National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing, 63236-63266 [E9-27946]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 2, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63236-63266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-27946]



[[Page 63235]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



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

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 2, 2009 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 63236]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0027; FRL-8983-6]
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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating 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 final emissions standards for new and existing sources are based 
upon EPA's final determination as to what constitutes the generally 
available control technology or management practices (GACT) for the 
source category.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 2, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0027. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
Federal Docket Management System index at https://www.regulations.gov. 
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available, e.g., confidential business information or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Public Reading Room 
under the heading ``Area Source National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt 
Roofing Manufacturing.'' The Public Reading Room is located at EPA/DC, 
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC and 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. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information for This Final Rule
III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
IV. Summary of Final Standards
    A. Do the Final Standards Apply to My Source?
    B. When Must I Comply With the Final Standards?
    C. What Are the Final Standards?
    D. What Are the Initial and Continuous Compliance Requirements?
    E. What are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?
    F. What Are the Title V Permit Requirements?
    V. Summary of Comments and Responses
    A. Source Category Listing
    B. GACT Limits
    C. Initial Compliance Requirements
    D. Continuous Compliance Requirements
    E. Title V Permitting
    F. Definitions
    G. Cost Impacts
    H. Miscellaneous
VI. Summary of Impacts of the Final 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?
VII. 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 and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by the 
final 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. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly final 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.

[[Page 63237]]

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review 
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
by February 1, 2010. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 
enforce these requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the 
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose 
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for 
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the 
outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration 
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the 
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation 
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background Information for This Final Rule

    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. 
The 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 a number of small businesses. Determining what constitutes GACT 
initially 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 employed by those sources 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 promulgating these national emission standards in response 
to a court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for 
certain source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) 
by November 16, 2009 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01-1537, D.D.C., 
March 2006). An additional rulemaking will be published in a separate 
Federal Register notice for the remaining source category due in 
November 2009.

III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

    The final rule contains several revisions and clarifications to the 
proposed rule made in response to public comments. We explain the 
reasons for the following changes in detail in the summary of comments 
and responses (section V of this preamble):
     Revised the emission limits for asphalt roofing 
manufacturing lines using emissions data supplied by the industry;
     Revised the initial compliance requirements to specify 
that compliance tests must be conducted while manufacturing the product 
with the greatest polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and 
particulate matter (PM) emissions and to allow facilities to use 
process knowledge to demonstrate initial compliance for saturator-only 
lines;
     Revised the initial compliance requirements to clarify 
procedures for using previously-conducted emission tests to demonstrate 
compliance;
     Revised the equations for calculating asphalt charging 
rate and clarified the procedures for determining production rate;
     Revised the continuous compliance requirements to allow 
for monitoring of parameter ranges (instead of maintaining the 
parameter below a maximum value) and use of equipment manufacturer 
specifications when establishing parameter values, and to remove the 
option to use a continuous emissions monitor (CEMS);
     Revised the continuous compliance requirements to allow 
facilities to monitor the indicator light of electrostatic 
precipitators (ESPs) as an option to monitoring voltage;
     Defined PM as the material collected using EPA Method 5A; 
and
     Added definitions for ``built-up roof operation'' and 
``hot-mix asphalt operation'' and clarified the definition of 
``saturator'' with regard to impregnation vats.

IV. Summary of Final Standards

A. Do the Final Standards Apply to My Source?

    The final subpart AAAAAAA standards apply to each existing and

[[Page 63238]]

new area source facility that processes asphalt and/or manufactures 
roofing products using saturation and/or coating processes that apply 
asphalt to a substrate. 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 Final Standards?

    All existing area source facilities subject to this final rule are 
required to comply with the rule requirements no later than December 2, 
2010. New sources are required to comply with the rule requirements by 
December 2, 2009 or upon 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 compliance testing 
and prepare compliance demonstrations showing compliance with the final 
rule.

C. What Are the Final 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 final standards 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 comply with a PM emissions limit of 1.2 lb/ton of 
asphalt charged to the asphalt refining operation. The alternative PM 
limit ensures reductions in emissions of PAH that are at least 
equivalent to those achieved through compliance with the PAH emission 
limit. The final standards for new refining operations are the same as 
for existing sources.
    For asphalt roofing product manufacturing operations, we examined 
the process operations and other factors and determined that it was 
appropriate to establish subcategories that reflect the unique emission 
characteristic profiles of the different process types (equipment 
configurations). We developed three subcategories based upon the 
various process types 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 both saturators and coaters.
    For existing coater-only production lines, the final standards 
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 0.06 lb/ton of product manufactured. The alternative 
PM limit ensures reductions in emissions of PAH that are at least 
equivalent to those achieved through compliance with the GACT-based PAH 
emission limit.
    For existing saturator-only production lines, the final standards 
require the owner or operator to limit PAH emissions from all 
saturators (and wet loopers) to 0.0007 lb/ton of product manufactured. 
Alternatively, for saturator-only production lines, owners or operators 
can comply with a PM emissions limit of 0.30 lb/ton of product 
manufactured. The alternative PM limit ensures reductions in emissions 
of PAH that are at least equivalent to those achieved through 
compliance with the GACT-based PAH emission limit.
    For existing combined saturator and coater production lines, the 
final standards require the owner or operator to limit PAH emissions 
from all saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, and coaters to 0.0009 
lb/ton of product manufactured. The final standards for combined 
saturator and coater production lines alternatively allow owners or 
operators to comply with a PM emissions limit of 0.36 lb/ton of product 
manufactured. The alternative PM limit ensures reductions in emissions 
of PAH that are at least equivalent to those achieved through 
compliance with the GACT-based PAH emission limit.
    The final standards for new roofing product manufacturing 
operations for all subcategories are the same as those for existing 
sources.

D. What Are the Initial and Continuous Compliance Requirements?

    The final standards require an initial compliance assessment of the 
process emissions or control device outlet concentration to demonstrate 
initial compliance with the applicable standard, and to establish 
monitoring parameter values (e.g., temperature, pressure drop) for the 
process or control device that will be monitored to demonstrate 
continuous compliance. For PM control devices used on asphalt roofing 
lines, the final rule allows owners or operators to establish 
monitoring parameter operating ranges based upon equipment manufacturer 
guarantees.
    For existing sources, the final standards require owners or 
operators to conduct the initial compliance assessment by May 31, 2011. 
Owners or operators of new sources are required to conduct the initial 
compliance assessment by June 1, 2010 or within 180 days after startup, 
whichever is later.
    For existing and new blowing stills and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing lines, the final standards require owners or operators to 
demonstrate initial compliance by conducting emission tests or by using 
the results from an emission test conducted in the past five years that 
meets the specified criteria in the final rule. Specifically, 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 
Table 3 of the final rule. See 40 CFR 63.11562(d). 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 emissions test reliably demonstrate compliance despite any 
process changes. Id. For existing and new asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines that do not require a control 
device to comply with the emission limits, the final rule allows owners 
or operators to use process knowledge and engineering calculations, 
instead of compliance test results, to demonstrate initial compliance. 
For example, an owner or operator could use a mass-balance approach 
(e.g., based upon asphalt throughput, asphalt content of the product 
manufactured) to demonstrate that the emission limits would not be 
exceeded.
    Continuous compliance with the final emission limits is 
demonstrated by monitoring parameters and process conditions 
established during the initial compliance assessment. The final 
standards require owners and operators to demonstrate continuous 
compliance based upon a 3-hour averaging period. If a thermal oxidizer 
is used to comply with the emission limits, the final standards 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 initial compliance assessment. For PM control 
devices, the final standards require that the average 3-hour pressure 
drop and inlet gas temperature values be maintained within the range of 
established values. As an alternative to monitoring temperature and 
pressure drop, the final rule allows owners or operators to use a leak 
detection system for a filtration-based PM control device. If an ESP is 
used as the PM control device, the final standards require that the 3-
hour average ESP voltage be maintained at or above the operating value 
established during the initial

[[Page 63239]]

compliance test. As an alternative to monitoring the ESP voltage, the 
final rule allows owners or operators to monitor the device's indicator 
and warning lights on the device that signify when the ESP must be 
cleaned. For other types of control devices, the final standards allow 
the owner or operator to establish approved monitoring parameters and 
to maintain the value of those parameters within the operating values 
established during the initial compliance assessment. In cases where 
add-on control devices are not needed to comply with the final 
standards, owners or operators are required to establish a range of 
operating values for process parameters based upon written equipment 
manufacturer specifications, verify that the equipment is operating 
within that range during the initial compliance assessment, and 
maintain the 3-hour average of those parameters within the established 
values. During periods of startup and shutdown, the final standards 
require owners and operators to demonstrate compliance over a 24-hour 
averaging period. As is explained below, the final rule does not 
establish separate standards for malfunctions and the 3-hour averaging 
period applies during such events. Thus, consistent with Sierra Club v. 
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), the emission standards of this rule 
apply at all times.

E. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    Affected new and existing sources are 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 final rule. The 
General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, 
recordkeeping, and reporting. Among other requirements, each facility 
is 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 are also required to submit semi-annual compliance summary 
reports.

F. What Are the Title V Permitting Requirements?

    This final rule exempts the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area source category from title V permitting requirements 
unless the affected source is otherwise required by law to obtain a 
title V permit. For example, sources that have title V permits because 
they are major sources under the criteria pollutant program would 
maintain those permits.

V. Summary of Comments and Responses

    We received a total of six comment letters from industry trade 
associations, an environmental advocacy group, State/local regulatory 
agency groups, and a control device equipment vendor on the proposed 
rule during the comment period. One commenter, an industry trade 
association, expressed support for the following provisions in the 
proposal package:
     The roofing line subcategory designations;
     The definition of the affected source for asphalt 
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing operations;
     The PAH and PM GACT emission standards for new and 
existing sources;
     The definitions of ``asphalt flux,'' ``asphalt processing 
operation,'' and ``blowing still;''
     The use of PM emissions as a surrogate for PAH emissions;
     The use of certain previously-conducted emission tests to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations; and
     The exemption from title V permitting requirements.
    We acknowledge the commenter's support for these provisions. 
Sections V.A. through V.H. contain summaries of the remaining comments 
that we received and our responses to those comments.

A. Source Category Listing

    Comment. One commenter asserted that the Agency used inaccurate PAH 
emissions data for 1990 to list asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area sources under CAA section 112(c)(3). The commenter 
asserted that urban area source PAH emissions in the industry in that 
baseline year were significantly lower than EPA's estimates and 
provided a copy of a report previously submitted to the Agency that the 
commenter contended supports that assertion. The commenter's report 
concludes that, by combining asphalt roofing manufacturing and asphalt 
processing into a single source category and using the outdated data, 
the EPA's PAH emissions estimate for the two categories is overstated 
by nearly two orders of magnitude. Based upon this information, the 
commenter stated that EPA should not be issuing GACT standards for 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area sources under 
CAA section 112(c)(3).
    Response. 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 Air Toxics 
Strategy. As explained in more detail below, we included this source 
category on the section 112(c)(3) area source category list based upon 
emissions data for the 1990 baseline year. The asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing source category was listed for its 
contributions toward meeting the requirement that we list sufficient 
categories and subcategories of area sources to ensure that area 
sources representing 90 percent of area source emissions of PAH are 
subject to regulation under CAA section 112.
    While Congress required EPA to list sufficient categories or 
subcategories of area sources to ensure that areas sources representing 
90 percent of the area source emissions of the 30 Urban HAP are subject 
to regulation under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, it left it to 
EPA's discretion to determine which categories and subcategories of 
sources to include on the list. As explained in the Integrated Urban 
Air Toxics Strategy, EPA based its listing decisions on the baseline 
National Toxics Inventory (NTI) that the Agency compiled for purposes 
of implementing its air toxics program after the 1990 CAA Amendments 
(64 FR 38706, 38711, n.10). The baseline NTI reflected HAP emissions 
from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area sources 
in 1990. EPA listed the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing area 
source category on the basis of that emissions data. EPA continues to 
believe that it was reasonable to rely on that data and that it acted 
appropriately in including the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
area source category on the list on the basis of that data.
    There is nothing in the comments that persuades EPA that the 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source 
category should not be included in the source category list. The report 
submitted along with the comments clearly reflects the Commenter's 
preference that a different source category, asphalt concrete 
manufacturing, be included on the list instead of asphalt processing 
and asphalt roofing manufacturing and that the inclusion of that source 
category would have also resulted in a cumulative percentage 
contribution in excess of 90 percent. This, however, misses the point. 
As stated above, Congress left it to EPA's discretion to

[[Page 63240]]

determine which categories and subcategories to include on the list. 
Congress did not require EPA to establish a rank order of such 
categories and subcategories and then move from the highest ranking 
source category or subcategory to lower ranking categories or 
subcategories until a cumulative total of 90 percent was reached. Thus, 
as long as EPA had some basis for including a particular category or 
subcategory of area sources on the list, which is the case here, it can 
choose to include that category or subcategory even if there are other 
potential source categories or subcategories that arguably may 
contribute more to cumulative emissions.
    In this particular instance, EPA questions the accuracy of the 
emission factors used in the report submitted by the commenter. 
Specifically, the emissions factors in the commenter's report are based 
primarily on emissions data from 1998 and 1999 (with some reliance on 
1994 data). The report takes these emission factors that are based on 
post-1990 data and applies them to 1990 production rates. As the 
commenter points out in its comments, PAH emissions in the asphalt 
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing industry have declined 
since 1990. As a result, emission factors developed using emissions 
data from years after 1990 are likely to underestimate actual emissions 
in 1990.
    Moreover, even if EPA were to accept, for argument's sake, the 
revised emissions estimates set forth in the report submitted by the 
commenter, it would, for the reasons described below, continue to 
believe that the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing 
category belongs on the 112(c)(3) source category list. First, EPA 
believes that it is most appropriate to consider asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing as a single source category rather than 
two separate source categories, as the commenter contends, because a 
single facility often includes both types of operations. Indeed, 90 
percent of the facilities affected by the final rule conduct both 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing operations at the 
same site. We also believe that asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing operations are closely linked, regardless of co-location, 
because the purpose of blow stills at asphalt processing operations is 
to prepare asphalt flux, obtained from refineries, for use in 
manufacturing roofing products (e.g., shingles, roll roofing). Second, 
while the commenter contends that asphalt concrete manufacturing should 
be included on the list instead of asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing, the fact is that, on a per facility basis, the 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing sources are larger 
PAH emissions sources than the asphalt concrete industry sources. As a 
result, EPA's regulation of the 75 sources in the asphalt processing 
and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category is far more cost 
efficient and far more feasible from an implementation perspective than 
regulating the 3600 facilities engaged in asphalt concrete 
manufacturing. Finally, as explained above, Congress afforded EPA 
discretion in selecting the source categories to regulate to meet the 
90 percent requirement in section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B). Without the 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing source category, 
we will not meet this requirement. In conclusion, Congress required EPA 
to list sufficient categories and subcategories of sources of area 
sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the area 
source emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to regulation under 
CAA section 112. EPA has discretion to identify the categories and 
subcategories on the list and properly included asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing on the list. Nothing in the comments 
contradicts this.

B. GACT Limits

    Comment. One commenter noted that EPA stated in the proposal notice 
that ``[w]e believe that all asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing facilities will be able to meet the proposed standards 
using existing controls * * *'' and that ``* * * no additional air 
pollution control devices would be required.'' The commenter was 
concerned that such proposals are merely paperwork exercises and are 
not responsive to Congress' intent in establishing the area source 
program under the Clean Air Act which the commenter believed should 
result in reductions in emissions from area sources of hazardous air 
pollution. Moreover, the commenter recommended that, ``* * * in this 
rule and in future area source proposals, EPA incorporate provisions 
that will provide additional public health protection from the adverse 
effects of emissions of hazardous air pollutants from area sources.''
    Response. The commenter does not challenge any aspect of EPA's 
proposed GACT determination for this area source category. Instead, the 
commenter makes a blanket assertion that EPA is not acting consistently 
with the purposes of the area source provisions in the CAA (i.e., 
sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B)), because it is not requiring 
emission reductions beyond the level that is currently being achieved 
from this well-controlled source category. In support of this 
assertion, the commenter compares the requirements in the proposed rule 
to the area source category's current emission and control status. Such 
a comparison is flawed.
    Congress promulgated the relevant CAA area source provisions in 
1990 in light of the level of area source HAP emissions at that time. 
Congress directed EPA to identify not less than 30 HAP which, as a 
result of emissions from area sources, present the greatest threat to 
public health in the largest number of urban areas, and to list 
sufficient area source categories to ensure that sources representing 
90 percent of the 30 HAP listed are subject to regulation. As explained 
in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, EPA based its listing 
decisions on the baseline National Toxics Inventory (NTI) that the 
Agency compiled for purposes of implementing its air toxics program 
after the 1990 CAA Amendments (64 FR 38706, 38711, n.10). The baseline 
NTI reflected HAP emissions from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area sources in 1990. Thus, contrary to the commenter's 
suggestion, the relevant emission level for comparison is the emission 
level reflected in our baseline NTI, not the current emission level.
    Furthermore, in promulgating the area source provisions in the CAA, 
Congress did not require EPA to issue area source standards that must 
achieve a specific level of emission reduction. Rather, Congress 
authorized EPA to issue standards under section 112(d)(5) for area 
sources that reflect GACT for the source category. As Congress itself 
recognized, to qualify as being generally available, a GACT-based 
standard would most likely be based upon an existing control technology 
or management practice: ``[A]n equipment standard would require 
neighborhood dry cleaning establishments to employ the commercially 
available systems associated with the lowest measured emissions * * * 
S. Rep. 101-128, at 171-172 (emphasis added). Thus, it is both 
reasonable and consistent with Congressional intent that the GACT-based 
standards being finalized today codify the use of the existing 
effective PAH control approach being used by sources in the category. 
For all of these reasons, this final rule is consistent with sections 
112(c)(3), 112(k)(3)(B), and 112(d)(5).
    Comment. One commenter asserted that, although section 112(d)(5) 
does

[[Page 63241]]

authorize EPA to issue GACT standards in lieu of MACT standards, the 
Agency's decision to do so is subject to familiar administrative law 
requirements. The commenter maintained that to be non-arbitrary, the 
decision must--at a minimum--be supported by a rational explanation. 
The commenter stated that EPA has provided no explanation whatsoever 
for its apparent decision to issue GACT standards pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT standards pursuant to section 
112(d)(2) and (3) and, for this reason alone, its decision is arbitrary 
and capricious.
    The commenter also claimed that the proposed standards are based 
solely on cost and are thus unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter 
asserted that CAA section 112(d)(5) does not direct EPA to set 
standards based on what is cost effective; rather, according to the 
commenter EPA must establish GACT based on the ``methods, practices and 
techniques which are commercially available and appropriate for 
application by the sources in the category considering economic 
impacts.'' The commenter stated that because cost effectiveness is not 
relevant under CAA section 112(d)(5), the reliance on cost 
effectiveness as the sole determining factor in establishing GACT 
renders the proposed standards unlawful.
    Response. As the commenter acknowledged, in section 112(d)(5), 
Congress gave EPA explicit authority to issue alternative emission 
standards for area sources. Specifically, section 112(d)(5), which is 
titled ``Alternative standard for area sources,'' provides:

    With respect only to categories and subcategories of area 
sources listed pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, the 
Administrator may, in lieu of the authorities provided in paragraph 
(2) and subsection (f) of this section, elect to promulgate 
standards or requirements applicable to sources in such categories 
or subcategories which provide for the use of generally available 
control technologies or management practices by such sources to 
reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants. See CAA section 
112(d)(5).

    There are two critical aspects to section 112(d)(5). First, section 
112(d)(5) applies only to those categories and subcategories of area 
sources listed pursuant to section 112(c). The commenter does not 
dispute that EPA listed the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area source category pursuant to section 112(c). Second, 
section 112(d)(5) provides that for area sources listed pursuant to 
section 112(c)(3), EPA ``may, in lieu of'' the authorities provided in 
section 112(d)(2) and 112(f), elect to promulgate standards pursuant to 
section 112(d)(5).
    Section 112(d)(2) provides that emission standards established 
under that provision ``require the maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions'' of HAP (also known as maximum available control technology 
(MACT)). Section 112(d)(3), in turn, defines what constitutes the 
``maximum degree of reduction in emissions'' for new and existing 
sources. See section 112(d)(3). Webster's dictionary defines the phrase 
``in lieu of'' to mean ``in the place of'' or ``instead of.'' See 
Webster's II New Riverside University (1994). Thus, section 112(d)(5) 
authorizes EPA to promulgate standards under section 112(d)(5) that 
provide for the use of GACT, instead of issuing MACT standards pursuant 
to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). 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.
    The commenter argues that EPA must provide a rationale for issuing 
GACT standards under section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT standards. The 
commenter is incorrect. Had Congress intended that EPA first conduct a 
MACT analysis for each area source category, Congress would have stated 
so expressly in section 112(d)(5). Congress did not require EPA to 
conduct any MACT analysis, floor analysis or beyond-the-floor analysis 
before the Agency could issue a section 112(d)(5) standard. Rather, 
Congress authorized EPA to issue GACT standards for area source 
categories listed under section 112(c), and that is precisely what EPA 
has done in this rulemaking.
    Although EPA need not justify its exercise of discretion in 
choosing to issue a GACT standard for an area source listed pursuant to 
section 112(c)(3), EPA still must have a reasoned basis for the GACT 
determination for the particular area source category. The legislative 
history supporting section 112(d)(5) provides that GACT is to 
encompass:

    * * * 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.

See Senate Report on the 1990 Amendments to the Act (S. Rep. No. 101-
228, 101st Cong. 1st session. 171-172). The discussion in the Senate 
report clearly provides that EPA may consider costs in determining what 
constitutes GACT for the area source category.
    Congress plainly recognized that area sources differ from major 
sources, which is why Congress allowed EPA to consider costs in setting 
GACT standards for area sources under section 112(d)(5), but did not 
allow that consideration in setting MACT floors for major sources 
pursuant to section 112(d)(3). This important dichotomy between section 
112(d)(3) and section 112(d)(5) provides further evidence that Congress 
sought to do precisely what the title of section 112(d)(5) states--
provide EPA the authority to issue ``[a]lternative standards for area 
sources.''
    Notwithstanding the commenter's claim, EPA properly issued 
standards for the area source category at issue here under section 
112(d)(5) and in doing so provided a reasoned basis for its selection 
of GACT for this area source category. As explained in the proposed 
rule and below, EPA evaluated the control technologies and management 
practices that reduce PAH emissions at asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing facilities. In its evaluation, EPA used 
information from an industry survey, discussed options for controlling 
PAH emissions with the industry trade associations, and reviewed 
operating permits to identify the emission controls and management 
practices that are currently used to control PM and PAH emissions.
    In our evaluation, we determined that all blow stills used to 
process asphalt are currently controlled using thermal oxidation. We 
also found that the majority of roofing manufacturing lines were 
controlled using some type of PM control device (e.g., fiber-bed 
filters). Additionally, we determined that, due to market-driven 
process changes, the majority of roofing manufacturing facilities no 
longer use organic felt as the substrate for roofing materials. This 
process change significantly reduced the amount of asphalt used to 
manufacture a given quantity of roofing products.
    EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertions that EPA based its 
GACT determination solely on its estimate of cost effectiveness and 
that cost effectiveness is not relevant in determining what constitutes 
GACT. The Agency's consideration of cost effectiveness in establishing 
GACT and the Agency's views on what is a cost-effective requirement 
under section 112(d)(5) are relevant. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
DC Circuit has stated that cost effectiveness is a reasonable measure 
of cost as long as the statute does not mandate a specific method of 
determining cost. See Husqvarna AB v.

[[Page 63242]]

EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 201 (DC Cir. 2001) (finding EPA's decision to 
consider costs on a per-ton-of-emissions removed basis is reasonable 
because CAA section 213 did not mandate a specific method of cost 
analysis). Further, we did not base our GACT determination solely on 
our estimate of cost effectiveness. Rather, we first carefully 
evaluated the methods, practices and techniques that are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by sources in the asphalt 
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category. Only 
then did we consider costs and economic impacts to determine what 
constitutes GACT for the source category. In doing so, we determined 
that, because sources in the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area source category currently have relatively low 
emissions of PAH based upon the use of existing controls, requiring 
additional controls would result in very high costs for only a modest 
incremental improvement in control. Finally, we believe the 
consideration of costs and economic impacts is especially important for 
determining GACT for the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area source category because of the number of existing 
sources that would need to retrofit controls on asphalt roofing 
manufacturing operations if the existing controls on those operations 
were determined inadequate.
    Even though we are not required to provide a specific rationale for 
why we chose to establish GACT-based standards, rather than MACT-based 
standards, EPA did in fact provide a rationale for doing so in the 
proposed rule. In the proposal, we explained that the facilities in the 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source 
category are already well controlled for PAH, the urban HAP for which 
the source category was listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3). See 74 FR 
32826-32828. Consideration of costs and economic impacts is especially 
important when an area source category is comprised of sources that are 
already well-controlled. In such circumstances, a MACT floor 
determination, where costs cannot be considered, could result in very 
high costs for only a modest incremental improvement in control 
efficiency for sources in the area source category. EPA concluded that 
this would be the case were it to establish MACT-based emission 
standards for the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing 
area source category.
    Comment. One commenter stated that EPA did not provide an 
explanation for its decision to narrowly focus the proposed rule on 
just PAH emissions. The commenter went on to make the following points. 
The commenter noted that in the 2003 NESHAP for the asphalt processing 
and asphalt roofing manufacturing major source category, the EPA stated 
that the major source category emits a variety of HAP. The commenter 
added that the preamble to the 2003 major source NESHAP (68 FR 22976, 
22976 (Apr. 29, 2003)) stated that approximately 98 percent of 
emissions from the processing of asphalt and the manufacture of asphalt 
roofing consist of formaldehyde, hexane, hydrochloric acid (HCl), 
phenol and toluene. A combination of several different organic HAP 
comprise the remaining two percent of the total HAP emissions. The 
commenter said that in 2003, the EPA found that exposure to these HAP 
could result in both ``chronic health disorders (e.g., irritation of 
the lung, skin, and mucous membranes, effects on the central nervous 
system, and damage to the blood and liver) and acute health disorders 
(e.g., respiratory irritation and central nervous system effects such 
as drowsiness, headache, and nausea).'' Id. The commenter also noted 
that EPA classified two of the HAP (formaldehyde and polycyclic organic 
matter (POM)) as probable human carcinogens.
    The commenter stated that Section 112(d) requires that emission 
standards be developed for each HAP listed in section 112(b). Assuming 
arguendo that the Agency does not have to set separate standards for 
each HAP when issuing standards under section 112(d)(5), the commenter 
stated that the Agency still has an obligation to address all the HAP 
that a category emits when it sets GACT standards. Thus, the commenter 
asserted that EPA had an obligation to address the HAP emitted by 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing sources beyond 
PAH, especially in light of the fact that PAH is such a limited 
component of the HAP emitted by the source category. Further, the 
commenter added that the Agency's failure to even consider non-PAH HAP 
and to explain its failure to address these HAP is arbitrary and 
capricious.
    The commenter also noted that EPA failed to address all sources of 
HAP emissions in the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing source category. The commenter pointed out that EPA noted 
in the 2003 major source NESHAP that, in addition to the blowing stills 
and roofing manufacturing operations addressed in the proposed rule, 
asphalt storage and process tanks, asphalt loading racks, sealant 
applicators, and adhesive applicators are also sources of HAP 
emissions. The commenter stated that the Agency's failure to 
acknowledge these emission sources and consider commercially available 
technology for reducing emissions from these sources was unlawful.
    Response. Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify 
at least 30 HAP emitted from area sources that pose the greatest threat 
to public health in the largest number of urban areas (the ``Urban 
HAP'') and identify the area source categories emitting such pollutants 
that are or will be listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3). Section 
112(c)(3), in relevant part, provides:

    The Administrator shall * * *, pursuant to subsection (k)(3)(B) 
of this section, list, based on actual or estimated aggregate 
emissions of a listed pollutant or pollutants, sufficient categories 
or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources 
representing 90 percent of the area source emissions of the 30 
hazardous air pollutants that present the greatest threat to public 
health in the largest number of urban areas are subject to 
regulation under this section.

Thus, 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 area source emissions of the 30 Urban HAP are subject 
to regulation. Section 112(d)(1) requires the Administrator to 
promulgate regulations establishing emissions standards for each area 
source category of HAP listed for regulation pursuant to section 
112(c).
    EPA identified the 30 Urban HAP that posed the greatest threat to 
public health in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (Strategy). 
In the Strategy and subsequent Federal Register notices, EPA listed the 
area source categories necessary to meet the 90 percent requirement in 
section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), and one of those categories was the 
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing area source 
category.
    We have interpreted sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B) together to 
require EPA to regulate only those Urban HAP emissions for which an 
area source category is listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3), not all 
urban HAP or all section 112(b) HAP emitted from a listed area source 
category. As stated above, section 112(k)(3)(B) addresses the strategy 
to control HAP from area sources in urban areas and the focus of the 
strategy as it relates to control of area sources is on the 30 HAP that 
pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of 
urban areas. Section 112(c)(3) specifically references section 
112(k)(3)(B) as the basis for selecting area sources for listing to 
satisfy the Agency's responsibility for regulating urban HAP emissions 
from area sources.

[[Page 63243]]

Under these provisions, area sources categories are listed because they 
emit one or more of the 30 listed Urban HAP and the Agency has 
identified the category as one that is necessary to satisfy the 
requirement to subject area sources representing 90 percent of the area 
source emissions of the 30 Urban HAP to regulation.
    EPA listed the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 
area source category pursuant to sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B), 
based on the category's emissions of PAH, which is an urban HAP. Thus, 
consistent with the requirements of sections 112(c)(3) and 
112(k)(3)(B), we must regulate the PAH emissions from the Asphalt 
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing area source category, as 
these are the urban HAP emissions for which the category was listed to 
meet the 90 percent requirement in sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B). 
See 112(c)(3) (EPA must ``ensure that area sources representing 90 
percent of the area source emissions of the 30 hazardous air pollutants 
* * * are subject to regulation.''). We recognize that the source 
category emits other section 112(b) HAP, including other urban HAP; 
however, as stated above, sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B) do not 
require the Agency to regulate the area source category for any HAP 
other than those for which the category was listed. As to the other 
urban HAP emitted from this category, we have identified other area 
source categories that emit these urban HAP and subjecting those area 
source categories to regulation will satisfy the requirement to subject 
to regulation area sources that account for 90 percent of the area 
source emissions of those urban HAP.
    While the Agency is not required to regulate all section 112(b) HAP 
from area sources listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and 
112(k)(3)(B), section 112 of the CAA does not preclude EPA from 
regulating other HAP from these area sources at our discretion and in 
appropriate circumstances. Section 112(d)(5) states that for area 
sources listed pursuant to section 112(c), the Administrator may, in 
lieu of section 112(d)(2) ``MACT'' standards, promulgate standards or 
requirements ``applicable to sources'' which provide for the use of 
GACT or management practices ``to reduce emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants.'' This provision does not limit EPA's authority to regulate 
only those urban HAP emissions for which the category is needed to 
achieve the 90 percent requirement in sections 112(k)(3)(B) and 
112(c)(3). In fact, in two other area source rules, in addition to 
regulating the urban HAP that were necessary to satisfy the 90 percent 
requirement in sections 112(k)(3)(B) and 112(c)(3), we regulated 
additional section 112(b) HAP. Specifically, in the chemical 
manufacturing area source rule and the paint and allied products area 
source rule, although not required, we exercised our discretion to 
regulate other section 112(b) HAP beyond the urban HAP for which the 
categories were listed under section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), including 
non-urban section 112(b) HAP. The chemical manufacturing area source 
rule and the paints and allied products area source rule both involve 
specific circumstances which EPA believes justify regulating organic 
and metal section 112(b) HAP in addition to the specific urban HAP 
needed to meet the 90 percent requirement in section 112(c)(3) and 
(k)(3)(B), which served as the basis for the listing of the categories. 
In the chemical manufacturing area source rule, which establishes 
standards for 9 area source categories, we regulated such HAP because 
the emission standards designed to control the urban HAP for which the 
categories were listed were equally effective at removing other urban 
and non-urban metal and organic HAP, and demonstrating compliance for 
total HAP was less burdensome than demonstrating compliance for 
speciated HAP for those sources required to install add-on controls. In 
the paint and allied products area source rule, we included emission 
standards for HAP beyond the urban HAP for which the category was 
listed because the emission standards designed to control those urban 
HAP would also control other urban and non-urban metal and organic HAP.
    As noted above, the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area source category was listed solely due to emissions 
of PAH. By contrast, both the chemical manufacturing and the paint and 
allied products area source categories were listed for multiple urban 
HAP (i.e., 1,3-butadiene; methylene chloride; 1,3-dichloropropene; 
hexachlorobenzene; acetaldehyde; hydrazine; chloroform; quinoline; 
ethylene dichloride; and HAP metal compounds (arsenic, cadmium, 
chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel) for chemical manufacturing, and 
benzene, methylene chloride, and compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, 
and nickel for paint and allied products). For sources in these area 
source categories, it was reasonable to develop emission limits for 
non-urban HAP in part because the cost of estimating compliance for 
each urban HAP for which the categories were listed was overly 
burdensome. However, this same rationale is not appropriate in this 
rule because EPA listed the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing source category based on the emissions of a single HAP 
(PAH). The co-control scenario also plays out differently in the 
context of the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing 
area source category. Specifically, where an add-on control device like 
those used by facilities complying with the major source NESHAP (e.g., 
a thermal oxidizer or a fiber-bed filter) is needed to comply with the 
final standards for the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area source category, the control device will achieve co-
control of certain HAP other than PAH. For example, a thermal oxidizer 
will effectively control total HAP, total hydrocarbon (THC) and PM 
emissions and a fiber-bed filter will effectively control PM emissions. 
An emission limit based on the use of a thermal oxidizer (e.g., a limit 
on total HAP or total THC) would, however, necessitate all emissions 
from regulated operations being routed to a thermal oxidizer or similar 
control device. At present, based on the available information, 
facilities only use thermal oxidizers to control emissions from asphalt 
processing operations. Thermal oxidizers are not currently used to 
control emissions from asphalt roofing manufacturing operations. As a 
result, such limits would require facilities to retrofit to route 
emissions from asphalt roofing manufacturing operations to a thermal 
oxidizer or similar control device. Such retrofits would increase the 
cost of complying with the standards to a level that is unacceptable 
for a GACT-based standard. We estimate that 29 existing facilities 
currently have a thermal oxidizer and the remaining 46 would need to 
install new controls. Even when assuming a best case scenario, whereby 
facilities would only need to install new ductwork to route emissions 
to an existing thermal oxidizer, we estimate that such facilities would 
have an estimated initial capital cost of $58,000 and annual 
maintenance costs adding up to $11,000. We believe that these estimates 
are unrealistically low, however, because the existing thermal 
oxidizers would also require supplemental fuel, and, in many cases, an 
upgrade of the control unit, in order to handle the increased emissions 
loading. We estimate that it would cost an average facility in excess 
of $1 million to install new thermal oxidation controls, with annual 
costs of just over

[[Page 63244]]

$910,000 per year per facility for fuel and maintenance. In actuality, 
though, the costs could be much greater depending on the configuration 
of the facility.
    These cost concerns are further exacerbated by the fact that the 
benefits arising from co-control will be realized without EPA 
establishing specific emission limits for the co-controlled HAP. We 
therefore believe that we have appropriately exercised our discretion 
in regulating only the PAH emissions from the asphalt processing and 
asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category.
    The commenter further asserts that we failed to regulate all 
sources of HAP emissions. For the reasons described above, this rule 
establishes emissions standards for PAH only. To the extent the 
commenter is asserting that we failed to address all sources of PAH 
emissions, we disagree. We are required to regulate only those sources 
of PAH emissions that formed the basis of our listing decision. EPA 
based the listing of the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing area source category solely on emissions from asphalt 
blowing (processing) and saturation of felt (using saturators, wet 
loopers, and coaters). Based on our review of the record supporting the 
listing decision, the record does not include emissions from asphalt 
loading racks, asphalt storage tanks, adhesive storage tanks, adhesive 
applicators, sealant storage tanks or sealant applicators. As a result, 
we did not establish PAH emission limits for those sources, as these 
emission sources were not part of the listed source category.
    Comment. One commenter stated that a significant problem with the 
proposal is that it would establish GACT standards that are actually 
more stringent--and significantly so--than the MACT standards for the 
industry. The commenter stated that they know of no other GACT 
standards that are more stringent than the corresponding MACT standards 
for the same industry. The commenter asserted that it makes no sense to 
have smaller area sources subject to more stringent standards than 
larger major sources. The commenter added that the very term ``maximum 
achievable control technology'' on its face indicates that the CAA 
section 112(d)(2) standards should be more stringent--they are the 
``maximum achievable'' standards in contrast to the CAA section 
112(d)(5) standards that are merely ``generally available.''
    The commenter stated that for MACT, CAA section 112(d)(3) provides 
minimum levels of stringency, also known as the MACT ``floor'' levels. 
Thus, according to the commenter, the MACT standard for existing 
sources must be at least as stringent as the performance achieved by 
the average of the best performing 12 percent of sources in the 
category. The commenter stated that for new sources, the standard must 
be at least as stringent as that achieved by the best controlled 
similar source. In the subpart LLLLL asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing MACT rulemaking, the commenter noted that EPA 
concluded only six years ago that the average of the best performing 12 
percent (i.e., the 94th percentile of performance) was equivalent to 
the subpart UU NSPS limits. 66 FR 58617-20 (Nov. 21, 2001) (subpart 
LLLLL MACT proposal). The commenter stated that there have not been 
changes in the industry since publication of the final MACT standards 
in 2003 that would be expected to have rendered the assumptions for the 
MACT standards invalid. Thus, the commenter asserted that there is no 
basis for determining that any standards more stringent than the NSPS 
or MACT standards are ``generally available.''
    The commenter stated that ``The legislative history is replete with 
support for the proposition that GACT standards are to be less 
stringent than MACT standards. The Senate Report for the 1990 CAA 
Amendments states that ``[t]he Administrator may require area sources 
to install MACT, but also has the option to impose less stringent 
emissions limitations reflecting generally available control 
technology.'' Senate Report 101-228, in Congressional Research Service, 
A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (``A 
Legislative History'') 8338, 8490 (emphasis added). See also floor 
statement of Sen. Moynahan (``Clearly, this [GACT] requirement is less 
demanding than the maximum achievable control technology required for 
major point sources'') (April 3, 1990 Senate floor debate on S. 1630, 
in A Legislative History 6946, 7083); House Energy and Commerce 
Committee Markup of H.R. 3030 (The Waxman amendment requires EPA to 
regulate 90 percent of the area source