tests using the methods specified in Table 3 of this subpart, or
(2) Using process knowledge and engineering calculations.
(d) During the emission tests specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)(1) of this section, you must establish the value of the monitoring parameters specified in Table 4 to this subpart. If you are using process knowledge and engineering calculations to demonstrate initial compliance, as specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, you must identify the process parameters and corresponding parameter values that you will monitor and maintain to demonstrate continuous compliance.
(e) As an alternative to the emission testing requirement specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section, you may use the results of a previously-conducted emission test to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations in this subpart for existing sources if:
(1) The test was conducted within the last 5 years;
(2) No changes have been made to the process since the time of the emission test;
(3) The operating conditions and test methods used for the previous test conform to the requirements of this subpart; and
(4) The control device and process parameter values established during the previously-conducted emission test are used to demonstrate continuous compliance with this subpart.
(f) For existing sources, you must demonstrate initial compliance no later than 180 calendar days after [Insert date one year after publication of the final rule in the
(g) For new sources, you must demonstrate initial compliance no later than 180 calendar days after [Insert date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] or within 180 calendar days after startup of the source, whichever is later.
(h) For emission tests conducted to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits specified in Tables 1 and 2, you must follow the requirements specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(5) of this section.
(1) You must conduct the tests under conditions that represent normal operation. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
(2) You must conduct a minimum of three separate test runs for each performance test required in this section, as specified in § 63.7(e)(3). The sampling time and sample volume of each test run must be as follows:
(i) For asphalt processing operations, the sampling time and sample volume for each test run must be at least 90 minutes or the duration of the coating blow or non-coating blow, whichever is greater, and 2.25 dscm (79.4 dscf).
(ii) For asphalt coating operations, the sampling time and sample volume for each test run must be at least 120 minutes and 3.00 dscm (106 dscf).
(3) For asphalt processing operations, you must use the following equations to calculate the asphalt charging rate (P).
(i) P=(Vd)/(K′ Θ)
(4) You must use the following equation to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits specified in Table 2 of this subpart:
(5) For coating operations, you must conduct the performance test while manufacturing one of the following final products:
(i) A 106.6-kg (235-lb) shingle or mineral-surfaced roll roofing.
(ii) A 6.8-kg (15-lb) saturated felt or smooth-surfaced roll roofing.
(iii) A 100-kg (220-lb) fiberglass shingle.
(a) If you are using a control device to comply with the emission limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this subpart, you must establish site-specific control device parameter values during the initial emission test and maintain those parameters as specified in Table 4 of this subpart.
(b) If you are using an emission test to demonstrate that no add-on control devices are required to comply with the emission limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this subpart, you must establish site-specific process parameter values during the initial emission test and maintain those parameters as specified in Table 4 of this subpart.
(c) If you are using means other than those listed in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section to comply with the emission limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this subpart, you must apply to the Administrator for approval of an alternative monitoring plan under § 63.8(f). The plan must specify how process parameters identified in the initial compliance demonstration under § 63.11562(c)(2) will be monitored and maintained to demonstrate continuous compliance.
(d) If you are using a control device to comply with the emission limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this subpart, you must install, operate, and maintain a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) of this section.
(1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period.
(2) To determine the 3-hour average, you must:
(i) Have a minimum of four successive cycles of operation to have a valid hour of data.
(ii) Have valid data from at least three of four equally spaced data values for that hour from a CPMS that is not out-of-control according to your site-specific monitoring plan.
(iii) Determine the 3-hour average of all recorded readings for each operating day, except as stated in paragraph (b) of this section. You must have at least two of the three hourly averages for that period using only hourly average values that are based on valid data (
(3) You must record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check of the CPMS.
(e) For each temperature monitoring device, you must meet the CPMS requirements in paragraph (d) of this section and the following:
(1) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a representative temperature.
(2) For a noncryogenic temperature range, use a temperature sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2.8 °C or 1.0 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger.
(3) If a chart recorder is used, the recorder sensitivity in the minor division must be at least 20 °F.
(4) Perform an accuracy check at least semiannually or following an operating parameter deviation:
(i) According to the procedures in the manufacturer's documentation; or
(ii) By comparing the sensor output to redundant sensor output; or
(iii) By comparing the sensor output to the output from a calibrated temperature measurement device; or
(iv) By comparing the sensor output to the output from a temperature simulator.
(5) Conduct accuracy checks any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature range or install a new temperature sensor.
(6) At least quarterly or following an operating parameter deviation, perform visual inspections of components if redundant sensors are not used.
(f) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the CPMS requirements of paragraph (d) of this section and the following:
(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in, or as close as possible, to a position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure.
(2) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.12 kiloPascals or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 5 percent of the pressure range.
(3) Check pressure tap pluggage daily. Perform an accuracy check at least quarterly or following an operating parameter deviation:
(i) According to the manufacturer's procedures; or
(ii) By comparing the sensor output to redundant sensor output.
(4) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a new pressure sensor.
(5) At least monthly or following an operating parameter deviation, perform a leak check of all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage.
(6) At least quarterly or following an operating parameter deviation, perform visible inspections on all components if redundant sensors are not used.
(g) For each electrostatic precipitator (ESP) used to control emissions, you must install and operate a CPMS to provide representative measurements of the voltage supplied to the ESP.
(h) As an alternative to installing the CPMS specified in paragraph (d) of this section, you may install a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) that meets the requirements specified in § 63.8 and the applicable performance specifications of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
(i) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or operating levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling a minimum data availability requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated control system.
(j) For each monitoring system required in this section, you must develop and make available for inspection by the permitting authority, upon request, a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses the following:
(1) Installation of the CPMS or CEMS sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions (
(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and reduction system; and
(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria (
(k) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address the following:
(1) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii), (c)(7), and (c)(8);
(2) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8(d); and
(3) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
(l) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CPMS or CEMS in accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
(m) You must operate and maintain the CPMS or CEMS in continuous operation according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
(n) At all times the owner or operator must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by this standard have been achieved. Determination of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
(a) You must submit the notifications specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this section.
(1) You must submit all of the notifications in §§ 63.5(b), 63.7(b); 63.8(e) and (f); 63.9(b) through (e); and 63.9(g) and (h) that apply to you by the dates specified in those sections.
(2) As specified in § 63.9(b)(2), if you have an existing affected source, you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after [Insert date of publication].
(3) As specified in § 63.9(b)(4) and (5), if you have a new affected source, you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.
(4) You must submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as required in § 63.7(b)(1).
(5) You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to § 63.9(h)(2)(ii). You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test according to § 63.10(d)(2).
(6) If you are using data from a previously-conducted emission test to serve as documentation of conformance with the emission standards and operating limits of this subpart, you must submit the test data in lieu of the initial performance test results with the Notification of Compliance Status required under paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
(b) You must submit a compliance report as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section.
(1) During periods for which there are no deviations from any emission limitations (emission limit or operating limit) that apply to you, the compliance report must contain the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(1)(v) of this section.
(i) Company name and address.
(ii) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness of the content of the report.
(iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period.
(iv) A statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period.
(v) If there were no periods during which the CPMS or CEMS was out-of-control as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods during which the CPMS or CEMS was out-of-control during the reporting period.
(2) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit and operating limit), including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must include the information in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(ii) The date and time that each CPMS or CEMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(iii) The date, time and duration that each CPMS or CEMS was out-of-control, including the information in § 63.8(c)(8).
(iv) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
(v) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period.
(vi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
(vii) A summary of the total duration of CPMS or CEMS downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of CPMS or CEMS downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period.
(viii) An identification of each air pollutant that was monitored at the affected source.
(ix) A brief description of the process units.
(x) A brief description of the CPMS or CEMS.
(xi) The date of the latest CPMS or CEMS certification or audit.
(xii) A description of any changes in CPMS, CEMS, processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(3) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of reports under § 63.10(a), you must submit each report in Table 4 to this subpart and according to the following dates:
(i) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.11560 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for your source in § 63.11560.
(ii) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.11560.
(iii) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(iv) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(c) You must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) of this section.
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted, according to the requirements in § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(2) Records of performance tests and performance evaluations as required in § 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(3) Documentation identifying the emissions limit of the compliance alternative specified in § 63.11561(c)(1) or (c)(2), if an alternative is used, and the calculations that show that the emission reductions achieved by the compliance alternative are at least as stringent as those achieved by complying with the applicable emission limits specified in § 63.11561(a) and (b).
(4) Calculations and supporting documentation that shows compliance with the applicable emission limits specified in Table 2 of this subpart if the initial compliance demonstration is based upon process knowledge and engineering calculations as specified in § 63.11562(c)(2).
(5) Documentation that shows that the following conditions are true, if you use a previously-conducted emission test to demonstrate initial compliance as specified in § 63.11562(d):
(i) The test was conducted within the last 5 years;
(ii) No changes have been made to the process since the time of the emission test;
(iii) The operating conditions and test methods used for the previous test conform to the requirements of this subpart; and
(iv) The control device and process parameter values established during the previously-conducted emission test are used to demonstrate continuous compliance with this subpart.
(6) A copy of the approved alternative monitoring plan required under § 63.11563(c).
(7) Records required in Table 4 to this subpart to show continuous compliance with each operating limit that applies to you.
You must comply with the requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) according to Table 5 of this subpart.
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the following authorities are retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA:
(1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in §§ 63.11559, 63.11560, 63.11561, 63.11562, and 63.11563.
(2) Approval of major changes to test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in § 63.90.
(3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as defined in § 63.90.
(4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under § 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90.