National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing, 32822-32838 [E9-16260]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32822-32838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16260]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0027; FRL-8928-3]
RIN 2060-AO94


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area 
Sources: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing national emissions standards for the control 
of emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from the asphalt 
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category. 
These proposed emissions standards for new and existing sources are 
based upon EPA's proposed determination as to what constitutes the 
generally available control technology or management practices (GACT) 
for the source category.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 10, 2009 unless a 
public hearing is requested by July 20, 2009. If a hearing is requested 
on the proposed rules, written comments must be received by August 24, 
2009. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information 
collection provisions are best assured of having full effect if the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments 
on or before August 10, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0027, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web Site: https://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the EPA Air and 
Radiation Docket Web Site.
     E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0027 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744.
     Mail: Area Source NESHAP for Asphalt Processing and 
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of 
two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the 
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., 
Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA 
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0027. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy 
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 
Area Source NESHAP for Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Docket, EPA/DC,

[[Page 32823]]

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air 
Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Warren Johnson, Outreach and 
Information Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MC-
C404-05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5124; fax number: 
(919) 541-0242; e-mail address: johnson.warren@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards
    A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for 
the proposed standards?
    B. What source categories are affected by the proposed 
standards?
    C. What are the production operations, emission sources, and 
available controls?
    D. What existing national standards apply to this source 
category?
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
    A. Do the proposed standards apply to my source?
    B. When must I comply with the proposed standards?
    C. What are the proposed standards?
    D. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements?
    E. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule
    A. How did we select the source category?
    B. How did we select the affected source?
    C. How did we address PAH emissions in this rule?
    D. How was GACT determined?
    E. How did we select the compliance requirements?
    F. How did we decide to exempt this area source category from 
title V permitting requirements?
V. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed Standards
    A. What are the air impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy 
impacts?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by the 
proposed standards include:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
            Category             NAICS code \1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refineries...........          324110  Area source facilities
                                                  that refine asphalt.
Asphalt Shingle and Coating              324122  Area source facilities
 Materials Manufacturing.                         that manufacture
                                                  asphalt roofing
                                                  materials.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this 
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 
63.11559 of subpart AAAAAAA (NESHAP for Area Sources: Asphalt 
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing). If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your 
EPA Regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A 
(General Provisions).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?

    Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified 
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 
Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0027. Clearly 
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For 
CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 
outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically 
within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as 
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the 
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of this proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following 
address: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information 
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

D. When would a public hearing occur?

    If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing 
concerning the proposed rule by July 20, 2009, we will hold a public 
hearing on July 24, 2009. Persons interested in presenting oral 
testimony at the hearing, or inquiring as to whether a hearing will be 
held, should contact Ms. Christine Adams at (919) 541-5590 at least two 
days in advance of the hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be 
held at 10 a.m. at EPA's Campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in 
Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby.

[[Page 32824]]

II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards

A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for the 
proposed standards?

    Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to establish 
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 
both major and area sources of HAP that are listed for regulation under 
CAA section 112(c). A major source emits or has the potential to emit 
10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more of 
any combination of HAP. An area source is a stationary source that is 
not a major source.
    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least 
30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the 
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. 
EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air 
Toxics Strategy, (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in the 
Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health 
threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``30 urban 
HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or 
subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing 
90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to 
regulation. A primary goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent 
reduction in cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted from 
stationary sources.
    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards 
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of 
generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT) 
by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' 
Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate report on the 
legislation (Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which 
describes GACT as:

* * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the 
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities 
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.

Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and 
economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important 
when developing regulations for source categories, like this one, that 
have many small businesses. Determining what constitutes GACT involves 
considering the control technologies and management practices that are 
generally available to the area sources in the source category. We also 
consider the standards applicable to major sources in the same 
industrial sector to determine if the control technologies and 
management practices are transferable and generally available to area 
sources. In appropriate circumstances, we may also consider 
technologies and practices at area and major sources in similar 
categories to determine whether such technologies and practices could 
be considered generally available for the area source category at 
issue. Finally, as noted above, in determining GACT for a particular 
area source category, we consider the costs and economic impacts of 
available control technologies and management practices on that 
category.
    We are proposing these national emission standards in response to a 
court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for 4 
source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) by 
August 17, 2009 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01-1537, D.D.C., March 
2006). Additional rulemakings will be published in separate Federal 
Register notices for the remaining source categories that are due in 
August 2009.

B. What source categories are affected by the proposed standards?

    We listed the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing 
source category under CAA section 112(c)(3) in one of a series of 
amendments (November 22, 2002, 67 FR 70427) to the original source 
category list included in the 1999 Integrated Urban Strategy. The 
inclusion of this source category on the section 112(c)(3) area source 
category list is based on 1990 emissions data, as EPA used 1990 as the 
baseline year for that listing. Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list 
sufficient categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that 
area sources representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban 
HAP are subject to regulation. The asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing source category was listed for its contributions 
toward meeting the 90 percent requirement for polycyclic organic matter 
in the form of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).

C. What are the production operations, emission sources, and available 
controls?

    The two production operations for which this category was listed 
are: (1) The asphalt processing operation (performed in blowing 
stills); and (2) the roofing product manufacturing operation, where 
substrates are coated with asphalt and other materials to produce 
various roofing products (e.g., shingles, roll roofing). The emission 
sources are the process vents from each of these operations.
    The production operation with the largest potential to emit PAH is 
the processing operation. To our knowledge, all existing blowing still 
process vents are controlled by combustion devices that reduce total 
hydrocarbon (THC) emissions through thermal oxidation, which also 
reduces particulate matter (PM) and PAH emissions (PM is a component of 
THC and PAHs are components of PM). We believe that thermal oxidation 
controls are the only type of emission control applied to blowing 
stills in this source category. We did not identify any management 
practices that would reduce PAH emissions from the asphalt processing 
operation.
    The other production operation with the potential to emit PAH at 
these facilities is the manufacturing (coating) operation. The 
equipment configuration of coating operations varies depending on the 
type of roofing product manufactured at the facility. Three types of 
manufacturing operations (coating line configurations) are used in the 
industry: (1) Lines with coaters only (these lines manufacture roofing 
products using inorganic substrates), (2) lines that have both 
saturators/wet loopers and coaters (these lines can manufacture roofing 
products using either inorganic or organic substrates), and (3) lines 
that have saturators/wet loopers only (these lines manufacture roofing 
products using organic substrates). Each of these manufacturing 
operation types have a unique emission characteristic profile.
    Based on available information, we believe PM controls (e.g., 
fiber-bed filters, high efficiency air filters (HEAF) or, in some of 
cases, thermal oxidizers) are the only type of add-on emission control 
devices applied to the manufacturing operation equipment. While these 
control technologies are capable of achieving similar control 
efficiencies, the emissions reductions that may be achieved through use 
of PM controls vary depending on the PM emissions generated by the 
different types of equipment configurations. We did not identify any 
management practices that would reduce PAH emissions from the asphalt 
roofing manufacturing operations.

D. What existing national standards apply to this source category?

    The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Asphalt

[[Page 32825]]

Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacture (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart UU) 
applies to ``each saturator and each mineral handling and storage 
facility at asphalt roofing plants; and each asphalt storage tank and 
each blowing still at asphalt processing plants, petroleum refineries, 
and asphalt roofing plants'' for which construction or modification 
commenced after November 18, 1980. The term ``saturator'' is defined in 
the NSPS to include the saturator, wet looper, and coater. Sources that 
are subject to the NSPS because they have blowing stills, saturators, 
wet loopers, or coaters that have been constructed or modified since 
November 18, 1980 would be subject to this proposed rule.
    In addition to the asphalt NSPS, the major source NESHAP for 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart LLLLL) regulates HAP emissions from the same types of equipment 
(i.e., blowing stills, saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, and 
coaters) covered by this proposed rule. However, area sources that 
would be subject to this proposed rule would not be covered by the 
asphalt NESHAP unless they become a major source.

III. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Do the proposed standards apply to my source?

    The proposed subpart AAAAAAA standards would apply to each existing 
and new area source facility that processes asphalt and/or manufactures 
roofing products using saturation and/or coating processes. The 
standards do not apply to research or laboratory facilities, as defined 
in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA.

B. When must I comply with the proposed standards?

    All existing area source facilities subject to this proposed rule 
would be required to comply with the rule requirements no later than 
one year after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. New sources would be required to comply with the rule 
requirements by the date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register or at startup of the facility, whichever is later.
    Because the majority of existing sources in this category are 
already well-controlled, we believe that one year is a reasonable 
amount of time to allow existing sources to conduct performance testing 
and prepare compliance demonstrations with the proposed rule.

C. What are the proposed standards?

    As discussed in section II.C of this preamble, the two production 
operations for which this category was listed are: (1) Asphalt 
processing (refining) operations; and (2) roofing product manufacturing 
operations.
    For asphalt processing, the proposed standards would require the 
owner or operator to limit PAH emissions to 0.003 lb/ton of asphalt 
charged to the asphalt refining (blowing still) operation. 
Alternatively, owners or operators may choose to comply with a PM 
emissions limit of 1.2 lb/ton of asphalt charged to the asphalt 
refining operation. The proposed standards for new refining operations 
are the same as for existing sources.
    For the asphalt roofing product manufacturing operations, we 
examined the process operations and other factors and determined that 
subcategories are justified to reflect the unique emission 
characteristic profiles of the different equipment configurations. We 
developed three subcategories based upon the various equipment 
configurations used in the industry: (1) Production lines that use a 
coater only, (2) production lines that use a saturator only, and (3) 
production lines that use saturators and coaters. See section IV.D of 
this preamble for a discussion of how GACT was determined.
    For existing coater-only production lines, the proposed standards 
would require the owner or operator to limit PAH emissions from all 
coating mixers and coaters to 0.0002 lb/ton of product manufactured. 
Alternatively, owners or operators may choose to comply with a PM 
emission limit of 0.03 lb/ton of product manufactured.
    For existing saturator-only production lines, the proposed 
standards would require the owner or operator to limit PAH emissions 
from all saturators (and wet loopers) to 0.0004 lb/ton of product 
manufactured. The proposed standards for saturator-only production 
lines would alternatively allow owners or operators to comply with a PM 
emissions limit of 0.05 lb/ton of product manufactured.
    For existing combined saturator and coater production lines, the 
proposed standards would require the owner or operator to limit PAH 
emissions from all saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, and coaters 
to 0.0006 lb/ton of product manufactured. The proposed standards for 
combined saturator and coater production lines would alternatively 
allow owners or operators to comply with a PM emissions limit of 0.07 
lb/ton of product manufactured. This alternative emission limit is at 
least as stringent as GACT for PAH emissions.
    The proposed standards for new roofing product manufacturing 
operations for all subcategories are the same as for existing sources.

D. What are the initial and continuous compliance requirements?

    The proposed standards would require an initial performance 
assessment of the process emissions or control device outlet to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable standard, and to 
establish the range of parameter values (e.g., temperature, pressure 
drop) for the process or control device that will be monitored to 
demonstrate continuous compliance. For existing sources, the proposed 
standards would require owners or operators to conduct the initial 
compliance assessment within 180 days of the date the final rule is 
published in the Federal Register. Owners or operators of new sources 
would be required to conduct compliance assessments within 180 days of 
the date the final rule is published in the Federal Register or startup 
(whichever is later).
    Initial compliance with proposed emission limits for existing and 
new asphalt processing operations and asphalt roofing manufacturing 
lines that include a saturator must be demonstrated by conducting 
emission tests. For existing and new asphalt roofing manufacturing 
lines that do not include a saturator, the proposed standards would 
allow owners or operators to demonstrate initial compliance and 
establish continuous monitoring parameters:
     By conducting emissions tests, or
     By using process knowledge and engineering calculations.
    As an alternative to conducting emission tests to demonstrate 
initial compliance with the asphalt processing or asphalt roofing 
manufacturing emission limits, an owner or operator of an existing 
source may use the results from an emission test conducted in the past 
five years. Owners or operators can use the results of the 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

[[Page 32826]]

and process conditions established during the initial compliance 
assessment. Under normal operating conditions (i.e., periods other than 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction), the proposed standards for 
demonstrating continuous compliance are based upon a 3-hour averaging 
period. In cases where add-on control devices are not needed to comply 
with the proposed standards, facilities would be required to establish 
operating values for process parameters during the performance 
assessment and maintain the 3-hour average of those parameters within 
the established values. If a thermal oxidizer is used to comply with 
the PAH or PM emission limits, the proposed standards would require 
that the 3-hour average combustion zone temperature of each affected 
thermal oxidizer be maintained at or above the operating limit 
established during the performance assessment. For PM control devices, 
the proposed standards would require that the inlet gas temperature be 
maintained at or below the average 3-hour value established during the 
performance assessment. The pressure drop across any filter media, if 
used by the control device (e.g., a HEAF), must also be maintained at 
or below the average 3-hour values established during the performance 
assessment. If an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) is used as the PM 
control device, the proposed standards would require that the 3-hour 
average ESP voltage be maintained at or above the operating value 
established during the initial performance test. For other types of 
controls, the proposed standards would allow the owner or operator to 
establish approved monitoring parameters and maintain the value of 
those parameters within the operating values established during the 
initial performance test. During periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction, facilities would be required to comply with the proposed 
emission limits; however, the averaging period for determining 
compliance would be extended from three hours to 24 hours.

E. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?

    Affected new and existing sources would be required to comply with 
certain requirements set forth in the General Provisions (40 CFR part 
63, subpart A), as identified in Table 5 of this proposed rule. The 
General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, 
recordkeeping, and reporting. Among other requirements, each facility 
would be required to submit an initial notification that complies with 
the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9(b) of the General Provisions within 120 
days of the effective date of the final rule and a notification of 
compliance status that complies with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9(h) 
within 60 days after completion of the compliance assessment. 
Facilities would also be required to submit semi-annual compliance 
summary reports.

IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule

A. How did we select the source category?

    As described in section II.B, we listed the asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing source category under CAA section 
112(c)(3) on November 22, 2002 (67 FR 70427). The inclusion of this 
source category on the area source category list was based on data from 
the CAA section 112(k) inventory, which represents 1990 urban air 
information. The asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing 
area source category was listed as contributing a percentage of the 
total area source urban HAP emissions for PAH.
    In developing the proposed standards for this source category, we 
relied upon information on the production operations, emission sources, 
and prevalent emission controls employed by area sources: (1) Obtained 
from the industry trade association; (2) gleaned from published 
literature; and (3) derived from reviewing operating permits. We also 
held discussions with industry representatives, State permitting 
organizations, and EPA experts. This research confirmed that the 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing source category 
emits PAH.

B. How did we select the affected source?

    ``Affected source'' means the collection of equipment and processes 
in the source category or subcategory to which the subpart applies. We 
selected the affected source for this subpart based upon the processes 
identified in the CAA section 112(k) inventory data for this category 
as emitting PAH. The affected source is comprised of two operations, 
which are: (1) Asphalt processing (refining) operations; and (2) 
asphalt manufacturing (coating) operations. Some facilities conduct 
both of these operations, while others conduct only asphalt coating 
operations.

C. How did we address PAH emissions in this rule?

    The proposed rule includes both a PAH emission limit and an 
equivalent PM emission limit. We have determined that it is appropriate 
to treat PM as a surrogate for PAH. PAH are a fractional constituent of 
the PM currently being controlled by affected sources. Thus, reductions 
in PM emissions necessarily result in proportional reductions in PAH 
emissions since the PM control devices used by sources in the category 
also effectively control PAH emissions. As we have been able to 
quantify the relationship between PM emissions and PAH emissions, we 
believe that it is appropriate to allow owners and operators to monitor 
and quantify PM emissions in lieu of monitoring and quantifying PAH 
emissions. This approach is particularly appropriate for this source 
category since the existing Federal regulations that cover these 
sources (i.e., the asphalt NSPS) already require testing for PM 
emissions.

D. How was GACT determined?

    As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), we are proposing standards 
representing GACT to regulate PAH emissions from the asphalt processing 
and asphalt roofing manufacturing source category. The CAA allows the 
Agency to establish standards for area sources listed pursuant to 
section 112(c) based on GACT. The statute does not set any condition 
precedent for issuing standards under section 112(d)(5) other than that 
the area source category or subcategory at issue must be one that EPA 
listed pursuant to section 112(c), which is the case here.
    In establishing GACT, we considered the control technologies 
currently used by facilities in the source category that reduce PAH 
emissions from the refining operations and coating operations described 
in section II.C. of this preamble, and the costs and incremental 
emissions reduction achieved by more stringent controls. We were unable 
to identify any management practices which effectively reduced PAH 
emissions.
    1. Asphalt processing.
    Based upon the process equipment and control device configuration 
data supplied by the industry trade association (the Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturers Association, ARMA) and data obtained through online 
permit database searches, all of the existing blowing stills are 
controlled using thermal oxidation. Thermal oxidizers at existing 
sources reduce PAH to 0.003 lb/ton of asphalt charged to the blowing 
stills. Consequently, we consider GACT

[[Page 32827]]

for existing blowing stills to be a PAH emissions limit of 0.003 lb/ton 
of asphalt charged to the blowing stills. Alternatively, the proposed 
standards would allow facilities to comply with an equivalent PM 
emissions limit of 1.2 lb/ton of asphalt charged to the blowing stills.
    For new blowing stills, we are also proposing that GACT is a PAH 
emissions limit of 0.003 lb/ton of asphalt charged to the blowing 
stills, or a PM emissions limit of 1.2 lb/ton of asphalt charged to the 
blowing stills. Based upon the information currently available, we did 
not identify any technologies beyond thermal oxidation for which we 
would propose more stringent emission limits for new blowing stills in 
this source category.
    2. Asphalt roofing manufacturing.
    For roofing manufacturing operations, we estimated the baseline 
level of control in the industry using process equipment and control 
device configuration data supplied by ARMA and data obtained through 
online permit database searches. We also conducted a Web search and 
obtained operating permits for 9 non-ARMA facilities. Using the 
emissions data collected to support development of the asphalt NESHAP, 
we determined that establishing separate subcategories for coater-only, 
saturator-only, and combined saturator/coater production lines is 
appropriate to address the different types of equipment configurations. 
Saturators manufacture roofing products using organic substrates (e.g., 
felt) which require much higher asphalt application rates than coaters 
which are used to manufacture roofing products based upon inorganic 
substrates (e.g., fiberglass mat). Because of the different asphalt 
application rates, the emission rate of PAH and PM from a saturator is 
an order of magnitude higher than that from a coater.
    We established the proposed emission limits indicative of GACT for 
each of these subcategories by applying the average reduction 
performance for PAH and PM emissions achieved by the controls 
identified at baseline for each type of process. For existing roofing 
production lines, we established GACT as follows for each subcategory:
     PAH emission limit of 0.0002 lb/ton of product 
manufactured or an alternative, equivalent PM emission limit of 0.03 
lb/ton of product manufactured for coater-only lines;
     PAH emission limit of 0.0004 lb/ton of product 
manufactured or an alternative, equivalent PM emission limit of 0.05 
lb/ton of product manufactured for saturator-only lines; and
     PAH emission limit of 0.0006 lb/ton of product 
manufactured or an alternative, equivalent PM emission limit of 0.07 
lb/ton of product manufactured for combined saturator/coater lines.
    For new sources, we established the GACT level of control at the 
same level as GACT for existing sources, which reflects the use of 
fiber-bed or 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.

E. How did we select the compliance requirements?

    We are proposing testing, monitoring, notification, and 
recordkeeping requirements that are adequate to assure continuous 
compliance with the requirements of the rule. These provisions are 
based, in part, on requirements that have been applied to industries 
with similar control devices in other rulemakings. We selected these 
requirements based upon our determination of the information necessary 
to ensure emissions controls are maintained and operated properly on a 
continuing basis. We believe the proposed requirements would ensure 
continuous compliance with the emission reduction requirements of this 
proposed rule without posing a significant additional burden for 
facilities that must implement them.
1. Asphalt Processing
    We are proposing that compliance with the emission limits for 
blowing stills be demonstrated by monitoring the combustion zone 
operating temperature and maintaining the 3-hour average combustion 
zone operating temperature at or above the temperature established 
during the initial compliance demonstration.
    The performance of thermal oxidizers is dictated by the turbulence 
and residence time of the gases in the combustion zone and by the 
combustion zone temperature. For a given flow rate, the turbulence and 
residence time are fixed properties. Therefore, the remaining parameter 
necessary for determining the operation of the thermal oxidizer is 
combustion zone temperature. Additionally, most thermal oxidizers are 
already equipped with systems for monitoring and recording operating 
temperature. Monitoring of combustion zone temperature for blowing 
still thermal oxidizers is also required by the asphalt NSPS. For the 
initial compliance demonstration, facilities would be allowed to use 
the results from performance tests used to demonstrate compliance with 
Federal or State regulations that are at least as stringent as the 
proposed emission limits, provided that the performance test was 
conducted within the last 5 years and the test methods used were the 
same as the test methods specified in the proposed rule. Additionally, 
the owner or operator must be able to demonstrate that no process 
changes have been made since the date of the previous test, or that the 
results of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably 
demonstrate compliance despite any process changes. We are proposing to 
allow the use of existing performance tests to reduce the potential 
compliance burden on asphalt area sources.
2. Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
    We are proposing that compliance with the emission limits for 
saturators, coating mixers, and coaters using 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 (e.g., filter media) does not 
become plugged or fouled. Although monitoring of pressure drop is not 
required by the asphalt NSPS, monitoring of inlet gas temperature for 
PM control devices is the same as the monitoring requirements of the 
asphalt NSPS. This minimizes the monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting burden on

[[Page 32828]]

facilities with these processes. We are also proposing to allow the use 
of existing performance tests for PM control devices in an effort to 
reduce the potential compliance burden on asphalt area sources, 
provided that the performance test was conducted within the last 5 
years and the test methods used were the same as the test methods 
specified in the proposed rule. Additionally, the owner or operator 
must be able to demonstrate that no process changes have been made 
since the date of the previous test, or that the results of the 
performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate 
compliance despite any process changes.
    Facilities that can comply with the proposed standards without the 
use of add-on control devices must monitor approved process parameters 
and maintain those parameters within the range of values established 
during the initial performance test.

F. How did we decide to exempt this area source category from title V 
permitting requirements?

    For the reasons described below, we are proposing exemption from 
title V permitting requirements for affected sources in the asphalt 
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category that 
are not already required to have a title V permit for other reasons. We 
estimate that approximately 33 of the 75 area source facilities in this 
industry currently have title V permits. We are not proposing that 
sources in this category that already have a title V permit be exempt 
from title V permitting requirements.
    Section 502(a) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may 
exempt an area source category from title V if (s)he determines that 
compliance with title V requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or 
unnecessarily burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section 
502(a). In December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the 
term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and developed a 
four-factor balancing test for determining whether title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category, such 
that an exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, 
December 19, 2005 (Exemption Rule).
    The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for 
determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome on a particular 
area source category include: (1) Whether title V would result in 
significant improvements to the compliance requirements, including 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area 
source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V permitting would 
impose significant burdens on the area source category and whether the 
burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the sources may have in 
obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 FR 75324); (3) 
whether the costs of title V permitting for the area source category 
would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in 
compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); and (4) 
whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that 
are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP for the area source 
category, without relying on title V permits (70 FR 75326).
    In discussing these factors in the Exemption Rule, we further 
explained that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to 
which one or more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for 
a given source category, and then we assessed whether considered 
together those factors demonstrated that compliance with title V 
requirements would be `unnecessarily burdensome' on the category, 
consistent with section 502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, in 
the Exemption Rule, we explained that not all of the four factors must 
weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to determine that title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category. 
Instead, the factors are to be considered in combination, and EPA 
determines whether the factors, taken together, support an exemption 
from title V for a particular source category.
    In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether 
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome 
on an area source category, we considered, consistent with the guidance 
provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether 
exempting an area source category would adversely affect public health, 
welfare or the environment. See 70 FR 15254-15255, March 25, 2005. As 
explained below, we propose that title V permitting is unreasonably 
burdensome for the area source category at issue in this proposed rule. 
We have also determined that the proposed exemptions from title V would 
not adversely affect public health, welfare and the environment. Our 
rationale for this decision follows here.
    In considering the exemption from title V requirements for sources 
in the category affected by this proposed rule, we first compared the 
title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements (factor 
one) to the requirements in the proposed NESHAP for the area source 
category. The proposed rule requires facilities to comply with an 
emission limit using either process changes or add-on controls. 
Continuous compliance would be demonstrated using parametric monitoring 
of the process or a control device. Facilities that can comply with the 
proposed standards without the use of add-on control devices must 
monitor approved process parameters and maintain those parameters 
within the range or value established during the initial performance 
test. For add-on control devices (i.e., PM control devices and thermal 
oxidizers) used to comply with the emission limits, the proposed rule 
specifies the monitoring parameters and averaging periods. For PM 
control devices, the proposed standards would require that the inlet 
gas temperature be maintained at or below the average 3-hour value 
established during the performance assessment. The pressure drop across 
any filter media, if used by the control device, must also be 
maintained at or below the average 3-hour values established during the 
performance assessment. If an electrostatic precipitator is used as the 
PM control device, the proposed standards would require that the 3-hour 
average ESP voltage be maintained at or above the operating value 
established during the initial performance test. For other types of 
controls, the proposed standards would allow owners or operators to 
establish approved monitoring parameters and maintain the value of 
those parameters within the operating values established during the 
initial performance test. For thermal oxidizers, the proposed rule 
would require the owner or operator to maintain the 3-hour average 
combustion zone temperature at or above the temperature established 
during the initial compliance demonstration. Existing sources would be 
allowed to use previously conducted performance tests to demonstrate 
compliance provided that the tests were conducted within the past 5 
years and the emission measurements were made using the test methods 
specified in the proposed standards.
    Additionally, the owner or operator must be able to demonstrate 
that no process changes have been made since the date of the previous 
test, or that the results of the performance test, with or without 
adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite any process 
changes. New sources would be required to conduct initial performance 
tests.
    The proposed rule also requires the preparation of a semi-annual

[[Page 32829]]

compliance certification report and submission of this report, which 
would include any deviations from the emission or operating limits that 
occurred during the reporting period, to the State agency. The semi-
annual report would call attention to those facilities in need of 
inspection to the State agency in the same way as a title V permit. 
Records would be required to ensure that the compliance requirements 
are followed and that any needed corrective actions are taken. 
Therefore, this proposed rule contains monitoring requirements that are 
sufficient to assure compliance with the proposed rule.
    As part of the first factor, in addition to monitoring, we have 
considered the extent to which title V could potentially enhance 
compliance for area sources covered by this proposed rule through 
recordkeeping or reporting requirements. We have considered the various 
title V recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including 
requirements for a 6-month monitoring report, deviation reports, and an 
annual certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6. For any affected area 
source in this category, this proposed rule would require an Initial 
Notification and a Notification of Compliance Status. In addition, 
owners or operators or affected facilities must maintain records that 
show on-going compliance with the emission limits and the established 
monitoring parameters. The information in the semi-annual compliance 
reports is consistent with the information that must be provided in the 
monitoring reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3).
    We acknowledge that title V might impose additional compliance 
requirements on this category, but we believe the monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this proposed NESHAP for 
the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing source 
category would be sufficient to assure compliance with the provisions 
of this NESHAP, and title V would not significantly improve those 
compliance requirements.
    For the second factor, we determined whether title V permitting 
would impose a significant burden on the area sources in the category 
and whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the 
source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency. 
Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and 
costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. EPA estimated 
that the average cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit 
was $65,700 per source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. See 
Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit 
Regulations, June 2007, EPA ICR Number 1587.07. EPA does not have 
specific estimates for the burdens and costs of permitting these 
specific types of area sources; however, there are certain activities 
associated with the part 70 and 71 rules. These activities are 
mandatory and impose burdens on the facility. They include reading and 
understanding permit program guidance and regulations; obtaining and 
understanding permit application forms; answering follow-up questions 
from permitting authorities after the application is submitted; 
reviewing and understanding the permit; collecting records; preparing 
and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-month or more frequent basis; 
preparing and submitting prompt deviation reports, as defined by the 
State, which may include a combination of written, verbal, and other 
communications methods; collecting information, preparing, and 
submitting the annual compliance certification; preparing applications 
for permit revisions every 5 years; and, as needed, preparing and 
submitting applications for permit revisions. In addition, although not 
required by the permit rules, many sources obtain the contractual 
services of consultants to help them understand and meet the permitting 
program's requirements. The ICR for part 70 provides additional 
information on the overall burdens and costs, as well as the relative 
burdens of each activity described here. Also, for a more comprehensive 
list of requirements imposed on part 70 sources (hence, burden on 
sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
    In assessing the second factor for facilities affected by this 
proposal, approximately 33 currently have title V permits leaving 
approximately 42 facilities that do not. Based upon the permits 
reviewed for this proposed rulemaking, we believe that none of the 
facilities that currently have title V permits are small entities. 
There are approximately 11 facilities owned and operated by small 
entities. As discussed above, title V permitting would impose 
significant costs on these area sources, and, accordingly, we conclude 
that title V is a significant burden for sources in this category. 
Furthermore, given the number of sources in the category that currently 
do not have a title V permit, it may be difficult for them to obtain 
sufficient assistance from the permitting authority. Thus, we conclude 
that factor two supports title V exemption for this category.
    The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is 
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be 
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance 
likely to occur for such sources. As explained above for the second 
factor, the costs of compliance with title V would impose a significant 
burden on facilities that do not currently have title V operating 
permits. Although title V might impose additional requirements, we 
believe in considering the first factor the monitoring, recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements in this proposed NESHAP assure compliance 
with the emission standards imposed in the NESHAP as proposed. In 
addition, in our consideration of the fourth factor, we find that there 
are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place to assure 
compliance with the NESHAP. Because the costs, both economic and non-
economic, of compliance with title V are high for any small entity, and 
the potential for gains in compliance is low, title V permitting is not 
justified for this source category. Accordingly, the third factor 
supports title V exemptions for this area source category.
    The fourth factor we considered in determining if title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome is whether there are implementation and 
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance 
with the NESHAP without relying on title V permits. EPA has implemented 
regulations that provide States the opportunity to take delegation of 
area source NESHAP, and we believe that States' delegated programs are 
sufficient to assure compliance with this NESHAP. See 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E (States must have adequate programs to enforce the section 
112 regulations and provide assurances that they will enforce the 
NESHAP before EPA will delegate the program). We also noted that EPA 
retains authority to enforce this NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 
112, 113 and 114. Also, States and EPA often conduct voluntary 
compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs (compliance 
assistance programs), which are not required by statute. We determined 
that these additional programs will supplement and enhance the success 
of compliance with these proposed standards. We believe that the 
statutory requirements for implementation and enforcement of this 
NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA and the additional assistance 
programs described above together are sufficient to assure compliance 
with

[[Page 32830]]

these proposed standards without relying on title V permitting.
    In light of all the information presented here, we believe that 
there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are 
sufficient to assure compliance with the proposed standards without 
relying on title V permitting.
    Balancing the four factors for this area source category strongly 
supports the proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome 
in this situation. While title V might add additional compliance 
requirements if imposed, we believe that there would not be significant 
improvements to the compliance requirements in this proposed rule 
because the proposed rule requirements are specifically designed to 
assure compliance with the emission standards imposed on this area 
source category. We further maintain that the costs of compliance with 
title V would impose a significant burden on the 42 facilities that do 
not currently have a title V permit. We determined that the high 
relative costs would not be justified given that there is likely to be 
little or no potential gain in compliance if title V permitting were 
required. And, finally, there are adequate implementation and 
enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with these proposed 
standards. Thus, we propose that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily 
burdensome'' for this area source category.
    In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V 
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' EPA also considered, 
consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section 
502(a), whether exempting this area source category from title V 
requirements would adversely affect public health, welfare, or the 
environment. Exemption of this area source category from title V 
requirements would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the 
environment because the level of control would remain the same if a 
permit were required. The title V permit program does not impose new 
substantive air quality control requirements on sources, but instead 
requires that certain procedural measures be followed, particularly 
with respect to determining compliance with applicable requirements. As 
stated in our consideration of factor one for this category, title V 
would not lead to significant improvements in the compliance 
requirements applicable to existing or new area sources.
    Furthermore, we explained in the Exemption Rule that requiring 
permits for a relatively small number of area source facilities subject 
to these proposed standards could, at least in the first few years of 
implementation, potentially adversely affect public health, welfare, or 
the environment by shifting State agency resources away from assuring 
compliance for major sources with existing permits to issuing new 
permits for these area sources, potentially reducing overall air 
program effectiveness. Based on the above analysis, we conclude that 
title V exemptions for these area sources will not adversely affect 
public health, welfare, or the environment for all of the reasons 
explained above.
    For the reasons stated here, we are proposing to exempt this area 
source category from title V permitting requirements.

V. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed Standards

A. What are the air impacts?

    Since 1990, in addition to the increased use of add-on controls due 
to Federal and State permitting requirements, the asphalt processing 
and asphalt roofing manufacturing industry has further reduced its air 
impacts by reducing the amount of asphalt used to manufacture roofing 
products (reformulation), largely through the use of inorganic 
substrates which do not require the 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.

B. What are the cost impacts?

    We believe that all asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing facilities will be able to meet the proposed standards 
using existing controls; some facilities may need to conduct emission 
tests to demonstrate compliance. Therefore, no additional air pollution 
control devices would be required. However, we have assumed that 38 
facilities (50 percent) will need to install a pressure drop monitoring 
system for existing controls. No other capital costs are associated 
with this proposed rule and no new operational and maintenance costs 
are expected because, absent any data to demonstrate otherwise, we have 
assumed that existing facilities are already following the 
manufacturer's instructions for operation and maintenance of pollution 
control devices and systems.
    The annual cost of monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping for 
this proposed rule is estimated at approximately $3,000 per facility 
per year for the first 3 years following promulgation. The costs are 
expected to be less than 1 percent of revenues. The annual estimate 
includes 8 hours per facility per year for preparing semiannual 
compliance reports.
    The total number of labor hours for the first 3 years following 
promulgation in this annual cost estimate is 12,442 hours. This total 
includes 173 hours industry-wide for preparation of the Initial 
Notification in the first year and 173 hours industry-wide for 
preparation of the Notification of Compliance Status in the first year. 
The average total labor hour burden in the first year is 71 hours per 
facility, which include 15 hours per facility for monitoring 
activities.
    Information on our cost impact estimates on the sources is 
available in the docket for this proposed rule. (See Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0027).

C. What are the economic impacts?

    The only measurable costs attributable to these proposed standards 
are associated with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements. These proposed standards are estimated to impact a total 
of 75 area source facilities. We estimate that 11 of these facilities 
are owned by small businesses. Our analysis indicates that this 
proposed rule would not impose a significant adverse impact on any 
facilities, large or small, because these costs are less than 1 percent 
of the individual company revenues.

D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy impacts?

    No detrimental secondary impacts are expected to occur from the 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing sources because 
all facilities are currently achieving the GACT level of control. No 
additional solid waste would be generated as a result of the PAH and PM 
emissions collected and there are no additional energy impacts 
associated with the

[[Page 32831]]

operation of control devices or monitoring systems for the asphalt 
refining and asphalt roofing manufacturing sources. We expect no 
increase in the generation of wastewater or other water quality 
impacts. None of the control measures considered for this proposed rule 
generates a wastewater stream.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 
this action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it may raise 
novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to 
the OMB for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response to 
OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) 
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2352.01.
    The recor