National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review, 18926-18965 [2019-08155]

Download as PDF 18926 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0662; FRL–9992–56– OAR] RIN 2060–AT34 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing. The proposed action presents the results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR) conducted as required under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is also proposing amendments to correct and clarify regulatory provisions related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction; add requirements for periodic performance testing; add electronic reporting of performance test results and reports, performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and Notification of Compliance Status reports; revise monitoring requirements for control devices used to comply with the particulate matter (PM) standards; and include other technical corrections to improve consistency and clarity. Although the proposed amendments are not anticipated to result in reductions in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), if finalized, they would result in improved compliance and implementation of the rule. DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before June 17, 2019. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before June 3, 2019. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing on or before May 7, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/asphalt-processing-and- khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 asphalt-roofing-manufacturing-national. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering for a public hearing. ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0662, at https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for detail about how the EPA treats submitted comments. Regulations.gov is our preferred method of receiving comments. However, the following other submission methods are also accepted: • Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2017–0662 in the subject line of the message. • Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0662. • Mail: To ship or send mail via the United States Postal Service, use the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0662, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. • Hand/Courier Delivery: Use the following Docket Center address if you are using express mail, commercial delivery, hand delivery, or courier: EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. Delivery verification signatures will be available only during regular business hours. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed action, contact Tonisha Dawson, Sector Policies and Programs Division (Mail Code D243–02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 1454; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and email address: dawson.tonisha@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Matthew Woody, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (Mail Code C539–02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 1535; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and email address: woody.matthew@ epa.gov. For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact John Cox, PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA WJC South Building (Mail Code 2221A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–1395; and email address: cox.john@ epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541–0832 or by email at hunt.virginia@epa.gov to request a public hearing, to register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a public hearing will be held. Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0662. All documents in the docket are listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) 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. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue 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 EPA Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0662. The 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 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 email. This type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. The https://www.regulations.gov website allows you to submit your comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https:// www.regulations.gov, your email 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, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// www.epa.gov/dockets. Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically within the digital storage media the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that do not contain the information claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2017–0662. Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here: AEGL acute exposure guideline level AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM–3 model APCD air pollution control device ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry BACT best available control technology CAA Clean Air Act CalEPA California EPA CBI Confidential Business Information CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CFR Code of Federal Regulations ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline ERT Electronic Reporting Tool GACT generally available control technologies HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) HCl hydrogen chloride HEM–3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.1.0 HF hydrogen fluoride HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient IBR ncorporation by reference ICAC Institute of Clean Air Companies IRIS Integrated Risk Information System km kilometer LAER lowest achievable emission rate MACT maximum achievable control technology mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter MIR maximum individual risk NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAICS North American Industry Classification System NEI National Emission Inventory NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council NSR New Source Review NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance OMB Office of Management and Budget PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment PDF portable document format PM particulate matter PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18927 POM polycyclic organic matter ppm parts per million PRA Paperwork Reduction Act RACT reasonably available control technology RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse REL reference exposure level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RfC reference concentration RTR residual risk and technology review SAB Science Advisory Board SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction THC total hydrocarbons TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index tpy tons per year TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology. Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure Model UF uncertainty factor UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act URE unit risk estimate USGS U.S. Geological Survey VCS voluntary consensus standards Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What are the source categories and how does the current NESHAP regulate their HAP emissions? C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? D. What other relevant background information and data are available? III. Analytical Procedures and Decision Making A. How do we consider risk in our decision making? B. How do we perform the technology review? C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source categories? IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect? C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? D. What are the overall results of the risk and technology reviews? E. What other actions are we proposing? F. What compliance dates are we proposing? V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? B. What are the air quality impacts? C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? E. What are the benefits? VI. Request for Comments VII. Submitting Data Corrections VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 18928 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51 K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List (see EPA– 450/3–91–030), the Asphalt Processing source category is any facility engaged in the preparation of asphalt flux at stand-alone asphalt processing facilities, petroleum refineries, and asphalt roofing facilities. Asphalt preparation, called ‘‘blowing,’’ is the oxidation of asphalt flux, achieved by bubbling air through the heated asphalt, to raise the softening point, and to reduce penetration of the oxidized asphalt. An asphalt processing facility includes one or more asphalt flux blowing stills, asphalt flux storage tanks storing asphalt flux intended for processing in the blowing stills, oxidized asphalt storage tanks, and oxidized asphalt loading racks. As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List (see EPA–450/3–91–030), the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source category includes any facility consisting of one or more asphalt roofing manufacturing lines. An asphalt roofing manufacturing line includes the collection of equipment used to manufacture asphalt roofing products through a series of sequential process steps. The equipment that constitutes an asphalt roofing manufacturing line varies depending on the type of substrate used (i.e., organic or inorganic) and the final product manufactured (e.g., roll roofing, laminated shingles). An asphalt roofing manufacturing line can include a saturator (including wet looper), coater, coating mixers, sealant applicators, adhesive applicators, and asphalt storage and process tanks. Both the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing categories are covered under one NESHAP because these processes are closely related and are often collocated. For more information about the source categories identified in Table 1 of this preamble, see section II.B of this preamble. TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION NESHAP Asphalt Processing ..................................................................... Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing .................................................. Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing ........... Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing ........... 1 North 324110 324122 American Industry Classification System. II. Background B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 NAICS code 1 Source category In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at https://www.epa.gov/ stationary-sources-air-pollution/ asphalt-processing-and-asphalt-roofingmanufacturing-national. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this same website. Information on the overall RTR program is available at https:// www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0662). VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 A. What is the statutory authority for this action? The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the ‘‘residual risk review.’’ In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there are ‘‘developments in PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 practices, processes, or control technologies’’ that may be appropriate to incorporate into the standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ‘‘technology review.’’ When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the ‘‘risk and technology review.’’ The discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking. In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules either major sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different requirements for major source standards and area source standards. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. All other sources are ‘‘area sources.’’ For major sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ‘‘floor.’’ The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set standards based on generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT standards. The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and addressing any remaining (i.e., ‘‘residual’’) risk according to CAA section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards, section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further expressly preserves the EPA’s use of the two-step approach for developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency’s interpretation of ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ developed in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 making CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). The EPA subsequently adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) upheld EPA’s interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) is a twostep approach. In the first step, the EPA determines whether risks are acceptable. This determination ‘‘considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) 1 of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.’’ 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health ‘‘in consideration of all health information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than approximately 1 in 1 million, as well as other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each particular decision.’’ Id. The EPA must promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. After conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)’’ no less often than every 8 years. In conducting this review, which we call the ‘‘technology review,’’ the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Association of Battery 1 Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum level of a pollutant for a lifetime. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18929 Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). B. What are the source categories and how does the current NESHAP regulate their HAP emissions? The current NESHAP for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories was promulgated on April 29, 2003 (68 FR 22975), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL. As promulgated in 2003 and further amended on May 17, 2005 (70 FR 28360), the NESHAP prescribes MACT standards for asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities that are major sources of HAP. The MACT standards establish emission limits for PM and total hydrocarbons (THC) as surrogates for total organic HAP. Sources of HAP emissions regulated by 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, include the following: Each blowing still, asphalt storage tank, and asphalt loading rack at asphalt processing facilities and each coating mixer, coater, saturator, wet looper, asphalt storage tank, and sealant and adhesive applicator at asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities. The main HAP emitted from these sources include hydrogen chloride (HCl) (from blowing stills at asphalt processing facilities that use chlorinated catalysts), methylene chloride, hexane, methyl chloride, formaldehyde, and other organic HAP. More information and details regarding the HAP emitted from these sources are provided in Appendix 1 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0662. The MACT standards also limit the opacity and visible emissions from certain saturators, coaters, and asphalt storage tanks. As of August 1, 2018, there are eight facilities in operation and subject to the MACT standards. Four of the eight facilities are strictly asphalt processing facilities, and the other four operate an asphalt processing facility collocated with an asphalt roofing manufacturing facility. A complete list of facilities that are currently subject to the MACT standards is available in Appendix A of the memorandum titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories, in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0662. E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 18930 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? In June 2017, the EPA issued a request, pursuant to CAA section 114, to collect information from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities. This effort focused on gathering comprehensive information about process equipment, control technologies, point and fugitive emissions, and other aspects of facility operations. Companies completed the survey for their facilities and submitted responses to the EPA in September 2017. The information not claimed as CBI by respondents is available in the memorandum titled Data Received from Clean Air Act Section 114 Request for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories, in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0662. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 D. What other relevant background information and data are available? The EPA used multiple sources of information to support this proposed action. Before developing the final list of affected facilities described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database was used as a tool to identify potentially affected facilities with asphalt processing and/or asphalt roofing manufacturing operations that are subject to the NESHAP. The ECHO database provides integrated compliance and enforcement information for approximately 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide. The 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database provided facility-specific data and MACT category data that were used with the information received through the CAA section 114 request described in section II.C of this preamble to develop the modeling input file for the risk assessment. The NEI is a database that contains information about sources that emit criteria air pollutants, their precursors, and HAP. The database includes estimates of annual air pollutant emissions from point, nonpoint, and mobile sources in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The EPA collects this information and releases an updated version of the NEI database every 3 years. The NEI includes information necessary for conducting risk modeling, including annual HAP emissions estimates from individual emission points at facilities and the related emissions release parameters. In conducting the technology review, we examined information in the VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)/Best Available Control Technology (BACT)/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) Clearinghouse (RBLC) to identify technologies in use and determine whether there have been relevant developments in practices, processes, or control technologies. The RBLC is a database that contains case specific information on air pollution technologies that have been required to reduce the emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources. Under EPA’s New Source Review (NSR) program, if a facility is planning new construction or a modification that will increase the air emissions by a large amount, an NSR permit must be obtained. This central database promotes the sharing of information among permitting agencies and aids in case-by-case determinations for NSR permits. The EPA also reviewed subsequent air toxic regulatory actions for other source categories and information from site visits to determine whether there have been developments in practices, processes, or control technologies in the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories. III. Analytical Procedures and Decision Making In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this proposal. A. How do we consider risk in our decision making? As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, ‘‘the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to any single factor’’ and, thus, ‘‘[t]he Administrator believes that the acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and information.’’ 54 FR 38046, September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety determination, ‘‘the Agency again considers all of the health risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors.’’ Id. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh those factors for each source categories. The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source categories, the hazard index (HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.2 The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA’s risk analysis is consistent with the EPA’s response to comments on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that: [t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be considered, but also incidence, the presence of noncancer health effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any particular measure of public health risk from the EPA’s consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are appropriate to determining what will ‘protect the public health’. See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The Benzene NESHAP explained that ‘‘an MIR of approximately one in 10 thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making an 2 The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential exposure to the HAP to the level at or below which no adverse chronic noncancer effects are expected; the HI is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ system. E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other health risk factors.’’ Id. at 38045. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along with the health-related factors) vary from source category to source category.’’ Id. at 38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety. The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions from other facilities that do not include the source categories under review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity of the sources in the categories. The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an individual’s total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May 2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ‘‘that RTR assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and cumulative risks, including background VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 concentrations and contributions from other sources in the area.’’ 3 In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide assessments, which include source categories emission points, as well as other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens affecting the same target organ or target organ system. Although we are interested in placing source categories and facility-wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than the source categories or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the assessments too unreliable. B. How do we perform the technology review? Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of whether it is ‘‘necessary’’ to revise the emissions standards. In addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we consider any of the following to be a ‘‘development’’: • Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified 3 Recommendations of the SAB RTR Panel are provided in their report, which is available at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18931 and considered during development of the original MACT standards; • Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions reduction; • Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; • Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; and • Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT standards). In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed (or last updated) the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. See sections II.C and II.D of this preamble for information on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review. C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source categories? In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process. In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB–HAP), we would not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section IV.A of this preamble). The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source categories, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the exposed populations, E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 18932 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The seven sections that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains the following document, which provides more information on the risk assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess risk (as described in the seven primary steps below) are consistent with those described by the EPA in the document reviewed by a panel of the EPA’s SAB in 2009; 4 and described in the SAB review report issued in 2010. They are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that report. 1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions release characteristics? For each facility that we determined to be subject to the MACT standards (see section II.B of this preamble), we gathered emissions data from Version 1 of the 2014 NEI. For each NEI record, we reviewed the source classification code and emission unit and process descriptions, and then assigned the record to an emission source type regulated by the MACT standards (i.e., each record identified as an affected source at each facility was labeled adhesive/sealant applicator equipment, asphalt loading rack, asphalt storage tank, blowing still, coater, or coating mixer) or an emission source type not regulated by the MACT standards (i.e., each record that was not identified as an affected source at each facility was labeled non-source category type). The non-source category type emissions sources are units or processes that are co-located at one or more of the asphalt processing or asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities, but are not part of the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories. For example, some of these asphalt affected sources are co-located with petroleum refinery operations that are part of a different source category (i.e., Petroleum Refineries) which are regulated by different NESHAP (i.e., 40 CFR part 63, subparts CC and UUU). 4 U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies— MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA–452/R–09– 006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/ rtrpg.html. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 After we determined which emissions sources were part of the source category, we then examined all the NEI records (excluding non-source category records) and developed lists of HAP that were reported, and, thus, expected to be emitted, for each emission process group in the source category. Using the emissions data from this analysis, we created speciation profiles to gap-fill missing HAP emissions data for facilityspecific records. As part of the CAA section 114 request (see section II.C of this preamble), the EPA asked companies to review (and revise, if necessary) the NEI-based data described above, including emission values, emission release point parameters, coordinates, and emission process group assignments. We used all this information to reevaluate our emission process group assignments for each NEI record in the modeling file. We also used this information to update emission release point parameter data. In other words, we used the CAA section 114 response data wherever possible (in lieu of the data we established using the NEI and gap fill procedures), unless it failed certain quality assurance checks. For further details on the assumptions and methodologies used to estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions release characteristics, see Appendix 1 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule in Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2017–0662. 2. How did we estimate MACTallowable emissions? The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time period. These ‘‘actual’’ emission levels are often lower than the emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred to as the ‘‘MACT-allowable’’ emissions. We discussed the consideration of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could emit and still comply with PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 national emission standards. We also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.) The Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP specifies performance standards (i.e., a THC percent reduction or combustion efficiency requirement) for blowing stills, asphalt loading racks, and asphalt storage tanks at existing, new, and reconstructed asphalt processing facilities; asphalt storage tanks at existing asphalt roofing manufacturing lines; and coaters, saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, sealant and adhesive applicators, and asphalt storage tanks at new and reconstructed asphalt roofing manufacturing lines. Consequently, the MACT-allowable emissions for all of these emission sources are assumed to be equal to the actual emissions. For coating mixers, saturators, coaters, sealant applicators, and adhesive applicators at existing asphalt roofing manufacturing lines, the NESHAP specifies a production-based MACT-allowable limit (i.e., 0.08 pounds PM per ton of asphalt shingle or mineral-surfaced roll roofing produced basis), but allows owners and operators of these emissions sources the alternative of complying with the performance-based standards applicable to new and reconstructed asphalt roofing manufacturing lines. Based on responses received from the CAA section 114 request (see section II.C of this preamble), most facilities use combustion controls to meet the alternative performance-based standards for existing coating mixers, saturators, coaters, sealant applicators, and adhesive applicators, rather than complying with the numerical production-based standard. Therefore, we decided to treat the performancebased standard as the applicable standard and used the actual emission levels as a reasonable estimation of the MACT-allowable emissions levels for these emission sources. For further details on the assumptions and methodologies used to estimate MACT-allowable emissions, see Appendix 1 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, in Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2017–0662. E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules 3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk? Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risk from the source categories addressed in this proposal were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM–3).5 The HEM–3 performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response information. a. Dispersion Modeling The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM–3 model, is one of the EPA’s preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations from industrial facilities.6 To perform the dispersion modeling and to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 draws on three data libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block 7 internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health risk. These are discussed below. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted by each source in the source categories. The HAP air concentrations at each 5 For more information about HEM–3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-andmodeling-human-exposure-model-hem. 6 U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 2005). 7 A census block is the smallest geographic area for which census statistics are tabulated. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, including AERMOD. For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per cubic meter) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is an upper-bound estimate of an individual’s incremental risk of contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk assessments, we generally use UREs from EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new, scientifically credible doseresponse values have been developed in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such doseresponse values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/ dose-response-assessment-assessinghealth-risks-associated-exposurehazardous-air-pollutants. To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source categories, we sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP 8 emitted 8 The EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment classifies carcinogens as: ‘‘carcinogenic to humans,’’ ‘‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans,’’ and ‘‘suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential.’’ These classifications also coincide with the terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the terms advocated in The EPA’s Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document, Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R–00/002), was published as a supplement to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from https:// cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm? PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18933 by the modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within 50 km of every facility in the source categories. The MIR is the highest individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the distribution of individual cancer risks for the source categories by summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing this result by a 70-year lifetime. To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ‘‘an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime’’ (https:// iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/ termreg/searchandretrieve/ glossariesandkeywordlists/ search.do?details= &vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC from the EPA’s IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized sources, which define their doseresponse values similarly to the EPA: (1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN= 71597944. Summing the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA’s SAB in their 2002 peer review of EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) titled NATA— Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data—an SAB Advisory, available at https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ ecadv02001.pdf. E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 18934 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules mrls/index.asp); (2) the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https:// oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoptionair-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidancemanual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted above, a scientifically credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutantspecific dose-response values used to estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/doseresponse-assessment-assessing-healthrisks-associated-exposure-hazardousair-pollutants. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other Than Cancer For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and exposure location. We use the peak hourly emission rate,9 worst-case dispersion conditions, and, in accordance with our mandate under section 112 of the CAA, the point of highest off-site exposure to assess the potential risk to the maximally exposed individual. To characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use multiple acute doseresponse values, including acute RELs, acute exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations, if available, to calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the estimated acute exposure by the acute doseresponse value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available, the EPA calculates acute HQs. An acute REL is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration.’’ 10 9 In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a categoryspecific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report: Analysis of Data on Short-term Emission Rates Relative to Long-term Emission Rates. Both are available in the docket for this rulemaking. 10 CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8hour values are documented in Air Toxics Hot VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.11 They are guideline levels for ‘‘once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.’’ Id. at 21. The AEGL–1 is specifically defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ The document also notes that ‘‘Airborne concentrations below AEGL–1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.’’ Id. AEGL–2 are defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed as parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to escape.’’ Id. ERPGs are ‘‘developed for emergency planning and are intended as healthbased guideline concentrations for single exposures to chemicals.’’ 12 Id. at Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-relsummary. 11 National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_ operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National Academies to publish final AEGLs (https:// www.epa.gov/aegl). 12 ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American Industrial Hygiene Association. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 1. The ERPG–1 is defined as ‘‘the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving a clearly defined, objectionable odor.’’ Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG–2 is defined as ‘‘the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual’s ability to take protective action.’’ Id. at 1. An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than its corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1. Even though their definitions are slightly different, AEGL–1s are often the same as the corresponding ERPG–1s, and AEGL–2s are often equal to ERPG– 2s. The maximum HQs from our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-response value (usually the AEGL–1 and/or the ERPG–1). For the acute inhalation risk assessment of the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories, we did not always use the default acute emissions multiplier of 10. For approximately 65 percent of the modeling file records, we used facilityspecific maximum (i.e., acute) hourly emissions from the responses to the CAA section 114 request (see section II.C of this preamble) because these data were available. For the remaining records (excluding asphalt storage tanks), we applied the default acute emissions multiplier of 10. For asphalt storage tanks, we applied a multiplier of four. A further discussion of why these factors were chosen can be found in Appendix 1 of Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, in Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2017–0662. In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than or equal to 1 (even under the conservative assumptions of the screening assessment), and no further Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/ AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponse PlanningGuidelines/Documents/ ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating %20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20 Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf. E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 analysis is performed for these HAP. In cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we consider additional site-specific data to develop a more refined estimate of the potential for acute exposures of concern. For these source categories, the data refinements employed consisted of ensuring the locations where the maximum HQ occurred were off facility property and where the public could potentially be exposed. These refinements are discussed more fully in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening assessment? The EPA conducted a tiered screening assessment examining the potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determined whether any sources in the source categories emitted any PB–HAP, as identified in EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (See Volume 1, Appendix D, at https://www2.epa.gov/ fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-airtoxics-risk-assessment-referencelibrary). For the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories, we identified PB–HAP emissions of cadmium compounds, lead compounds, mercury compounds, and polycyclic organic matter (POM) (of which polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons is a subset), so we proceeded to the next step of the evaluation. In this step, we determined whether the facility-specific emission rates of the emitted PB–HAP were large enough to create the potential for significant human health risk through ingestion under reasonable worst-case conditions. To facilitate this step, we used previously developed screening threshold emission rates for several PB– HAP that are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction with the EPA’s Total Risk Integrated Methodology. Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB–HAP with screening threshold emission rates are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, mercury compounds, and POM. Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and bioaccumulation potential, the pollutants above represent a VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 conservative list for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules. (See Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ files/201308/documents/volume_1_ reflibrary.pdf.) In this assessment, we compare the facility-specific emission rates of these PB–HAP to the screening threshold emission rates for each PB– HAP to assess the potential for significant human health risks via the ingestion pathway. We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening assessment. The ratio of a facility’s actual emission rate to the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is a ‘‘screening value.’’ We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these PB– HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, and POM) or, for HAP that cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB–HAP or combination of carcinogenic PB–HAP in the Tier 1 screening assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a second screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening assessment. In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher and farmer exposure scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1 screening assessment is that a lake and/ or farm is located near the facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies within 50 km of each facility. We also examine the differences between local meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the Tier 1 screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-developed Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for each PB–HAP for each facility based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations estimated for the screening scenario change with the use of local meteorology and USGS waterbody data. If the PB–HAP emission rates for a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rates and data are available, we may conduct a Tier 3 screening assessment. If PB–HAP emission rates do not exceed a Tier 2 screening value of 1, we consider those PB–HAP emissions to pose risks below a level of concern. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18935 There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3 screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable, considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on chemical fate and transport. If the Tier 3 screening assessment indicates that risks above levels of concern cannot be ruled out, the EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a sitespecific assessment. In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead.13 Values below the level of the primary (health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for multipathway risk. For further information on the multipathway assessment approach, see the Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment? a. Adverse Environmental Effects, Environmental HAP, and Ecological Benchmarks The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential for an adverse environmental effect as required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ‘‘adverse environmental effect’’ as ‘‘any significant and widespread adverse effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or other natural resources, including 13 In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a primary NAAQS—that a standard is requisite to protect public health and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))— differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other things, that the standard provide an ‘‘ample margin of safety to protect public health’’). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to protect the most susceptible group in the human population— children, including children living near major lead emitting sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition, applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS reflects an adequate margin of safety. E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 18936 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of environmental quality over broad areas.’’ The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as ‘‘environmental HAP,’’ in its screening assessment: Six PB– HAP and two acid gases. The PB–HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid gases included in the screening assessment are HCl and hydrogen fluoride (HF). HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes watercolumn and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and its attributes. For PB–HAP (other than lead), both community-level and population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities. An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels, lowest-observed-adverseeffect level, and no-observed-adverseeffect level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a particular PB–HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and widespread. For further information on how the environmental risk screening assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first determined whether any facilities in the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories, we identified emissions of cadmium compounds, HCl, lead, mercury, and POM. Because one or more of the environmental HAP evaluated are emitted by at least one facility in the source categories, we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation. c. PB–HAP Methodology The environmental screening assessment includes six PB–HAP, arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB–HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment. TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to backcalculate Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission rates represent the emission rate in tpy that results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the category, the reported emission rate for each PB–HAP was compared to the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for that PB–HAP for each assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ‘‘passes’’ the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 2. In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius for each facility and PB–HAP. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 For the water, sediment, and fish tissue concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ‘‘passes’’ the screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3. As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential to cause an adverse environmental effect. To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM–3) of lead around each facility in the source categories to the level of the secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can include ‘‘effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and wellbeing.’’ d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening methodology for acid gases is a singletier screening assessment that compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential adverse E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics: The size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km2; the percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average screening value around each facility (calculated by dividing the area-weighted average concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 6. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments? To put the source categories risks in context, we typically examine the risks from the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the facility includes all HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the source categories’ emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data. For these source categories, we conducted the facility-wide assessment using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI. The source category records of that NEI dataset were removed, evaluated, and updated as described in section II.C of this preamble: What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? Once a quality assured source category dataset was available, it was placed back with the remaining records from the NEI for that facility. The facility-wide file was then used to analyze risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted ‘‘facility-wide’’ for the populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, the modeled source category risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of the facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source categories addressed in this proposal. We also specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of interest. The VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, available through the docket for this action, provides the methodology and results of the facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the percentage of source categories contribution to facility-wide risks. 7. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment? Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. If a multipathway site-specific assessment was performed for these source categories, a full discussion of the uncertainties associated with that assessment can be found in Appendix 11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report. a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18937 emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations. b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration estimates associated with any model, including the EPA’s recommended regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts (e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability. c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when possible. For example, with respect to census-block E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 18938 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules centroids, we analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block is not well represented by a single location. d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that is stated in the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; namely, that ‘‘the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default options that are used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary, should be health protective’’ (the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1–7). This is the approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs. Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.14 That is, they represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the true value of a quantity’’ (although this is usually not a true statistical confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.15 Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose values represent chronic exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To derive doseresponse values that are intended to be ‘‘without appreciable risk,’’ the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor (UF) approach,16 which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps in the available data. The UFs are applied to 14 IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_ internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/ glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do? details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary). 15 An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum likelihood estimates. 16 See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 derive dose-response values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of deleterious effects. Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties. Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but not all combinations of ecological assessment/ environmental HAP had benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and widespread. Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by these source categories are lacking doseresponse assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk, we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for that substance. We additionally note that, generally PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions, including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control options. For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds in the group to estimate risk. e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of humans at the location of the maximum concentration. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we assume that peak emissions from the source categories and worst-case meteorological conditions co-occur, thus, resulting in maximum ambient concentrations. These two events are unlikely to occur at the same time, making these assumptions conservative. We then include the additional assumption that a person is located at this point during this same time period. For these source categories, these assumptions would tend to be worstcase actual exposures, as it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and worstcase meteorological conditions occur simultaneously. f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening Assessments For each source categories, we generally rely on site-specific levels of PB–HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined assessment of the impacts from E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules multipathway exposures is necessary or whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models—TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD—that estimate environmental pollutant concentrations and human exposures for five PB–HAP (dioxins, POM, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, which are then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two important types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.17 Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk assessments conducted in support of RTR. Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier 1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures. In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, 17 In the context of this discussion, the term ‘‘uncertainty’’ as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in being able to accurately estimate the true result. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1. By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for hourby-hour plume rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three tiers. For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations and compare those with ecological benchmarks. For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse impacts. Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the source categories. The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic, cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18939 (both inorganic and methyl mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web. These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases, depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and resources allow. IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? As described above, for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories, we conducted an inhalation risk assessment for all HAP emitted, a multipathway screening assessment for the PB–HAP emitted, and an environmental risk screening assessment on the PB–HAP and acid gases (e.g., HCl) emitted. We present results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results The results of the chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current actual and allowable emissions, the MIR posed by the two asphalt source categories, which were considered together in this analysis, is less than 1-in-1 million. The total estimated cancer incidence based on actual and allowable emission levels is 0.0007 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 1,430 years. The population exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million considering actual and allowable emissions is 0 (see Table 2 of this preamble). In addition, the E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 18940 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules maximum chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) is less than 1. TABLE 2—ASPHALT PROCESSING AND ASPHALT ROOFING MANUFACTURING INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS Number of facilities 1 8 ....................... Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) 2 Estimated population at increased risk of cancer ≥1-in-1 million Estimated annual cancer incidence (cases per year) Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ Based on actual emissions level 2 3 Based on actual emissions level 3 Based on actual emissions level 3 Based on actual emissions level Based on actual emissions level 3 <1 0 0.0007 0.1 HQREL = 4 (formaldehyde). 1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source categories. emissions equal allowable emissions; therefore, actual risks equal allowable risks. 2 Maximum khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 3 Actual 2. Acute Risk Results As presented in Table 2 of this preamble, the acute exposures to emissions from the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories result in a maximum HQ of 4 based on the REL for formaldehyde. This is driven by emissions from storage tanks. The next highest dose-response value for formaldehyde, the AEGL–1, results in an HQ of 0.3. In addition, acute exposure to acrolein results in an HQ of 2 based on the REL for acrolein. This is driven by emissions from blowing stills. The next highest dose-response value for acrolein, the AEGL1, results in an HQ of 0.09. These results include a refinement performed using aerial photos to ensure the maximum exposure evaluated would occur off-site in areas where the public could be exposed. As described above, the acute REL represents a health-protective level of exposure, with no adverse health effects anticipated below those levels, even for the most sensitive individuals and repeated exposures. As exposure concentration increases above the acute REL, the potential for adverse health effects increases; however, we do not have an acute reference value for a level of exposure at which adverse health effects might be expected. Therefore, when an REL is exceeded and an AEGL– 1 or ERPG–1 level is available (i.e., levels at which mild, reversible effects are anticipated in the general public for a single exposure), we typically use the AEGL–1 and/or ERPG–1 as an additional measure to characterize the risk of adverse health effects. For more detail on the screening level acute risk assessment results, refer to the draft residual risk document: Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results The multipathway risk screening assessment resulted in a maximum Tier 2 cancer screening value of 2 for POM. The Tier 2 screening values for all other PB–HAP emitted from the source categories (cadmium compounds, lead compounds, and mercury compounds) were less than 1. Based on these results, we are confident that the cancer risks due to multipathway exposures are lower than 2-in-1 million and the noncancer HIs are less than 1. In the case of lead, the multipathway risks were assessed by comparing modeled ambient lead concentrations against the primary NAAQS for lead. The results of this analysis indicate that based on actual and allowable emissions, the maximum annual off-site ambient lead concentrations are below the primary NAAQS; therefore, we assume there are no multipathway risks due to lead emissions. 4. Environmental Risk Screening Results The ecological risk screening assessment indicated all modeled points were below the Tier 1 screening threshold based on actual and allowable emissions of PB–HAPs (cadmium compounds, lead compounds, mercury compounds, and POM) and acid gases (HCl) emitted by the source categories. In the case of lead, the environmental risks were assessed by comparing modeled ambient lead concentrations against the secondary NAAQS for lead. The results of this analysis indicate that, based on actual and allowable emissions, the maximum annual off-site ambient lead concentrations were below the secondary NAAQS; therefore, we conclude there are no environmental risks due to lead emissions. 5. Facility-Wide Risk Results An assessment of whole-facility risks was performed as described above to characterize the source category risk in PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 the context of whole facility risks.18 Whole facility risks were estimated using the NEI-based data described in section III.C.1 of this preamble. The maximum lifetime individual cancer risk posed by the eight facilities, based on whole facility emissions, is 9-in-1 million with naphthalene and benzene emissions from facility-wide fugitive emissions and nickel compound emissions from flares from the Petroleum Refinery source category driving the risk. Regarding the noncancer risk assessment, the maximum chronic noncancer HI posed by whole facility emissions is estimated to be 0.1 (for the respiratory system), which occurred at two facilities. 6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation? To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the source categories, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories across different demographic groups within the populations living near the eight facilities.19 Results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for six of the 11 demographic groups, African American, 18 The facility-wide risk assessment includes all emission points within Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories (including those for which there are no standards), as well as other emission points covered by other NESHAP. 19 Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White, African American, Native American, other races and multiracial, Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people. E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules Native American, other and multiracial, ages 0–17, ages 18–64, and below the poverty level, the percentage of the population living within 5 km of facilities in the source categories is greater than the corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups. When examining the risk levels of those exposed to emissions from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities, we find that no one is exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories Operations, available in the docket for this action. B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects? khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 1. Risk Acceptability We weigh all health risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). For the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories, the risk analysis indicates that the cancer risk to the individual most exposed is below 1-in-1 million from both actual and allowable emissions. This risk is considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The risk analysis also estimates a cancer incidence of 0.0007 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 1,430 years, as well a maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value below 1 (0.1). In addition, the risk assessment indicates no significant potential for multipathway health effects. The results of the acute screening analysis estimate a maximum acute noncancer HQ of 4 based on the acute REL. To better characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated worst-case acute exposures to HAP, we examine a wider range of available acute health metrics than we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in acknowledgement that there are VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 generally more data gaps and uncertainties in acute reference values than there are in chronic reference values. By definition, the acute REL represents a health-protective level of exposure, with effects not anticipated below those levels, even for repeated exposures; however, the level of exposure that would cause health effects is not specifically known. As the exposure concentration increases above the acute REL, the potential for effects increases. Therefore, when an REL is exceeded and an AEGL–1 or ERPG–1 level is available (i.e., levels at which mild, reversible effects are anticipated in the general public for a single exposure), we typically use them as an additional comparative measure, as they provide an upper bound for exposure levels above which exposed individuals could experience effects. Based on the AEGL–1 for formaldehyde, the HQ is less than 1 (0.3), below the level at which mild, reversible adverse effects would be anticipated. In addition, the acute screening assessment includes the conservative (health protective) assumptions that every process releases its peak hourly emissions at the same hour, that the worst-case dispersion conditions occur at that same hour, and that an individual is present at the location of maximum concentration for that hour. Together, these factors lead us to conclude that significant acute effects are not anticipated due to emissions from these categories. Considering all the health risk information and factors discussed above, including the uncertainties, we propose to find that risks from the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories are acceptable. As risks for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories were assessed together in one risk assessment, and based on the results of that risk assessment, we are proposing risks from the Asphalt Processing source category are acceptable and risks from the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source category are acceptable. 2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures (including the controls, measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be applied in these source categories to further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in the risk assessment. In this analysis, we considered the results of the technology PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18941 review, risk assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine whether there are any costeffective controls or other measures that would reduce emissions further. Although we are proposing that the risks from these source categories are acceptable, the maximum acute risk is an HQ of 4 caused by formaldehyde emissions from four asphalt storage tanks. There is also an HQ of 2 caused by acrolein emissions from a blowing still. We considered whether the MACT standards applicable to these emission points in particular, as well as all the current MACT standards applicable to these source categories, provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. With regard to the sources of acute risks, we identified two options for reducing the acute HQ of 4 due to formaldehyde emissions from asphalt storage tanks: (1) Installing ductwork and routing the exhaust of the four asphalt storage tanks to an existing thermal incinerator, or (2) installing ductwork and routing the exhaust of the four asphalt storage tanks to a single new packed bed scrubber. Under these options, the formaldehyde emissions would be reduced by 99.5 percent and 95.0 percent, respectively, and the acute HQ would likely be reduced to less than 1. However, because formaldehyde emissions from asphalt storage tanks are low (i.e., 0.46 tpy formaldehyde is emitted from all asphalt storage tanks in the source categories combined), reduction in the emissions achieved by these two options is not cost effective. We estimate the cost effectiveness to be from $102,400 per ton of formaldehyde reduced (option 1) to $3.7 million per ton of formaldehyde reduced (option 2). Installing a packed bed scrubber would also lead to an increase in energy use from the facility. Due to the additional environmental impacts that would be imposed, the small risk reduction, and the substantial costs associated with these options, we are proposing that additional emissions controls for asphalt storage tanks are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. See the technical memorandum titled Asphalt Storage Tank Controls—Ample Margin of Safety Analysis, in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0662 for details. We did not identify any processes, practices, or control technologies to further reduce organic HAP emissions (including acrolein emissions) from blowing stills (see section IV.C of this preamble for more details). Therefore, we are proposing that revisions to the current standards for organic HAP for this emission source are not necessary E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 18942 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules and that acrolein-specific standards for this emission source are also not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. For other emissions and emissions sources, including asphalt loading racks, coating mixers, saturators (including wet loopers), coaters, sealant applicators, adhesive (laminate) applicators, and HCl emissions from blowing stills, risks are low. Nevertheless, to determine whether it was possible to reduce this already low risk further, we evaluated possible approaches to reduce HAP emissions from these sources. With regard to HCl emissions, the risk analysis for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories includes an assessment of risk from emissions of HCl from blowing stills. As detailed in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, four major sources within these source categories reported HCl emissions. The estimated risk associated with HCl emissions is low, less than the source-category maximum HI of 0.1, which is from acrolein emissions, indicating that HCl emissions are not a risk driver under the NESHAP as it currently exists. Nevertheless, we evaluated possible options to further reduce HCl emissions and risks under the ample margin of safety analysis. This evaluation is discussed in more detail in section IV.C of this preamble. During development of the 2003 NESHAP (68 FR 24562), the EPA evaluated HCl emissions from blowing stills in the Asphalt Processing source category. In the 2003 final rule preamble (68 FR 24562), the EPA explained that for ‘‘blowing stills that use chlorinated catalysts, emissions of HCl can be reduced by a gas scrubber using caustic scrubbing media.’’ However, EPA did not identify any asphalt processing or asphalt roofing manufacturers that were using scrubbers at that time. In the 2003 preamble, EPA stated that ‘‘since gas scrubbing has not been demonstrated as an effective technology for controlling HCl emissions from asphalt processing and due to the potentially high cost per megagram of HCl reduced ($23,900), the additional cost of going beyond-thefloor was not warranted. Nor is process substitution a viable option for controlling HCl emissions . . . .’’ 20 20 During development of the 2001 proposed rule (66 FR 58610) and the 2003 final rule (68 FR 24562), the EPA also considered requiring facilities to use non-chlorinated catalysts. However, the EPA VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 Therefore, in the 2003 final rule preamble, the EPA concluded that ‘‘MACT for HCl emissions from blowing stills using catalyst was based on no emission reduction.’’ As discussed in detail in section IV.C of this preamble, the EPA again evaluated possible options to reduce HCl emissions, but as in the 2003 rulemaking (68 FR 24562), we did not identify any cost-effective practices, processes, or control technologies to reduce HCl emissions. For the other emissions sources (i.e., asphalt loading racks, coating mixers, saturators (including wet loopers), coaters, sealant applicators, adhesive (laminate) applicators), we also did not identify any processes, practices, or control technologies that would further reduce emissions and health risks from these sources (see section IV.C of this preamble for more details). Therefore, we are proposing that additional standards for these emission sources are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In summary, due to the low level of current risk, the minimal risk reductions that could be achieved with the control options that we evaluated for asphalt storage tanks and the substantial costs associated with those additional control options, and because we did not identify cost-effective processes, practices, or control technologies that would further reduce emissions and health risks from asphalt loading racks, coating mixers, saturators (including wet loopers), coaters, sealant applicators, adhesive (laminate) applicators, and blowing stills, we are proposing that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. 3. Adverse Environmental Effect Considering the results of our environmental risk screening, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from these source categories, and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. determined that the need to use catalyst is driven by the quality of the asphalt feedstocks, which is highly variable. Because the demand for highquality asphalt flux can sometimes be greater than the supply and because high-quality feedstocks might not be available in a particular geographic region, some roofing manufacturers must accept lower quality feedstock. These sources must use a catalyst in the asphalt flux blowing operation or they cannot produce an acceptable asphalt product for roofing materials. See 66 FR 58610, 58618–19 (November 21, 2001) and 68 FR 24562, 24565 (May 7, 2003). PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? 1. Introduction In section III.B of this preamble, we describe our typical approach for conducting technology reviews and the types of information we gather and evaluate as part of these reviews. In addition, as we described in the preamble of the Coke Ovens RTR final rule published on April 15, 2005 (70 FR 20009), and in the recent proposed RTR rule for coatings operations titled National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Large Appliances; Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and Surface Coating of Metal Furniture Residual Risk and Technology Reviews published on September 12, 2018 (83 FR 46262), we believe that the results of a CAA section 112(f) risk determination for a CAA section 112(d) standard should be key factors in any subsequent CAA section 112(d)(6) determination for that standard. In these two previous actions, the agency described potential scenarios where it may not be necessary to revise the standards based on developments in technologies, practices, or processes if the remaining risks associated with HAP emissions from a source category have already been reduced to a level where we have determined further reductions under CAA section 112(f) are not necessary. Under one scenario, if the ample margin of safety analysis for the CAA section 112(f) determination was not based on the availability or cost of particular control technologies, practices, or processes, then advances in air pollution control technology, practices, or processes would not necessarily be a cause to revise the MACT standard pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), because the CAA section 112(f) standard (or a CAA section 112(d) standard evaluated pursuant to CAA section 112(f)) would continue to assure an adequate level of safety. Under another scenario, if the ample margin of safety analysis for a CAA section 112(f) standard (or a CAA section 112(d) standard evaluated pursuant to CAA section 112(f)) shows that lifetime excess cancer risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from a source in the category is less than 1-in-1 million, and the remaining risk associated with threshold pollutants falls below a similar threshold of safety, then no further revision under CAA section 112(d)(6) would be necessary, because an ample margin of safety has already been assured. E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules As described in the risk review sections of this preamble (see sections IV.A and IV.B), the risks due to HAP emissions from the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories are low. The inhalation cancer MIR is below 1-in-1 million, the maximum inhalation chronic noncancer HI is below 1, and the worst-case maximum inhalation acute HQ is 4 (using the REL for formaldehyde). With regard to multipathway risks, based on a Tier 2 screening assessment, we are confident that the cancer risks due to multipathway exposures are lower than 2-in-1 million and the noncancer HI is less than 1. Furthermore, as described in our ample margin of safety analysis (see section IV.B of this preamble), we concluded that risks are acceptable and the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. We, therefore, solicit comment on whether revisions to the NESHAP are ‘‘necessary,’’ as that term is used in CAA section 112(d)(6), in situations such as this where the EPA has determined that CAA section 112(d) standards evaluated pursuant to CAA section 112(f) provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. In other words, we solicit comment on the conclusion that, if remaining risks associated with air emissions from a source category have already been reduced to levels where we have determined that further reductions are not necessary under CAA section 112(f), then it is not ‘‘necessary’’ to revise the standards based on developments in technologies, practices, or processes under CAA section 112(d)(6). See CAA section 112(d)(6) (‘‘The Administrator shall review, and revise as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies), emissions standards promulgated under this section no less often than every 8 years.’’). Though we believe the results of the ample margin of safety analysis may eliminate the need to revise the emissions standards based on developments in technologies, practices, or processes, we nonetheless conducted a technology review to determine whether any developments to further reduce HAP emissions have occurred and to consider whether the current standards should be revised to reflect any such developments. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 2. Sources of Emissions and the Information Considered in Our Technology Review Sources of HAP emissions regulated by the NESHAP for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories include each blowing still, asphalt loading rack, and asphalt storage tank at asphalt processing facilities and each coating mixer, coater, saturator, wet looper, asphalt storage tank, and sealant and adhesive applicator at asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities. Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology review to determine whether any developments have occurred since promulgation of the 2003 NESHAP that may warrant revisions to the current Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP. In conducting our technology review, we used and reviewed the RBLC database, subsequent air toxic regulatory actions for other source categories, information from site visits, and data submitted by facilities in response to the CAA section 114 request (see sections II.C and II.D of this preamble). The findings of our technology review are described below. Further details are provided in the technical memorandum titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories, in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0662, which is available in the docket for this proposed rule. 3. Asphalt Loading Racks, Asphalt Storage Tanks, Coating Mixers, Saturators (Including Wet Loopers), Coaters, Sealant Applicators, and Adhesive Applicators After reviewing information from the aforementioned resources, we did not find any developments (since promulgation of the original NESHAP) in practices, processes, and control technologies that could be applied to asphalt loading racks, asphalt storage tanks, coating mixers, saturators (including wet loopers), coaters, sealant applicators, or adhesive (laminate) applicators and that could be used to reduce emissions from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities. We also did not identify any developments in work practices, pollution prevention techniques, or process changes that could achieve emission reductions from these emissions sources. We determined that the control technologies used to control stack emissions from these emission sources have not changed since the EPA promulgated the NESHAP on April 29, PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18943 2003 (68 FR 22975). In general, facilities continue to use combustion technology to control organic HAP emissions from asphalt loading racks and asphalt storage tanks in the Asphalt Processing source category, and facilities in the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source category continue to use either combustion technology or PM control devices to control organic HAP emissions from coaters, saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, sealant and adhesive applicators, and asphalt storage tanks. In light of the results of the technology review for asphalt loading racks, asphalt storage tanks, coating mixers, saturators (including wet loopers), coaters, sealant applicators, and adhesive (laminate) applicators, we propose to conclude that no revisions to the current standards are necessary for these emission sources pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For further details on the information, assumptions, and methodologies used in this analysis, see the technical memorandum titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories, in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0662. We solicit comment on our proposed decision for these emission sources. 4. Blowing Stills The main HAP emitted from blowing stills are organic HAP (such as formaldehyde, methylene chloride, phenol, POM, toluene) and HCl. We evaluated potential developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for these HAP. As previously discussed in the proposal for the original 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, rulemaking standards (66 FR 58610), in asphalt processing, heated asphalt flux is taken from storage and charged to a heated blowing still where air is bubbled up through the flux. This process raises the softening temperature of the asphalt. The blowing process also decreases the penetration rate of the asphalt when applied to the roofing substrate. Organic HAP volatilize and/or are formed during asphalt processing because of the exothermic oxidation reactions that occur in the blowing still. Facilities use thermal oxidizers to control organic HAP emissions from these sources. We did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies, nor any developments in work practices, pollution prevention techniques, or process changes to control organic HAP from blowing stills at asphalt processing facilities. E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 18944 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules Some processing operations use a catalyst (e.g., ferric chloride, phosphoric acid) in the blowing still that promotes the oxidation of asphalt in the blowing still. The need to use a catalyst is primarily driven by the type of feedstock used (i.e., certain feedstocks require the catalyst to be used to attain desired product specifications). If facilities use a chlorinated catalyst in the blowing still during asphalt processing, then HCl emissions can result from (1) the conversion of ferric chloride catalyst to ferrous chloride in the blowing still, (2) HCl present in the ferric catalyst itself, (3) trace amount of HCl present in the asphalt flux, and (4) oxidation of chlorinated compounds by the blowing still thermal oxidizer. In addition to assessing developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for organic HAP emitted from blowing stills, the EPA also elected to conduct a technology review for these HCl emissions. Based on the responses to the EPA’s CAA section 114 request (see section II.C of this preamble for details about our CAA section 114 request), we determined that none of the 10 existing blowing stills that use a chlorinated catalyst uses an air pollution control device (APCD) to control HCl emissions. However, we identified two potential HCl emission reduction options: (1) Installing a packed bed scrubber at the outlet of the blowing still (or at the outlet of the combustion device controlling organic HAP emissions) or (2) installing a dry sorbent injection and fabric filter at the outlet of the blowing still. Although the EPA previously considered (and rejected) the installation of scrubbers to control HCl emissions from blowing stills under the beyond-the-floor analysis for the original 2001 rulemaking proposal (66 FR 58610),21 we identified option 1 as a potential development in practices, processes, and control technologies based on a response received from the CAA section 114 request indicating that one facility uses a caustic scrubber to control hydrogen sulfide (non-HAP) emissions from one of their blowing stills. We believe that while the primary purpose of the caustic scrubber is to reduce hydrogen sulfide emissions, there is also likely a reduction in HCl emissions due to the use of caustic as the scrubbing medium. We identified option 2 as a potential development in practices, processes, and control technologies because it reflects HCl control options used in EPA’s New Source Performance Standards and Emission Guidelines for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators. Table 3 of this preamble presents the nationwide impacts for the two HCl emission reduction options considered for blowing stills. We estimate the total capital costs for these controls would be about $7.4 million to $10.7 million with annualized costs of $1.4 million to $2.3 million. Based on available information, only three facilities in the U.S. currently use the chlorinated catalyst. The cost estimates shown in Table 3 reflect the total estimated costs for those three facilities. Therefore, the average capital costs for option 1 would be about $2,480,000 per facility, the average annualized costs would be about $500,000 per facility, and the average HCl cost effectiveness would be about $60,000 per ton. The costs for option 2 are higher. TABLE 3—NATIONWIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AND COST IMPACTS OF CONTROL OPTIONS CONSIDERED FOR BLOWING STILLS AT ASPHALT PROCESSING FACILITIES Total capital investment ($) Control option khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 1 ............................................................................................... 2 ............................................................................................... Total annualized costs ($/yr) 7,436,000 10,719,000 1,440,000 2,337,000 See the technical memorandum titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories, in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0662 for details regarding the information, assumptions, and methodologies used to calculate these estimates. Given that the estimated risks due to HCl emissions are low and based on the relatively high costs per facility for each of the options, we propose to conclude that neither of these options is necessary for reducing HCl emissions from blowing stills that use chlorinated catalysts. In addition, we considered whether it might be feasible for facilities that need to use a catalyst to use nonchlorinated substitute catalysts. However, we did not identify a viable non-chlorinated catalyst substitute. Therefore, in light of the results of the technology review, we are proposing that it is not necessary to promulgate an emissions standard in 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, for blowing stills pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). We solicit comment on our proposed decision. 21 The EPA determined in the original 2001 proposal that no facility was using scrubbers to control HCl emissions from blowing stills, and VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 D. What are the overall results of the risk and technology reviews? As noted in section IV.B of this preamble, we conclude that risks are acceptable and that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevents an adverse environmental effect. Based on our technology review, we did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that warrant revisions to the NESHAP. Therefore, we propose that no revisions to the NESHAP are necessary pursuant to sections 112(f) or 112(d)(6) of the CAA for HAP emitted from these source categories. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 HCl emission reductions (tpy) HCl cost effectiveness ($/ton) 134 127 10,800 18,400 E. What other actions are we proposing? In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing revisions to the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. We also are proposing revisions to require electronic reporting of emissions test results and reports, performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and Notification of Compliance Status reports, to add an option for establishing the maximum pressure drop across a control device used to comply with the PM standards, scrubbers were not cost effective for controlling HCl emissions from blowing stills. E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules to add requirements for periodic performance testing, and to clarify text or correct typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed below. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 1. SSM Requirements In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA’s requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. a. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule, which appears at 40 CFR 63.8685(a), as well as other provisions related to that exemption as discussed below. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing that the standards in this rule apply at all times. We are proposing several revisions to Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 (the General Provisions Applicability Table, hereafter referred to as the ‘‘General Provisions table to subpart LLLLL’’) as is explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing at 40 CFR 63.8685(c) to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We are also proposing to make 40 CFR 63.8691(d) no longer applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, which specifies that deviations during SSM periods are not violations, and to remove the portion of the ‘‘deviation’’ definition in 40 CFR 63.8698 that specifically addresses SSM periods. We also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on whether we have successfully done so. In proposing the removal of the exemptions, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 and, for the reasons explained below, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods. We are proposing that startups and shutdowns are normal operation for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories; therefore, emissions from startup and shutdown activities must be included when determining if all the standards are being attained. We are proposing at 40 CFR 63.8685(a) that facilities must be in compliance with the emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart ‘‘at all times,’’ except during periods of nonoperation of the affected source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies. Similar language is also being proposed for 40 CFR 63.8690(b) and 40 CFR 63.8691(b) for monitoring and collecting data, and meeting operating limits, respectively. We are proposing to clarify that the standards and operating limits do not apply ‘‘. . . during periods of nonoperation of the affected source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions . . .’’ because industry stakeholders requested this clarification in their responses to the CAA section 114 request (see section II.C of this preamble), and this language is used in other MACT standards (e.g., 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY). Furthermore, based on the information we received for control device operations from the responses to the CAA section 114 request (see section II.C of this preamble), we concluded that control devices can be operated normally during periods of startup or shutdown for these source categories. Emission reductions from blowing stills, storage tanks, saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, sealant applicators, and adhesive applicators are typically achieved by routing vapors to a combustion device (e.g., thermal oxidizer, flare, process heater, or boiler) to meet a THC standard, or to a particulate control device (e.g., high velocity air filter, electrostatic precipitator, or fiberbed filter) to meet a PM standard. In some cases, the facility may need to run a combustion device on supplemental fuel before there are enough volatile organic compounds for the combustion to be (nearly) selfsustaining. It is common practice to start a control device prior to startup of the emissions source it is controlling, so the control device would be operating before emissions are routed to it. We expect control devices would be operating during startup and shutdown events in a manner consistent with normal operating periods, and that these PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18945 control devices will be operated to maintain and meet the monitoring parameter operating limits set during the performance test. We do not expect startup and shutdown events to affect emissions from blowing stills, storage tanks, saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, sealant applicators, or adhesive applicators. Emissions generated during startup and shutdown periods are the same or lower than during steady-state conditions because the amount of feed materials (e.g., asphalt flux or oxidized asphalt) introduced to the process during those periods is lower compared to normal operations. Therefore, if the emission control devices are operated during startup and shutdown, then HAP emissions will be the same or lower than during steady-state operating conditions. We are also proposing new related language in 40 CFR 63.8685(b) to require that the owner or operator operate and maintain any affected source, including air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, at all times to minimize emissions. For example, in the event of an emission capture system or control device malfunction for a controlled operation, to comply with the proposed new language in 40 CFR 63.8685(b), the facility would need to cease the controlled operation as quickly as practicable to ensure that excess emissions during emission capture system and control device malfunctions are minimized. See section IV.E.1.b.i of this preamble for further discussion of this proposed revision. Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) (Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards, and this reading has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best controlled similar source, and for existing sources, generally, must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 18946 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules consider malfunctions in determining the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase ‘‘average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of’’ sources ‘‘says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or usual manner,’’ and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards. As the D.C. Circuit recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category, and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (‘‘the EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of circumstances.’’). As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of datagathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency’s decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to ‘invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.’ ’’). See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by- VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 case enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.’’). In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The source’s emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a wellperforming non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events because we had information to determine that such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to the best performing sources. 80 FR 75178, 75211–14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting work practice standards for a particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such information. It is unlikely that a malfunction in the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories would result in a violation of the standard. Because a process malfunction could lead to defective products, it would need to be corrected by the operators as quickly as possible to minimize economic losses. Furthermore, a process malfunction would not necessarily lead to an increase in the HAP content of the asphalt flux or oxidized asphalt used in PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 the process, or the amount of HAP emitted from the process. Finally, a malfunction of an emission capture system and control device in which the operator responds by quickly ceasing the associated operation is also unlikely to lead to a violation because compliance is based on a 3-hour average compliance period. In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source’s failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate. In summary, the EPA’s interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, CAA section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606– 610 (2016). b. Proposed Revisions Related to the General Provisions Applicability Table i. 40 CFR 63.8685(b) General Duty We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in which 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) would no longer be applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.8685(b) that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.8685(b) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in which 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) would be no longer applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.8685(b). ii. SSM Plan We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to make the current provisions at 40 CFR 63.8685(c) requiring the SSM plan to no longer be applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary. iii. Compliance With Standards We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in which 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) would no longer be applicable VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from nonopacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in which 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) would no longer be applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts sources from opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times. iv. 40 CFR 63.8687 Performance Testing We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in which 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) would no longer be applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. We are also proposing to remove a similar requirement at 40 CFR 63.8687(c). Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.8687(b) applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The performance testing requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The proposed regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered ‘‘representative’’ for purposes of performance testing. The proposed performance testing provisions will not allow performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18947 conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating conditions. 40 CFR 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator maintain records of process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. The EPA is proposing at 40 CFR 63.8687(b) to add language clarifying that the owner or operator must make such records available to the Administrator upon request. v. Monitoring We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in which 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) would no longer be applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The cross-references to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). vi. 40 CFR 63.8694 Recordkeeping We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in which 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) would no longer be applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in which 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) would no longer be applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 18948 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, requiring a record of ‘‘the occurrence and duration of each malfunction.’’ A similar recordkeeping requirement is already in 40 CFR 63.8694(a)(1), requiring owners and operators to retain a copy of each compliance report; and we are proposing at 40 CFR 63.8693(d) that the compliance report contain, amongst other data elements, a record of ‘‘the date, time, and duration’’ of each deviation from an emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and visible emission limit. The regulatory text we are proposing to add differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment; however, the EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any failure to meet an applicable standard (e.g., any malfunction that leads to a deviation from an emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, or visible emission limit) and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the ‘‘occurrence.’’ For each deviation, the EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.8693(d)(4) and (13) a requirement that sources include in their compliance reports (and, therefore, keep records pursuant to 40 CFR 63.8694(a)(1)) a list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limitation for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in which 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) would no longer be applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 Federal Register. When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.8693(d)(4) (i.e., the requirement to include this information in each compliance report and keep records pursuant to 63.8694(a)(1)). We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in which 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) would no longer be applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. We are proposing to make the requirement in 40 CFR 63.8693(d)(4) and at Table 6 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 that deviation records specify whether deviations from a standard occurred during a period of SSM (i.e., the requirement to include this information in each compliance report and keep records pursuant to 40 CFR 63.8694(a)(1)) is no longer applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. This revision is being proposed due to the proposed removal of the SSM exemption and because, as discussed above in this section, we are proposing that deviation records must specify the cause of each deviation, which could include a malfunction period as a cause. We are also proposing to remove the requirement to report the SSM records in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) by making 40 CFR 63.8694(a)(2) no longer applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. vii. 40 CFR 63.8693 Reporting We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in which 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) would no longer be applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.8693. The replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning such events in the semiannual compliance report already required under this rule. The rule currently requires reporting of the date and time of each deviation, and a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations by cause. We are clarifying in the rule that the cause of each deviation be reported, and if the cause of a deviation from the standard is unknown, this should be specified in the report. We are also proposing to make a harmonizing change between provisions in the reporting section. In 40 CFR 63.8693(d)(1), (2), and (4), the current rule requires reporting of the ‘‘date and time’’ of periods where a source deviates from a standard; whereas 40 CFR 63.8693(d)(3) requires a record of the ‘‘date, time and duration’’ of periods where a source deviates from a standard. The EPA is proposing to change the terminology in 40 CFR 63.8693(d)(1), (2), and (4) for periods where a source deviates from a standard, to report the ‘‘start date, start time, and duration’’ of the deviation. Note that ‘‘date and time’’ carries the same meaning as ‘‘start date, start time, and duration.’’ We are proposing that the report must also contain the number of deviations from the standard, a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limitation for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters (e.g., asphalt HAP content and application rates, and control efficiencies). The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard. We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, therefore, eliminate (beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register) the requirement in paragraph 5.d at Table 6 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 and 40 CFR 63.8693(c)(4) that requires reporting of whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including required actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and submittal requirements. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in which 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) would no longer be applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register and remove the requirement in paragraph 6 at Table 6 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 for reasons discussed above; and because 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable standard but, did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. We are proposing to make the requirement in 40 CFR 63.8693(d)(4) that deviation reports specify whether deviation from a standard occurred during a period of SSM no longer applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. This revision is being proposed due to the proposed removal of the SSM exemption and because, as discussed above in this section, we are proposing that deviation reports must specify the cause of each deviation, which could include a malfunction period as a cause. Further, we are proposing to make the requirement in 40 CFR 63.8693(d)(6) that deviation reports must break down the total VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 duration of deviations into those that are due to ‘‘startup’’ and ‘‘shutdown’’ causes are no longer applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. These categories are no longer needed because these periods are proposed to be considered normal operation, as discussed in section IV.E.1.a of this preamble. 2. Electronic Reporting Requirements Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, owners and operators of asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities submit electronic copies of required performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and Notification of Compliance Status reports through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A description of the electronic data submission process is provided in the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2017–0662. The proposed rule requires that performance test results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website 22 at the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT, and that other performance test results be submitted in portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance evaluation results of continuous monitoring systems measuring relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are supported by the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and other performance evaluation results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. For compliance reports, the proposed rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. A draft version of the proposed template for these reports is included in the docket for this rulemaking.23 The EPA specifically 22 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert. 23 See 40_CFR_Part_63_Subpart_LLLLL_Asphalt_ Processing_and_Asphalt_Roofing_Manufacturing_ PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18949 requests comment on the content, layout, and overall design of the template. Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The first situation in which an extension may be warranted is due to outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI that precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.8693(h). The second situation is due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 40 CFR 63.8693(i). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with requirements, and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic reporting is Semiannual_Spreadsheet_Template_Draft.xlsm, available at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662. E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 18950 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules consistent with the EPA’s plan 24 to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA’s Agencywide policy 25 developed in response to the White House’s Digital Government Strategy.26 For more information on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2017–0662. 3. Operating Limits for Control Devices Used To Comply With the Particulate Standards khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 As part of the CAA section 114 request (see section II.C of this preamble), the EPA asked companies for suggestions to improve rule implementation or facilitate compliance activities. In lieu of the current requirement for facilities to set operating limits (i.e., the maximum inlet gas temperature and maximum pressure drop across the device) based on levels measured during a performance test for control devices used to comply with the PM standards, several companies requested that the EPA allow facilities to use manufacturers’ specifications to establish these site-specific operating limits. These companies pointed out that the EPA allows owners and operators to use manufacturers’ specifications in the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing area source NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.11562(b)(3)(iii) for control devices other than thermal oxidizers. These companies also asserted that PM control devices achieve compliance with the PM standards of the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP across a broad range of temperatures and pressure drops, but it is difficult to schedule testing dates that capture the maximum inlet gas temperature and maximum pressure drop across the device (i.e., to demonstrate compliance across the entirety of the effective ranges) due to their dependence on ambient 24 The EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 2011. Available at: https:// www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA2011-0156-0154. 25 E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 2013. Available at: https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016–03/ documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-201309-30.pdf. 26 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https:// obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment.html. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 temperature and operating life of the filter media. Based on this feedback, the EPA is proposing to add an option at 40 CFR 63.8689(d) and Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 to allow the use of manufacturers’ specifications to establish the maximum pressure drop across the control device used to comply with the PM standards. However, although the manufacturers’ specification for temperature would normally indicate proper operation of the control device, in this rule PM is acting as a surrogate for organic emissions. The particulate in question is condensed asphalt fumes, and formation of the PM and the emissions of organic compounds are temperature dependent. Therefore, instead of proposing the use of manufacturers’ specifications for temperature limits, but to still provide facilities some flexibility with regard to an appropriate temperature range, the EPA is proposing to add a footnote to Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 of the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP to allow owners and operators to use the performance test average inlet temperature and apply an operating margin of +20 percent to determine maximum inlet gas temperature of a control device used to comply with the PM standards. For example, during the three test runs conducted for an owner’s or operator’s performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit, if the arithmetic average of the device inlet gas temperature recorded was 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), then under this proposed option, the owner’s or operator’s maximum operating limit for this control device would be 120 °F, or +20 percent of 100 °F. The +20 percent buffer addresses the high impact of ambient conditions on the inlet temperature and removes some of the scheduling uncertainty while still accounting for the temperature dependence of emissions. 4. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations Using Periodic Performance Testing As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance demonstration requirements in the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP. Currently, the results of an initial performance test are used to determine compliance with the standards; however, the current NESHAP does not require on-going periodic performance testing. As mentioned by the Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC) in their PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 comments on proposed revisions to the NESHAP General Provisions (72 FR 69, January 3, 2007), ongoing maintenance and checks of control devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions control technology remains effective.27 To ensure ongoing compliance with the standards, and given these comments from ICAC (suppliers of air pollution control and monitoring technology) on the need for vigilance in maintaining equipment to stem degradation, the EPA is proposing periodic performance testing requirements at 40 CFR 63.8691(e) for each APCD used to comply with the PM, THC, opacity, or visible emission standards, in addition to the current one-time initial performance testing and ongoing operating limit monitoring. We are proposing that the performance tests must be conducted at least once every 5 years. For PM and THC standards, we are proposing that owners and operators of asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities would conduct three 1-hour (or longer) test runs to measure emissions according to 40 CFR 63.8687(d), and compliance would be determined based on the average of the three test runs according to 40 CFR 63.7(e)(3). To measure PM, we are proposing at Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 that owners and operators would use EPA Method 5A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60; and for THC emissions, we are proposing at Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 that owners and operators would use EPA Method 25A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 (with EPA Methods 3A and 10 if owners and operators are complying with the combustion efficiency standards or with EPA Methods 1–4 if meeting the THC destruction efficiency standards), which are the methods currently required for the initial compliance demonstration. To measure opacity, we are proposing at Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 that owners and operators would use EPA Method 9 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60; and for visible emissions, we are proposing at Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 that owners and operators would use EPA Method 22 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, which are also the methods currently required for the initial compliance demonstration. Finally, we recognize some affected sources are used infrequently. Therefore, we are proposing that owners and operators would not be required to 27 See Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004– 0094–0173, available at https:// www.regulations.gov. A copy of the ICAC’s comments on the proposed revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the docket for this action. E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules restart an affected source for the sole purpose of complying with the periodic performance testing. Instead, upon restart of the affected source, we are proposing owners and operators conduct the first periodic performance test within 60 days of achieving normal operating conditions, but no later than 181 days from startup. See section IV.F of this preamble for a discussion of when we are proposing that the first and subsequent periodic performance tests must be performed. We estimated a cost for PM performance testing using EPA Test Method 5A to be $16,500 for the first emission point, with an additional cost of $11,100 for each additional emission point at a facility. We estimated a cost for THC performance testing using EPA Test Method 25A to range from $16,200 (if complying with the concentration standard) to $20,750 (if complying with an efficiency standard). We estimated a cost for opacity testing using EPA Test Method 9 to be $1,500. Details of these cost estimates are included in the memorandum titled Cost Impacts of Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Risk and Technology 18951 Review Proposal in Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2017–0662. We solicit comment on our cost estimates for conducting these tests. 5. Other Corrections There are several additional revisions that we are proposing to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL to clarify text or correct typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors. These proposed editorial corrections and clarifications are summarized in Table 4 of this preamble. TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED EDITORIAL AND MINOR CORRECTIONS TO 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART LLLLL Provision Proposed revision 40 CFR 63.8681(a) and (f), and 63.8683(c) ....... Remove duplicative cross-reference to definition of major source and point directly to 40 CFR 63.2. Clarify which paragraphs of 40 CFR 63.9 are applicable to be consistent with the General Provisions table to subpart LLLLL (Table 7). Revise heading to include ‘‘and operating limits’’ to clarify content of 40 CFR 63.8684. Revise heading to include ‘‘initial’’ to clarify content of 40 CFR 63.8686. Clarify paragraph is applicable to initial performance tests. Clarify which paragraphs of 40 CFR 63.8 are applicable to be consistent with the General Provisions table to subpart LLLLL (Table 7). Clarify which paragraphs of 40 CFR 63.10 are applicable to be consistent with the General Provisions table to subpart LLLLL (Table 7). Also, for consistency, add references to reporting and recordkeeping sections of rule. Revise heading to ‘‘How do I conduct periodic performance tests and demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits and operating limits?’’ to clarify content of 40 CFR 63.8691. Replace the words ‘‘test methods’’ with ‘‘the procedures’’ because Table 5 contains procedures not test methods. Delete the word ‘‘of.’’ Clarify this paragraph is applicable to all compliance demonstrations (not just initial compliance demonstrations). Clarify paragraph applies to compliance reports. Clarify approval of alternatives to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8684 and 40 CFR 63.8685 are retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA. Clarify definitions of ‘‘adhesive applicator’’ and ‘‘sealant applicator’’ that open pan-type applicators were part of the asphalt roofing manufacturing lines that were considered in the original MACT analysis, and, thus, subject to the emission limitations. See Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0035–0009 titled Documentation of Existing and New Source Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floors for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Asphalt Processing and Roofing Manufacturing for descriptions of adhesive and sealant applicators. Remove the duplicative reference to Group 1 asphalt storage tanks at new and reconstructed asphalt roofing manufacturing lines and add the word ‘‘asphalt’’ to the phrasing ‘‘roofing manufacturing lines.’’ Correct reference to paragraph 3.a of Table 1 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63. 40 CFR 63.8683(d) ............................................. 40 40 40 40 CFR CFR CFR CFR 63.8684 .................................................. 63.8686 .................................................. 63.8686(a) ............................................. 63.8688(f) and 63.8688(h)(1) ................ 40 CFR 63.8688(h)(3) ......................................... 40 CFR 63.8691 .................................................. 40 CFR 63.8691(a) ............................................. 40 CFR 63.8692(a) ............................................. 40 CFR 63.8692(e) ............................................. 40 CFR 63.8693(d) ............................................. 40 CFR 63.8697(b)(1) ......................................... 40 CFR 63.8698 .................................................. Paragraph 1 of Table 1 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Footnote b of Table 1 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63. Paragraph 4 of Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63. Footnote a of Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63. Footnote c of Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63. Paragraphs 11, 12, and 13 of Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63. Paragraph 13 of Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63. Footnote a of Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63. Footnote c of Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 Clarify if owners and operators use other control devices that are neither a combustion device or a control device used to comply with the PM emission standards, then row 4 of Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 applies. Correct reference to Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63. Replace the word ‘‘of’’ with ‘‘to.’’ Clarify these paragraphs are applicable to all performance testing (not just initial performance testing). Clarify if owners and operators use other control devices that are neither a combustion device or a control device used to comply with the PM emission standards, then row 13 of Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 applies. Correct reference to alternative option that allows results of a previously-conducted emission test to document conformance with the emission standards and operating limits of this subpart, and clarify this option is only applicable to initial performance testing. Replace the word ‘‘of’’ with ‘‘to.’’ PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 18952 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED EDITORIAL AND MINOR CORRECTIONS TO 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART LLLLL— Continued Provision Proposed revision Table 4 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 .................. Clarify table is applicable for both initial and continuous compliance. Also, remove the word ‘‘initial’’ in last column heading to clarify the requirements in the column are applicable to all performance testing (not just initial performance testing). Correct reference to 40 CFR 63.8686. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Table 4 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63. Paragraph 4 of Table 5 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63. Footnote a of Table 5 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63. Footnote d of Table 5 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63. Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 .................. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 F. What compliance dates are we proposing? For three of the proposed rule revisions—changes related to removal of the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods, changes related to removal of the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan, and addition of electronic reporting requirements—we anticipate that facilities would need 180 days to comply. This period of time will allow facilities to read and understand the amended rule requirements, to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments, and to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary hardware and software. The EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable for these source categories and, thus, we are proposing that all affected sources must comply with the revisions to the SSM provisions and electronic reporting requirements no later than 181 days after the effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever is later. We specifically seek comment on whether 180 days is enough time for owners and operators to comply with these proposed amendments, and if the proposed time window is not adequate, we request the commenter provide an explanation. Also, we are proposing new requirements to conduct on-going periodic performance testing every 5 years (see section IV.E.4 of this preamble). Establishing a compliance date earlier than 3 years for the first periodic performance test can cause scheduling issues as affected sources compete for a limited number of testing contractors. Considering these scheduling issues, we are proposing that VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 Clarify if owners and operators use other control devices that are neither a combustion device or a control device used to comply with the PM emission standards, then row 4 of Table 5 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 applies. Correct references to Tables 2 and 5, and references to 40 CFR 63.8690 and 63.8(g)(1) through (4). Replace the word ‘‘of’’ with ‘‘to.’’ Correct typographical error to show that 40 CFR 63.8(d) does apply. Note, the typographical error is inconsistent with 40 CFR 63.8688(h)(2) which says 40 CFR 63.8(d) applies. each existing affected source, and each new and reconstructed affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after November 21, 2001, and on or before [date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] that uses an APCD to comply with the standards, must conduct the first periodic performance test on or before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] and conduct subsequent periodic performance tests no later than 60 months thereafter following the previous performance test. For each new and reconstructed affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after [date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] that uses an APCD to comply with the standards, we are proposing that owners and operators must conduct the first periodic performance no later than 60 months following the initial performance test required by 40 CFR 63.8689 and conduct subsequent periodic performance tests no later than 60 months thereafter following the previous performance test. If owners and operators used the alternative compliance option specified in 40 CFR 63.8686(b) to comply with the initial performance test, then we are proposing that they must conduct the first periodic performance no later than 60 months following the date they demonstrated to the Administrator that the requirements of 40 CFR 63.8686(b) had been met. V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? There are four asphalt processing facilities, plus another four asphalt processing facilities collocated with asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities, currently operating as major sources of HAP. As such, eight facilities will be PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 subject to the proposed amendments. A complete list of facilities that are currently subject to the MACT standards is available in Appendix A of the memorandum titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories, in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0662. B. What are the air quality impacts? The EPA estimates that annual HAP emissions from the eight asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities that are subject to the NESHAP are approximately 255 tpy. Because we are not proposing revisions to the emission limits, we do not anticipate any air quality impacts as a result of the proposed amendments. C. What are the cost impacts? We estimate that the proposed amendments will result in a nationwide net cost savings of $221,100 over the 5year period following promulgation of amendments. Because periodic performance testing would be required every 5 years, we estimated and summarized the cost savings over a 5year period. The EPA believes that the eight asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities that are known to be subject to the NESHAP can meet the proposed requirements without incurring additional capital costs. Therefore, the costs associated with the proposed amendments are related to recordkeeping and reporting labor costs and periodic performance testing. The proposed requirement for periodic testing of once every 5 years results in an estimated increase in costs of about $92,500 over the 5-year period in addition to an estimated cost of about $3,300 for reviewing the proposed amendments. However, the proposed changes to the monitoring requirements E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules for PM control devices result in an estimated cost savings of about $316,900 over the 5-year period. Therefore, overall, we estimate a net cost savings of about $221,100 for the 5-year period. The proposed amendments to the monitoring requirements are projected to alleviate some need for asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities to have to retest the PM control device for the sole purpose of reestablishing new temperature and pressure drop operating limits, and to allow facilities to extend filter replacement by 3 months. For further information on the amendments being proposed, see section IV.E of this preamble. For further information on the costs and cost savings associated with the proposed amendments, see the memoranda, Cost Impacts of Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Risk and Technology Review Proposal, and Economic Impact Analysis for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP RTR Proposal, which are available in the docket for this action. We solicit comment on these estimated cost impacts. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 D. What are the economic impacts? As noted earlier, we estimated a nationwide cost savings associated with the proposed requirements over the 5year period following promulgation of these amendments. Therefore, we do not expect the actions in this proposed rulemaking to result in business closures, significant price increases, or substantial profit loss. For further information on the economic impacts associated with the requirements being proposed, see the memorandum, Economic Impact Analysis for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP RTR Proposal, which is available in the docket for this action. E. What are the benefits? The EPA is not proposing changes to emissions limits, and we estimate the proposed changes (i.e., changes to SSM, recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring) are not economically significant. Because these proposed amendments are not considered economically significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because no emissions reductions were estimated, we did not estimate any benefits from reducing emissions. VI. Request for Comments We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional data that may VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more information on submitting data. VII. Submitting Data Corrections The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source categories risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for download on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/ atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point for the facilities in the source categories. If you believe that the data are not representative or are inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason for concern, and provide any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if available. When you submit data, we request that you provide documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR website, complete the following steps: 1. Within the downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the data fields appropriate for that information. 2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email address, commenter phone number, and revision comments). 3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions (e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations). 4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in Microsoft® Access format and all accompanying documentation to Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2017–0662 (through the method described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). 5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility (or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft® Excel files that are generated by the Microsoft® Access file. These files are provided on the RTR website at https:// www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18953 VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to OMB for review. B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866. C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The information collection request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2029.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. We are proposing amendments that require periodic performance testing, require electronic reporting, remove the malfunction exemption, and impose other revisions that affect reporting and recordkeeping for asphalt processing facilities and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities. This information would be collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL. Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of asphalt processing facilities and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL). Estimated number of respondents: Eight (total). Frequency of response: Initial, semiannual, and annual. Total estimated burden: 69 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: $53,800 (per year), which includes $46,300 annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs. The estimated costs described in this section of the preamble are entirely offset by cost savings that are projected to alleviate some need for asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities to have to retest a PM control device for the sole purpose of reestablishing new E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 18954 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules temperature and pressure drop operating limits; and allow facilities to extend filter replacement by 3 months (see section V.C of this preamble for details). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Submit your comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_ submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than June 3, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. There are no small entities affected in this regulated industry. See the document, Economic Impact Analysis for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP RTR Proposal, available in the docket for this action. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. None of the eight asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities that have been identified as being affected by this proposed action are owned or operated by tribal governments or located within tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action’s health and risk assessments are contained in sections III.A and C and sections IV.A and B of this preamble, and are further documented in the risk report, Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, available in the docket for this action. I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51 This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA conducted searches for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network Database managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also contacted voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and searched their databases. We conducted searches for EPA Methods 3A, 5A, 9, 10, 22, and 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. During the EPA’s VCS search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA’s reference method, the EPA reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. We PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 reviewed all potential standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review requires significant method validation data that meet the requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific, engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA reference methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of impracticality when additional information is available for particular VCS. No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 5A and 22. The following VCS were identified as acceptable alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purpose of this rule. The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the VCS ASTM D7520–2013 ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere’’ as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9 with conditions. During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520–2013, you or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand). You must also have standard operating procedures in place, including daily or other frequency quality checks, to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520–2013. You must follow the recordkeeping procedures outlined in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEG formatted images used for opacity and certification determination. You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four (4) independent technology users apply the software to determine the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 15-percent opacity of any one reading, and the average error must not exceed 7.5-percent opacity. This approval does not provide or imply a certification or validation of any vendor’s hardware or software. The onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520–2013 and this letter is on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor. This method is available at ASTM International, 1850 M Street NW, Suite 1030, Washington, DC 20036. See https://www.astm.org/. E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules Finally, the search identified 11 other VCS that were potentially applicable for this rule in lieu of the EPA reference methods. After reviewing the available standards, the EPA determined that 11 candidate VCS identified for measuring emissions of pollutants or their surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data, and other important technical and policy considerations. Additional information for the VCS search and determinations can be found in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for this action. The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking, and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially applicable VCS, and to explain why the EPA should use such standards in this regulation. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 Subpart A—[Amended] 2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(95) to read as follows: ■ § 63.14 Incorporations by reference. * * * * * (h) * * * (95) ASTM D7520–13, Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved December 1, 2013. IBR approved for §§ 63.1510(f), 63.1511(d), 63.1512(a), 63.1517(b) and 63.1625(b), and table 3 to subpart LLLLL. * * * * * 3. Section 63.8681 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and removing and reserving paragraph (f) to read as follows: § 63.8681 Am I subject to this subpart? (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an asphalt processing facility or an asphalt roofing manufacturing facility, as defined in § 63.8698, that is a major source as defined in § 63.2, or is located at, or is part of a major source as defined in § 63.2. * * * * * ■ 4. Section 63.8683 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: § 63.8683 subpart? When must I comply with this * Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. VerDate Sep<11>2014 Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. ■ The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of this preamble and in the technical report, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories Operations, available in the docket for this action. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: ■ Subpart LLLLL—[Amended] K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Dated: April 16, 2019. Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator. PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES * * * * (c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a (or part of a) major source as defined in § 63.2, then the following requirements apply. (d) You must meet the notification requirements in § 63.8692 according to the schedules in §§ 63.8692 and 63.9(a) through (f) and (h). Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart. ■ 5. Section 63.8684 is amended by revising the section heading to read as follows: PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18955 § 63.8684 What emission limitations and operating limits must I meet? 6. Section 63.8685 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through (c) to read as follows: ■ § 63.8685 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? (a) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must be in compliance with the emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must be in compliance with the emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except during periods of nonoperation of the affected source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies. (b) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(1)(i). On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], at all times, you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the affected source. (c) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(3). On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 18956 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules Register], a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required. * * * * * ■ 7. Section 63.8686 is amended by: ■ a. Revising the section heading; ■ b. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(3); and ■ c. Adding paragraph (b)(4). The revisions and addition read as follows: 9. Section 63.8688 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) and (h) to read as follows: ■ § 63.8688 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? * § 63.8686 By what date must I conduct initial performance tests or other initial compliance demonstrations? (a) For existing affected sources, you must conduct initial performance tests no later than 180 days after the compliance date that is specified for your source in § 63.8683 and according to the provisions in § 63.7(a)(2). (b) As an alternative to the requirement specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you may use the results of a previously-conducted emission test to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations in this subpart if you demonstrate to the Administrator’s satisfaction that: (1) * * * (2) * * * (3) The control device and process parameter values established during the previously-conducted emission test are used to demonstrate continuous compliance with this subpart; and (4) The previously-conducted emission test was completed within the last 5 years. * * * * * ■ 8. Section 63.8687 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and removing and reserving paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 63.8687 What performance tests, design evaluations, and other procedures must I use? khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * * * * (b) Each performance test must be conducted under normal operating conditions and under the conditions specified in Table 3 to this subpart. Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, or nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions for purposes of conducting a performance test. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you must make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. * * * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 * * * * (f) As an option to installing the CPMS specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you may install a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) or a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) that meets the applicable requirements in § 63.8 according to Table 7 to this subpart and the applicable performance specifications of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. * * * * * (h) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address the following: (1) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii), (c)(7), and (c)(8); (2) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8(d); and (3) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance with §§ 63.8693, 63.8694, and the general requirements of § 63.10(e)(1) and (e)(2)(i). * * * * * ■ 10. Section 63.8689 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: § 63.8689 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? * * * * * (b) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, you must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in § 63.8687 and Table 3 to this subpart. * * * * * (d) For control devices used to comply with the particulate matter standards, you may establish the pressure drop across the control device operating limit using manufacturers’ specifications in lieu of complying with paragraph (b) of this section. ■ 11. Section 63.8690 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 63.8690 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? * * * * * (b) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 or control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction when the affected source is operating. On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must monitor and collect data at all times in accordance with § 63.8685(b), except during periods of nonoperation of the affected source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies. * * * * * ■ 12. Section 63.8691 is amended by: ■ a. Revising the section heading; ■ b. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (d); and ■ c. Adding paragraph (e). The revisions and addition read as follows: § 63.8691 How do I conduct periodic performance tests and demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and operating limits? (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the procedures specified in Table 5 to this subpart, and you must conduct performance tests as specified in paragraph (e) of this section. (b) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must report each instance in which you did not meet each operating limit in Table 5 to this subpart that applies to you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. These instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in § 63.8693. On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must report each instance in which you did not meet each operating limit in Table 5 to this subpart that applies to you, except during periods of nonoperation of the affected source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies. * * * * * (d) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], consistent with §§ 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules Administrator’s satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in § 63.6(e). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], this paragraph no longer applies. (e) For each control device used to comply with the PM, THC, opacity, or visible emission standards of this subpart, you must conduct periodic performance tests using the applicable procedures specified in § 63.8687 and Table 4 to this subpart to demonstrate compliance with § 63.8684(a), and to confirm or reestablish the operating limits required by § 63.8684(b). You must conduct periodic performance tests according to the schedule specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, for each existing affected source, and for each new and reconstructed affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after November 21, 2001 and on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must conduct the first periodic performance test on or before [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] and conduct subsequent periodic performance tests no later than 60 months thereafter following the previous performance test. (2) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, for each new and reconstructed affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must conduct the first periodic performance no later than 60 months following the initial performance test required by § 63.8689 and conduct subsequent periodic performance tests no later than 60 months thereafter following the previous performance test. If you used the alternative compliance option specified in § 63.8686(b) to comply with the initial performance test, then you must conduct the first periodic performance no later than 60 months following the date you demonstrated to the Administrator that the requirements of § 63.8686(b) had been met. (3) If an affected source is not operating on the dates the periodic performance test is required to be conducted as specified in paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section, then you are not required to restart the affected VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 source for the sole purpose of complying with paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section. Instead, upon restart of the affected source, you must conduct the first periodic performance test within 60 days of achieving normal operating conditions but no later than 180 days from startup. You must conduct subsequent periodic performance tests no later than 60 months thereafter following the previous performance test. ■ 13. Section 63.8692 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (e), and (f) to read as follows: § 63.8692 What notifications must I submit and when? (a) You must submit all the notifications in §§ 63.6(h)(4) and (5), 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f), and 63.9(b) through (f) and (h) that apply to you by the dates specified. * * * * * (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design evaluation, opacity observation, visible emission observation, or other compliance demonstration as specified in Table 3 or 4 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to § 63.9(h)(2)(ii). You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test according to § 63.10(d)(2). On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must submit all subsequent Notification of Compliance Status reports to EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). If you claim some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI), then submit a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. You may assert a claim of EPA system outage or force majeure for failure to timely comply with this reporting requirement provided you meet the requirements PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18957 outlined in §§ 63.8693(h) or (i), as applicable. (f) If you are using data from a previously-conducted emission test to serve as documentation of conformance with the emission standards and operating limits of this subpart as specified in § 63.8686(b), you must submit the test data in lieu of the initial performance test results with the Notification of Compliance Status required under paragraph (e) of this section. ■ 14. Section 63.8693 is amended by: ■ a. Adding paragraph (b)(6); ■ b. Revising paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5), (d)(1) through (d)(4), and (d)(6); ■ c. Adding paragraph (d)(13); ■ d. Revising paragraph (f); and ■ e. Adding paragraphs (g) through (i). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 63.8693 when? What reports must I submit and * * * * * (b) * * * (6) On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must submit all compliance reports to EPA via the CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA’s CDX (https:// cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI website (https:// www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/compliance-and-emissionsdata-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. If you claim some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The report must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website or an alternate electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/ OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. You may assert a claim of EPA system outage or force majeure for failure to timely comply with this reporting requirement E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 18958 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules provided you meet the requirements outlined in §§ 63.8693(h) or (i), as applicable. (c) * * * (4) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], if you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the compliance report must include the information in § 63.10(d)(5)(i). On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], this paragraph no longer applies. (5) For each reporting period, you must include in the compliance report the total number of deviations that occurred during the reporting period. If there are no deviations from any emission limitations (emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and visible emission limit) that apply to you, then you must include a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period. (d) * * * (1) The start date, start time, and duration of each malfunction. (2) For each instance that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and highlevel checks, the start date, start time, and duration that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was inoperative; the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS being inoperative; and descriptions of corrective actions taken. (3) For each instance that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was out-of-control as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), the start date, start time, and duration that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was out-of-control, including the information in § 63.8(c)(8). (4) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], the start date, start time, and duration of the deviation, and whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], the start date, start time, and duration of the deviation including a description of the deviation and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.8685(b). You must also include: (i) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the deviation occurred; VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 (ii) The cause of the deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable); and (iii) Any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. * * * * * (6) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. * * * * * (13) On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission limitation in § 63.8684, you must include an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limitation in § 63.8684, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. * * * * * (f) On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Data collected using test methods supported by EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on EPA’s ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/ electronic-reporting-air-emissions/ electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the performance test to EPA via the CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by EPA’s ERT as listed on EPA’s ERT website at the time of the test. The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to EPA via CEDRI. (3) CBI. If you claim some of the information submitted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The file must be generated through the use of EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/ CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section. (g) On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], within 60 days after the date of completing each continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluation (as defined in § 63.2) as specified in your site-specific monitoring plan, you must submit the results of the performance evaluation following the procedures specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by EPA’s ERT as listed on EPA’s ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the results of the performance evaluation to EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA’s CDX. The data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that are not supported by EPA’s ERT as listed on EPA’s ERT website at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to EPA via CEDRI. (3) CBI. If you claim some of the information submitted under paragraph (g)(1) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The file must be generated through the use of EPA’s ERT or an alternate E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/ CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section. (h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section. (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an outage of either EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems. (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is due. (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned. (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting. (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying: (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the system was unavailable; (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to EPA system outage; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. (i) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting. (3) You must provide to the Administrator: (i) A written description of the force majeure event; (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure event; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force majeure event occurs. ■ 15. Section 63.8694 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: § 63.8694 What records must I keep? (a) * * * (2) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], the records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18959 Register], this paragraph no longer applies. * * * * * (e) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are submitted electronically via EPA’s CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation. ■ 16. Section 63.8697 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: § 63.8697 Who implements and enforces this subpart? * * * * * (b) * * * (1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in § § 63.8681, 63.8682, 63.8683, 63.8684, 63.8685, 63.8686, 63.8687, 63.8688, 63.8689, 63.8690, and 63.8691. * * * * * ■ 17. Section 63.8698 is amended by revising the definitions of ‘‘Adhesive applicator,’’ ‘‘Deviation,’’ and ‘‘Sealant applicator’’ to read as follows: § 63.8698 subpart? What definitions apply to this * * * * * Adhesive applicator means the equipment that uses open pan-type application (e.g., a roller partially submerged in an open pan of adhesive) to apply adhesive to roofing shingles for producing laminated or dimensional roofing shingles. * * * * * Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation (including any operating limit), or work practice standard; (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart, and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit; or (3) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. On and after [DATE 181 E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 18960 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], this paragraph no longer applies. * * * * * Sealant applicator means the equipment that uses open pan-type application (e.g., a roller partially submerged in an open pan of sealant) to apply a sealant strip to a roofing product. The sealant strip is used to seal overlapping pieces of roofing product after they have been applied. * * * * * ■ 18. Table 1 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 is amended by revising row 1 and footnote b to read as follows: TABLE 1 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITATIONS For— You must meet the following emission limitation— 1. Each blowing still, Group 1 asphalt loading rack, and Group 1 asphalt storage tank at existing, new, and reconstructed asphalt processing facilities; and each Group 1 asphalt storage tank at existing, new, and reconstructed asphalt roofing manufacturing lines; and each coating mixer, saturator (including wet looper), coater, sealant applicator, and adhesive applicator at new and reconstructed asphalt roofing manufacturing lines. a. Reduce total hydrocarbon mass emissions by 95 percent, or to a concentration of 20 ppmv, on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen; b. Route the emissions to a combustion device achieving a combustion efficiency of 99.5 percent; c. Route the emissions to a combustion device that does not use auxiliary fuel achieving a total hydrocarbon (THC) destruction efficiency of 95.8 percent; d. Route the emissions to a boiler or process heater with a design heat input capacity of 44 megawatts (MW) or greater; e. Introduce the emissions into the flame zone of a boiler or process heater; or f. Route emissions to a flare meeting the requirements of § 63.11(b). * * * * * * * * * * * * * * opacity limit can be exceeded for one consecutive 15-minute period in any 24-hour period when the storage tank transfer lines are being cleared. During this 15-minute period, the control device must not be bypassed. If the emissions from the asphalt storage tank are ducted to the saturator control device, the combined emissions from the saturator and storage tank must meet the 20 percent opacity limit (specified in 3.a of Table 1 to this subpart) during this 15-minute period. At any other time, the opacity limit applies to Group 2 asphalt storage tanks. b The 19. Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 is amended by: ■ a. Revising rows 3 and 4; ■ ■ b. Revising footnotes a and c; and ■ c. Adding footnote d. The revisions and addition read as follows: TABLE 2 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITS You must a— For— * * * * * * * 3. Control devices used to comply with the particulate matter standards a. Maintain the 3-hour average b inlet gas temperature at or below the operating limit established during the performance test; d and b. Maintain the 3-hour average b pressure drop across the device c at or below either the operating limit established during the performance test, or as an alternative, according to manufacturer’s specifications. 4. Other control devices that are neither a combustion device or a con- Maintain the approved monitoring parameters within the operating limtrol device used to comply with the particulate matter emission standits established during the performance test. ards. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 a The operating limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart are applicable if you are monitoring control device operating parameters to demonstrate continuous compliance. If you are using a CEMS or COMS, you must maintain emissions below the value established during the initial performance test. * * * * * * * c As an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control device, owners or operators using an ESP to achieve compliance with the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart can monitor the voltage to the ESP. If this option is selected, the ESP voltage must be maintained at or above the operating limit established during the performance test. d The inlet gas temperature operating limit is set at +20 percent of the test run average inlet gas temperature measured during the performance test. 20. Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 is amended by: ■ a. Revising rows 1, 7, and 11 through 13; ■ VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 ■ b. Revising footnotes a and c; and ■ c. Adding footnote d. PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 The revisions and addition read as follows: E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 18961 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 3 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS a b For— You must— Using— According to the following requirements— 1. All particulate matter, total hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide emission tests. a. Select sampling port’s location and the number of traverse points. i. EPA test method 1 or 1A in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. A. For demonstrating compliance with the total hydrocarbon percent reduction standard, the sampling sites must be located at the inlet and outlet of the control device prior to any releases to the atmosphere. B. For demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter mass emission rate, THC destruction efficiency, THC outlet concentration, or combustion efficiency standards, the sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the control device prior to any releases to the atmosphere. * 7. All opacity tests .............. * * Conduct opacity observations. * EPA test method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, or ASTM D7520–2013 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) d. * * * Conduct opacity observations for at least 3 hours and obtain 30, 6-minute averages. * 11. Each combustion device. * * Establish a site-specific combustion zone temperature limit. * Data from the CPMS and the applicable performance test method(s). 12. Each control device used to comply with the particulate matter emission standards. Establish a site-specific inlet gas temperature limit; and establish a site-specific limit for the pressure drop across the device. Data from the CPMS and the applicable performance test method(s). 13. Each control device that is neither a combustion device nor a control device used to comply with the particulate matter emission standards. Establish site-specific monitoring parameters. Process data and data from the CPMS and the applicable performance test method(s). * * * You must collect combustion zone temperature data every 15 minutes during the entire period of the 3hour performance test, and determine the average combustion zone temperature over the 3-hour performance test by computing the average of all of the 15-minute readings. You must collect the inlet gas temperature and pressure drop b data every 15 minutes during the entire period of the 3-hour performance test, and determine the average inlet gas temperature and pressure drop c over the 3-hour performance test by computing the average of all of the 15-minute readings. You must collect monitoring parameter data every 15 minutes during the entire period of the 3-hour performance test, and determine the average monitoring parameter values over the 3-hour performance test by computing the average of all of the 15-minute readings. * * * * * * * a For initial performance tests, as specified in § 63.8686(b), you may request that data from a previously-conducted emission test serve as documentation of conformance with the emission standards and operating limits of this subpart. * * * * * * * c As an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control device, owners or operators using an ESP to achieve compliance with the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart can monitor the voltage to the ESP. d If you use ASTM D7520–2013 in lieu of EPA test method 9, then you must comply with the conditions specified in this paragraph. During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520–2013, you or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand). You must also have standard operating procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520–2013. You must follow the record keeping procedures outlined in § 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification determination. You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four (4) independent technology users apply the software to determine the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 15% opacity of any one reading and the average error must not exceed 7.5% opacity. This approval does not provide or imply a certification or validation of any vendor’s hardware or software. The onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera, software and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520–2013 and this letter is on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor. 21. Table 4 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 is amended by: ■ a. Revising the table title; khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 ■ VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 b. Revising the fourth column heading; and ■ c. Revising rows 4 and 5. ■ PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 The revisions read as follows: E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 18962 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63—INITIAL AND CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS For— For the following emission limitation— You have demonstrated compliance if— * * 4. Each saturator (including wet looper) and coater at an existing, new, or reconstructed asphalt roofing manufacturing line. * * * a. Limit visible emissions from the emissions capture system to 20 percent of any period of consecutive valid observations totaling 60 minutes. * * The visible emissions, measured using EPA test method 22, for any period of consecutive valid observations totaling 60 minutes during the initial compliance period described in § 63.8686 do not exceed 20 percent. The opacity, measured using EPA test method 9, for each of the first 30 6-minute averages during the initial compliance period described in § 63.8686 does not exceed 20 percent. The opacity, measured using EPA test method 9, for each of the first 30 6-minute averages during the initial compliance period described in § 63.8686 does not exceed 0 percent. b. Limit opacity emissions to 20 percent .......... 5. Each Group 2 asphalt storage tank at existing, new, and reconstructed asphalt processing facilities and asphalt roofing manufacturing lines. Limit exhaust gases to 0 percent opacity ......... * 4 and revising footnotes a and d to read as follows: * * * * 22. Table 5 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 is amended by revising rows 3 and ■ khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 TABLE 5 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS a For— For the following operating limit— You must demonstrate continuous compliance by— * * 3. Control devices used to comply with the particulate matter emission standards. * * * a. Maintain the 3-hour c average inlet gas temperature and pressure drop across device d at or below the operating limits established during the performance test. 4. Other control devices that are neither a combustion device nor a control device used to comply with the particulate matter emission standards. a. Maintain the monitoring parameters within the operating limits established during the performance test. * * i. Passing the emissions through the control device; and ii. Collecting the inlet gas temperature and pressure drop d data according to § 63.8688(b) and (c); and iii. Reducing inlet gas temperature and pressure drop d data to 3-hour c averages according to calculations in Table 3 to this subpart; and iv. Maintaining the 3-hour c average inlet gas temperature and pressure drop d within the level established during the performance test. i. Passing the emissions through the devices; ii. Collecting the monitoring parameter data according to § 63.8688(d); and iii. Reducing the monitoring parameter data to 3-hour c averages according to calculations in Table 3 to this subpart; and iv. Maintaining the monitoring parameters within the level established during the performance test. a The operating limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart and the requirements specified in Table 5 to this subpart are applicable if you are monitoring control device operating parameters to demonstrate continuous compliance. If you use a CEMS or COMS to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits, you are not required to record control device operating parameters. However, you must maintain emissions below the value established during the initial performance test. Data from the CEMS and COMS must be reduced as specified in § § 63.8690 and 63.8(g)(1) through (4). * * * * * * * d As an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control device, owners or operators using an ESP to achieve compliance with the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart can monitor the voltage to the ESP. If this option is selected, the ESP voltage must be maintained at or above the operating limit established during the performance test. 23. Table 6 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 is amended by revising rows 4, 5, ■ VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 and 6 and adding row 7 to read as follows: PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules 18963 TABLE 6 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS You must submit— The report must contain— You must submit the report— * * 4. Notification of compliance status .................. * * * The information in § 63.9(h)(2) through (5), as applicable. 5. A compliance report ...................................... a. A statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period, if there are no deviations from any emission limitations (emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and visible emission limit) that apply to you. b. If there were no periods during which the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was out-of-control as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods during which the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was out-of-control during the reporting period. c. If you have a deviation from any emission limitation (emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and visible emission limit), the report must contain the information in § 63.8693(c) and (d). d. Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the information in § 63.10(d)(5)(i). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], this paragraph no longer applies. The information in § 63.10(d)(5)(ii) ................... * * According to the requirements in §§ 63.8692(e) and 63.9(h)(2) through (5), as applicable. Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.8693(b). 6. An immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report if you have a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], and actions taken were not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], this paragraph no longer applies. 7. Performance test report ................................ 24. Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 is amended by: ■ a. Revising the rows for §§ 63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1), 63.6(h)(1), 63.7(e)(1), 63.8(c)(1)(i), ■ Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.8693(b). Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.8693(b). Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.8693(b). By fax or telephone within 2 working days after starting actions inconsistent with the plan followed by a letter within 7 working days after the end of the event unless you have made alternative arrangements with the permitting authority. The information in § 63.7 .................................. Within 60 days after completion of the performance test according to the requirements in § 63.8693(f). 63.8(c)(1)(ii), 63.8(c)(1)(iii), 63.8(d), 63.10(b)(2)(i), and 63.10(d)(5); ■ b. Adding rows for §§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and (iii), 63.7(e)(4), 63.10(b)(2)(ii), 63.10(b)(2)(iii), 63.10(b)(2)(iv), and 63.10(b)(2)(v); and ■ c. Removing the row for § 63.8(c)(1). The revisions and additions read as follows: TABLE 7 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART LLLLL khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Citation Subject * * § 63.6(e)(1)(i) ................................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Brief description Applies to subpart LLLLL * * * Operation & Maintenance ............. Operate to minimize emissions at all times. Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM * * Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. See § 63.8685(b) for general duty requirement. 02MYP2 18964 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 7 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART LLLLL—Continued Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart LLLLL § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ................................ Operation & Maintenance ............. Correct malfunctions as soon as practicable. § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ............................... Operation & Maintenance ............. Operation and maintenance requirements independently enforceable; information Administrator will use to determine if operation and maintenance requirements were met. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. * * § 63.6(e)(3) .................................... * * * Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunc- 1. Requirement for SSM and starttion (SSM) Plan (SSMP). up, shutdown, malfunction plan. 2. Content of SSMP. § 63.6(f)(1) ..................................... Compliance Except During SSM .. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * § 63.6(h)(1) .................................... * Compliance Standards. You must comply with emission standards at all times except during SSM. * with Opacity/VE * You must comply with opacity/VE emission limitations at all times except during SSM. * * Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. See § 63.8687. § 63.7(e)(1) .................................... Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. * * § 63.7(e)(4) .................................... * * * Conduct of performance tests ...... Administrator’s authority to require testing under section 114 of the Act. * Yes. * * § 63.8(c)(1)(i) ................................. * * * Routine and predictable CMS mal- 1. Keep parts for routine repairs function. readily available. 2. Reporting requirements for CMS malfunction when action is described in SSM plan. § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ................................ CMS malfunction not in SSP plan * * Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ............................... Compliance with Operation and Maintenance Requirements. * * § 63.8(d) ........................................ * * * * CMS Quality Control ..................... 1. Requirements for CMS quality Yes. control, including calibration, etc. 2. Must keep quality control plan on record for the life of the affected source 3. Keep old versions for 5 years after revisions VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 1. Performance tests must be conducted under representative conditions. Cannot conduct performance tests during SSM. 2. Not a violation to exceed standard during SSM. * * Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Keep the necessary parts for routine repairs if CMS. Develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan for CMS. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM * Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. 02MYP2 * 18965 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 7 TO SUBPART LLLLL OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART LLLLL—Continued Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart LLLLL * * § 63.10(b)(2)(i) ............................... * * * Records related to Startup and Occurrence of each of operation Shutdown. (process equipment). § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) .............................. Recordkeeping Relevant to Malfunction Periods and CMS. Occurrence of each malfunction of air pollution equipment. § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ............................. Recordkeeping Relevant to Maintenance of Air Pollution Control and Monitoring Equipment. Recordkeeping Relevant to Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Periods and CMS. Maintenance on air pollution control equipment. § 63.10(b)(2)(v) .............................. Recordkeeping Relevant to Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Periods and CMS. Actions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction. * * § 63.10(d)(5) .................................. * * * Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunc- Contents and submission ............. tion Reports. § 63.10(b)(2)(iv) ............................. * * * Actions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction. * * * Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. * * Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. * * [FR Doc. 2019–08155 Filed 5–1–19; 8:45 am] khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\02MYP2.SGM 02MYP2 *

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 85 (Thursday, May 2, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18926-18965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08155]



[[Page 18925]]

Vol. 84

Thursday,

No. 85

May 2, 2019

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





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

Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2019 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 18926]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662; FRL-9992-56-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT34


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP): Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing. The proposed action presents the results of the residual 
risk and technology review (RTR) conducted as required under the Clean 
Air Act (CAA). The EPA is also proposing amendments to correct and 
clarify regulatory provisions related to emissions during periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction; add requirements for periodic 
performance testing; add electronic reporting of performance test 
results and reports, performance evaluation reports, compliance 
reports, and Notification of Compliance Status reports; revise 
monitoring requirements for control devices used to comply with the 
particulate matter (PM) standards; and include other technical 
corrections to improve consistency and clarity. Although the proposed 
amendments are not anticipated to result in reductions in emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP), if finalized, they would result in 
improved compliance and implementation of the rule.

DATES: 
    Comments. Comments must be received on or before June 17, 2019. 
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information 
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before June 3, 2019.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before May 7, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional 
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a 
subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/asphalt-processing-and-asphalt-roofing-manufacturing-national. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 
information on requesting and registering for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: 
    Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0662, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. See SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION for detail about how the EPA treats submitted comments. 
Regulations.gov is our preferred method of receiving comments. However, 
the following other submission methods are also accepted:
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0662 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0662.
     Mail: To ship or send mail via the United States Postal 
Service, use the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662, Mail 
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: Use the following Docket Center 
address if you are using express mail, commercial delivery, hand 
delivery, or courier: EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. Delivery 
verification signatures will be available only during regular business 
hours.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832 
or by email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to 
register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a 
public hearing will be held.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662. All documents in the docket are 
listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not 
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) 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. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically in 
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 
EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue 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 EPA 
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0662. The 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 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 email. This 
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or

[[Page 18927]]

comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on 
the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional 
submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information 
about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making 
effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov website allows you to submit your 
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 
https://www.regulations.gov, your email 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, the EPA recommends that you include your name and 
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be 
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's 
public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or 
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on 
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of 
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically 
within the digital storage media the specific information that is 
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments 
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the 
comments that do not contain the information claimed as CBI directly to 
the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions 
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain 
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does 
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the 
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior 
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the 
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662.
    Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and 
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA 
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
APCD air pollution control device
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BACT best available control technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
GACT generally available control technologies
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrogen chloride
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.1.0
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IBR ncorporation by reference
ICAC Institute of Clean Air Companies
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
MACT maximum achievable control technology
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI National Emission Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NSR New Source Review
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PDF portable document format
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RACT reasonably available control technology
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
THC total hydrocarbons
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology. Fate, Transport, and 
Ecological Exposure Model
UF uncertainty factor
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VCS voluntary consensus standards

    Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What are the source categories and how does the current 
NESHAP regulate their HAP emissions?
    C. What data collection activities were conducted to support 
this action?
    D. What other relevant background information and data are 
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision Making
    A. How do we consider risk in our decision making?
    B. How do we perform the technology review?
    C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source 
categories?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
    A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
    B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, 
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
    C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our 
technology review?
    D. What are the overall results of the risk and technology 
reviews?
    E. What other actions are we proposing?
    F. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive

[[Page 18928]]

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated 
industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal. 
Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 
for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely 
to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly 
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal 
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As 
defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, 
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source 
Category List (see EPA-450/3-91-030), the Asphalt Processing source 
category is any facility engaged in the preparation of asphalt flux at 
stand-alone asphalt processing facilities, petroleum refineries, and 
asphalt roofing facilities. Asphalt preparation, called ``blowing,'' is 
the oxidation of asphalt flux, achieved by bubbling air through the 
heated asphalt, to raise the softening point, and to reduce penetration 
of the oxidized asphalt. An asphalt processing facility includes one or 
more asphalt flux blowing stills, asphalt flux storage tanks storing 
asphalt flux intended for processing in the blowing stills, oxidized 
asphalt storage tanks, and oxidized asphalt loading racks.
    As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under 
Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 
31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial 
Source Category List (see EPA-450/3-91-030), the Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing source category includes any facility consisting of one 
or more asphalt roofing manufacturing lines. An asphalt roofing 
manufacturing line includes the collection of equipment used to 
manufacture asphalt roofing products through a series of sequential 
process steps. The equipment that constitutes an asphalt roofing 
manufacturing line varies depending on the type of substrate used 
(i.e., organic or inorganic) and the final product manufactured (e.g., 
roll roofing, laminated shingles). An asphalt roofing manufacturing 
line can include a saturator (including wet looper), coater, coating 
mixers, sealant applicators, adhesive applicators, and asphalt storage 
and process tanks. Both the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing categories are covered under one NESHAP because these 
processes are closely related and are often collocated. For more 
information about the source categories identified in Table 1 of this 
preamble, see section II.B of this preamble.

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

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the 
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at 
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/asphalt-processing-and-asphalt-roofing-manufacturing-national. Following 
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal 
Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this 
same website. Information on the overall RTR program is available at 
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
    A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the 
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this 
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662).

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of 
the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards 
for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the first 
stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second 
stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether additional 
standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP 
emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the ``residual 
risk review.'' In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also 
requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 
years to determine if there are ``developments in practices, processes, 
or control technologies'' that may be appropriate to incorporate into 
the standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ``technology 
review.'' When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, 
it is commonly referred to as the ``risk and technology review.'' The 
discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections 
and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement 
these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears 
in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: 
Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, 
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) 
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP 
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are

[[Page 18929]]

either major sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes 
different requirements for major source standards and area source 
standards. ``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential 
to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or 
more of any combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' 
For major sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-
based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of 
HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-
air quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are 
commonly referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also 
establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the 
MACT ``floor.'' The EPA must also consider control options that are 
more stringent than the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor 
are commonly referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain 
instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work 
practice standards where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a 
numerical emission standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) 
gives the EPA discretion to set standards based on generally available 
control technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu 
of MACT standards.
    The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and 
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA 
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards, 
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether 
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this 
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources 
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further 
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for 
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's 
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National 
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions 
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene 
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery 
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA 
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use 
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk 
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently 
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the Court) upheld EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) 
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See 
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 
(D.C. Cir. 2008).
    The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to 
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines 
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health 
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a 
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) 
\1\ of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.'' 54 FR 38045, September 14, 
1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions 
standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without 
considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA 
considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health ``in consideration of all health 
information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than 
approximately 1 in 1 million, as well as other relevant factors, 
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and 
other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must 
promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health. After conducting the ample margin of 
safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is 
necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers 
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is 
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum 
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review 
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as 
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, 
and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years. In 
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the 
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resource 
Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 
2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the 
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).

B. What are the source categories and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate their HAP emissions?

    The current NESHAP for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing source categories was promulgated on April 29, 2003 (68 
FR 22975), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL. As 
promulgated in 2003 and further amended on May 17, 2005 (70 FR 28360), 
the NESHAP prescribes MACT standards for asphalt processing and asphalt 
roofing manufacturing facilities that are major sources of HAP. The 
MACT standards establish emission limits for PM and total hydrocarbons 
(THC) as surrogates for total organic HAP. Sources of HAP emissions 
regulated by 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL, include the following: Each 
blowing still, asphalt storage tank, and asphalt loading rack at 
asphalt processing facilities and each coating mixer, coater, 
saturator, wet looper, asphalt storage tank, and sealant and adhesive 
applicator at asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities. The main HAP 
emitted from these sources include hydrogen chloride (HCl) (from 
blowing stills at asphalt processing facilities that use chlorinated 
catalysts), methylene chloride, hexane, methyl chloride, formaldehyde, 
and other organic HAP. More information and details regarding the HAP 
emitted from these sources are provided in Appendix 1 of the Residual 
Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662. 
The MACT standards also limit the opacity and visible emissions from 
certain saturators, coaters, and asphalt storage tanks.
    As of August 1, 2018, there are eight facilities in operation and 
subject to the MACT standards. Four of the eight facilities are 
strictly asphalt processing facilities, and the other four operate an 
asphalt processing facility collocated with an asphalt roofing 
manufacturing facility. A complete list of facilities that are 
currently subject to the MACT standards is available in Appendix A of 
the memorandum titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Review for the 
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories, 
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662.

[[Page 18930]]

C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this 
action?

    In June 2017, the EPA issued a request, pursuant to CAA section 
114, to collect information from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing facilities. This effort focused on gathering 
comprehensive information about process equipment, control 
technologies, point and fugitive emissions, and other aspects of 
facility operations. Companies completed the survey for their 
facilities and submitted responses to the EPA in September 2017. The 
information not claimed as CBI by respondents is available in the 
memorandum titled Data Received from Clean Air Act Section 114 Request 
for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source 
Categories, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662.

D. What other relevant background information and data are available?

    The EPA used multiple sources of information to support this 
proposed action. Before developing the final list of affected 
facilities described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA's 
Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database was used as a 
tool to identify potentially affected facilities with asphalt 
processing and/or asphalt roofing manufacturing operations that are 
subject to the NESHAP. The ECHO database provides integrated compliance 
and enforcement information for approximately 800,000 regulated 
facilities nationwide.
    The 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database provided 
facility-specific data and MACT category data that were used with the 
information received through the CAA section 114 request described in 
section II.C of this preamble to develop the modeling input file for 
the risk assessment. The NEI is a database that contains information 
about sources that emit criteria air pollutants, their precursors, and 
HAP. The database includes estimates of annual air pollutant emissions 
from point, nonpoint, and mobile sources in the 50 states, the District 
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The EPA collects 
this information and releases an updated version of the NEI database 
every 3 years. The NEI includes information necessary for conducting 
risk modeling, including annual HAP emissions estimates from individual 
emission points at facilities and the related emissions release 
parameters.
    In conducting the technology review, we examined information in the 
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)/Best Available Control 
Technology (BACT)/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) Clearinghouse 
(RBLC) to identify technologies in use and determine whether there have 
been relevant developments in practices, processes, or control 
technologies. The RBLC is a database that contains case specific 
information on air pollution technologies that have been required to 
reduce the emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources. Under 
EPA's New Source Review (NSR) program, if a facility is planning new 
construction or a modification that will increase the air emissions by 
a large amount, an NSR permit must be obtained. This central database 
promotes the sharing of information among permitting agencies and aids 
in case-by-case determinations for NSR permits. The EPA also reviewed 
subsequent air toxic regulatory actions for other source categories and 
information from site visits to determine whether there have been 
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies in the 
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories.

III. Analytical Procedures and Decision Making

    In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the 
proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this 
proposal.

A. How do we consider risk in our decision making?

    As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene 
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not 
risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene 
NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to 
any single factor'' and, thus, ``[t]he Administrator believes that the 
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of 
a broad set of health risk measures and information.'' 54 FR 38046, 
September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of 
safety determination, ``the Agency again considers all of the health 
risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond 
that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level 
of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts 
of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other 
relevant factors.'' Id.
    The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors 
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh 
those factors for each source categories. The EPA conducts a risk 
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP 
emissions from each source in the source categories, the hazard index 
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer 
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP 
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\2\ The assessment 
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the 
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the 
potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA's 
risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comments on our 
policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a 
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where 
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential 
exposure to the HAP to the level at or below which no adverse 
chronic noncancer effects are expected; the HI is the sum of HQs for 
HAP that affect the same target organ or organ system.

[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of 
multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be 
considered, but also incidence, the presence of noncancer health 
effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, 
the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well 
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be 
weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the 
Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an 
acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to 
assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional 
intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any 
particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's 
consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and 
thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of 
health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
appropriate to determining what will `protect the public health'.

See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only 
one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The 
Benzene NESHAP explained that ``an MIR of approximately one in 10 
thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of 
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become 
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be 
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making 
an

[[Page 18931]]

overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a 
particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the 
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other 
health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. Similarly, with regard to the 
ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP 
that: ``EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that can 
be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be 
determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly 
because technological and economic factors (along with the health-
related factors) vary from source category to source category.'' Id. at 
38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the various 
risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our 
determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety.
    The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information 
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not 
attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions 
from other facilities that do not include the source categories under 
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent 
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity 
of the sources in the categories.
    The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an 
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure 
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize 
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing 
noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference 
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the 
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For 
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to 
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the 
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a 
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in 
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other 
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to 
result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May 
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR 
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if 
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and 
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions 
from other sources in the area.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Recommendations of the SAB RTR Panel are provided in their 
report, which is available at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/
sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-
007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates 
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those 
reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide 
assessments, which include source categories emission points, as well 
as other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures 
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same 
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative 
pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the 
RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all 
carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens 
affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
    Although we are interested in placing source categories and 
facility-wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all 
sources combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about 
the uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from 
emission sources other than those that we have studied in depth during 
this RTR review would have significantly greater associated 
uncertainties than the source categories or facility-wide estimates. 
Such aggregate or cumulative assessments would compound those 
uncertainties, making the assessments too unreliable.

B. How do we perform the technology review?

    Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation 
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that 
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we 
identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, 
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental 
impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with 
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of 
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In 
addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new 
sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we 
consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
     Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was 
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any improvements in add-on control technology or other 
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of 
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions 
reduction;
     Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any process change or pollution prevention alternative 
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards; and
     Any significant changes in the cost (including cost 
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA 
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
    In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control 
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed 
(or last updated) the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in 
our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to 
consider. See sections II.C and II.D of this preamble for information 
on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of the 
technology review.

C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source categories?

    In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of 
analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process. 
In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not 
relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be 
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we would 
not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform 
an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we 
present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk 
assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section 
IV.A of this preamble).
    The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the 
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the 
source categories, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the 
potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute 
exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. 
The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer 
risk within the exposed populations,

[[Page 18932]]

cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for an adverse 
environmental effect. The seven sections that follow this paragraph 
describe how we estimated emissions and conducted the risk assessment. 
The docket for this rulemaking contains the following document, which 
provides more information on the risk assessment inputs and models: 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess risk (as 
described in the seven primary steps below) are consistent with those 
described by the EPA in the document reviewed by a panel of the EPA's 
SAB in 2009; \4\ and described in the SAB review report issued in 2010. 
They are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that 
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment 
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with 
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement 
Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA-452/R-09-006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions 
release characteristics?
    For each facility that we determined to be subject to the MACT 
standards (see section II.B of this preamble), we gathered emissions 
data from Version 1 of the 2014 NEI. For each NEI record, we reviewed 
the source classification code and emission unit and process 
descriptions, and then assigned the record to an emission source type 
regulated by the MACT standards (i.e., each record identified as an 
affected source at each facility was labeled adhesive/sealant 
applicator equipment, asphalt loading rack, asphalt storage tank, 
blowing still, coater, or coating mixer) or an emission source type not 
regulated by the MACT standards (i.e., each record that was not 
identified as an affected source at each facility was labeled non-
source category type). The non-source category type emissions sources 
are units or processes that are co-located at one or more of the 
asphalt processing or asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities, but are 
not part of the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 
source categories. For example, some of these asphalt affected sources 
are co-located with petroleum refinery operations that are part of a 
different source category (i.e., Petroleum Refineries) which are 
regulated by different NESHAP (i.e., 40 CFR part 63, subparts CC and 
UUU).
    After we determined which emissions sources were part of the source 
category, we then examined all the NEI records (excluding non-source 
category records) and developed lists of HAP that were reported, and, 
thus, expected to be emitted, for each emission process group in the 
source category. Using the emissions data from this analysis, we 
created speciation profiles to gap-fill missing HAP emissions data for 
facility-specific records.
    As part of the CAA section 114 request (see section II.C of this 
preamble), the EPA asked companies to review (and revise, if necessary) 
the NEI-based data described above, including emission values, emission 
release point parameters, coordinates, and emission process group 
assignments. We used all this information to reevaluate our emission 
process group assignments for each NEI record in the modeling file. We 
also used this information to update emission release point parameter 
data. In other words, we used the CAA section 114 response data 
wherever possible (in lieu of the data we established using the NEI and 
gap fill procedures), unless it failed certain quality assurance 
checks.
    For further details on the assumptions and methodologies used to 
estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions release 
characteristics, see Appendix 1 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories 
in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule in 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
    The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include 
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time 
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the 
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT 
standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred 
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions. We discussed the consideration 
of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven 
Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed 
and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 
71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we 
noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently 
reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could 
emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also 
explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where 
such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in 
accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September 
14, 1989.)
    The Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP 
specifies performance standards (i.e., a THC percent reduction or 
combustion efficiency requirement) for blowing stills, asphalt loading 
racks, and asphalt storage tanks at existing, new, and reconstructed 
asphalt processing facilities; asphalt storage tanks at existing 
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines; and coaters, saturators, wet 
loopers, coating mixers, sealant and adhesive applicators, and asphalt 
storage tanks at new and reconstructed asphalt roofing manufacturing 
lines. Consequently, the MACT-allowable emissions for all of these 
emission sources are assumed to be equal to the actual emissions. For 
coating mixers, saturators, coaters, sealant applicators, and adhesive 
applicators at existing asphalt roofing manufacturing lines, the NESHAP 
specifies a production-based MACT-allowable limit (i.e., 0.08 pounds PM 
per ton of asphalt shingle or mineral-surfaced roll roofing produced 
basis), but allows owners and operators of these emissions sources the 
alternative of complying with the performance-based standards 
applicable to new and reconstructed asphalt roofing manufacturing 
lines. Based on responses received from the CAA section 114 request 
(see section II.C of this preamble), most facilities use combustion 
controls to meet the alternative performance-based standards for 
existing coating mixers, saturators, coaters, sealant applicators, and 
adhesive applicators, rather than complying with the numerical 
production-based standard. Therefore, we decided to treat the 
performance-based standard as the applicable standard and used the 
actual emission levels as a reasonable estimation of the MACT-allowable 
emissions levels for these emission sources.
    For further details on the assumptions and methodologies used to 
estimate MACT-allowable emissions, see Appendix 1 of the Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 
Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review 
Proposed Rule, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662.

[[Page 18933]]

3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation 
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk?
    Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations 
and health risk from the source categories addressed in this proposal 
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\5\ The HEM-3 
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting 
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient 
air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to 
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, 
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk 
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For more information about HEM-3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Dispersion Modeling
    The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of 
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations 
from industrial facilities.\6\ To perform the dispersion modeling and 
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data 
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used 
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of 
hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological 
stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto 
Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block \7\ 
internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human 
exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census 
block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill 
height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library 
of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health 
risk. These are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: 
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) 
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 
2005).
    \7\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which 
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
    In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the 
estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted 
by each source in the source categories. The HAP air concentrations at 
each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility 
are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for 
all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is 
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP 
(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian 
dispersion models, including AERMOD.
    For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk 
associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per 
week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum 
concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We 
calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime 
exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per 
cubic meter) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is an upper-bound 
estimate of an individual's incremental risk of contracting cancer over 
a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the 
pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk assessments, we 
generally use UREs from EPA's Integrated Risk Information System 
(IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS values, we look to 
other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using 
California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new, 
scientifically credible dose-response values have been developed in a 
manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer review 
process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such dose-response 
values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if appropriate. 
The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to estimate health 
risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
    To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with 
exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source categories, 
we sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \8\ emitted by the 
modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within 
50 km of every facility in the source categories. The MIR is the 
highest individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those 
census blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the 
distribution of individual cancer risks for the source categories by 
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose 
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate 
annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer 
risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that 
block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing 
this result by a 70-year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment 
classifies carcinogens as: ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to 
be carcinogenic to humans,'' and ``suggestive evidence of 
carcinogenic potential.'' These classifications also coincide with 
the terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible 
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in The 
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document, 
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of 
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002), was published as a supplement 
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from 
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN= 71597944. Summing 
the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative 
cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in 
their 2002 peer review of EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment 
(NATA) titled NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics 
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic 
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific 
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is 
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ 
for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ 
system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by 
the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected 
from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-
response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate (with 
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous 
inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive 
subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of 
deleterious effects during a lifetime'' (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC 
from the EPA's IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that 
using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer 
dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized 
sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA: 
(1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 
Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/

[[Page 18934]]

mrls/index.asp); (2) the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) 
(https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted 
above, a scientifically credible dose-response value that has been 
developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and has 
undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA. The 
pollutant-specific dose-response values used to estimate health risks 
are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other 
Than Cancer
    For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response 
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks 
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes 
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and 
exposure location. We use the peak hourly emission rate,\9\ worst-case 
dispersion conditions, and, in accordance with our mandate under 
section 112 of the CAA, the point of highest off-site exposure to 
assess the potential risk to the maximally exposed individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop estimates 
of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the average actual 
annual emissions rates by a factor (either a category-specific 
factor or a default factor of 10) to account for variability. This 
is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing 
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of 
the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 
of the report: Analysis of Data on Short-term Emission Rates 
Relative to Long-term Emission Rates. Both are available in the 
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To characterize the potential health risks associated with 
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use 
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute 
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning 
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations, if available, to 
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the 
estimated acute exposure by the acute dose-response value. For each HAP 
for which acute dose-response values are available, the EPA calculates 
acute HQs.
    An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below 
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified 
exposure duration.'' \10\ Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive, 
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical 
and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most 
sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of 
margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to 
address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not 
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent 
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to 
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\11\ They are 
guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to 
airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.'' 
Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as ``the airborne 
concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m\3\ 
(milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is 
predicted that the general population, including susceptible 
individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or 
certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not 
disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of 
exposure.'' The document also notes that ``Airborne concentrations 
below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and 
progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste, 
and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.'' 
Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as 
parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above 
which it is predicted that the general population, including 
susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other 
serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to 
escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot 
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in 
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The 
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne 
Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
    \11\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating 
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous 
Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the 
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for 
Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program 
continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National 
Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ERPGs are ``developed for emergency planning and are intended as 
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to 
chemicals.'' \12\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum 
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all 
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing 
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving 
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is 
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour 
without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health 
effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability to take 
protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American 
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than 
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are 
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding 
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from 
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we 
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ 
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
    For the acute inhalation risk assessment of the Asphalt Processing 
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories, we did not always 
use the default acute emissions multiplier of 10. For approximately 65 
percent of the modeling file records, we used facility-specific maximum 
(i.e., acute) hourly emissions from the responses to the CAA section 
114 request (see section II.C of this preamble) because these data were 
available. For the remaining records (excluding asphalt storage tanks), 
we applied the default acute emissions multiplier of 10. For asphalt 
storage tanks, we applied a multiplier of four. A further discussion of 
why these factors were chosen can be found in Appendix 1 of Residual 
Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662.
    In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts 
are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than or 
equal to 1 (even under the conservative assumptions of the screening 
assessment), and no further

[[Page 18935]]

analysis is performed for these HAP. In cases where an acute HQ from 
the screening step is greater than 1, we consider additional site-
specific data to develop a more refined estimate of the potential for 
acute exposures of concern. For these source categories, the data 
refinements employed consisted of ensuring the locations where the 
maximum HQ occurred were off facility property and where the public 
could potentially be exposed. These refinements are discussed more 
fully in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and 
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the 
docket for this action.
4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening 
assessment?
    The EPA conducted a tiered screening assessment examining the 
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via 
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determined 
whether any sources in the source categories emitted any PB-HAP, as 
identified in EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (See Volume 1, 
Appendix D, at https://www2.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library).
    For the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source 
categories, we identified PB-HAP emissions of cadmium compounds, lead 
compounds, mercury compounds, and polycyclic organic matter (POM) (of 
which polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons is a subset), so we proceeded to 
the next step of the evaluation. In this step, we determined whether 
the facility-specific emission rates of the emitted PB-HAP were large 
enough to create the potential for significant human health risk 
through ingestion under reasonable worst-case conditions. To facilitate 
this step, we used previously developed screening threshold emission 
rates for several PB-HAP that are based on a hypothetical upper-end 
screening exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction with the 
EPA's Total Risk Integrated Methodology. Fate, Transport, and 
Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB-HAP with screening 
threshold emission rates are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, 
chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, mercury compounds, and POM. 
Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and bioaccumulation potential, 
the pollutants above represent a conservative list for inclusion in 
multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules. (See Volume 1, Appendix D 
at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201308/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.) In this assessment, we compare the facility-
specific emission rates of these PB-HAP to the screening threshold 
emission rates for each PB-HAP to assess the potential for significant 
human health risks via the ingestion pathway. We call this application 
of the TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening assessment. The ratio of a 
facility's actual emission rate to the Tier 1 screening threshold 
emission rate is a ``screening value.''
    We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these 
PB-HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess 
lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds, 
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, and POM) or, for HAP that 
cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury 
compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB-HAP 
or combination of carcinogenic PB-HAP in the Tier 1 screening 
assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any 
facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a 
second screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening 
assessment.
    In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility 
that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to 
refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher and farmer 
exposure scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1 
screening assessment is that a lake and/or farm is located near the 
facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies within 
50 km of each facility. We also examine the differences between local 
meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the Tier 1 
screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-developed Tier 1 
screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP for each facility 
based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations estimated for 
the screening scenario change with the use of local meteorology and 
USGS waterbody data. If the PB-HAP emission rates for a facility exceed 
the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rates and data are available, 
we may conduct a Tier 3 screening assessment. If PB-HAP emission rates 
do not exceed a Tier 2 screening value of 1, we consider those PB-HAP 
emissions to pose risks below a level of concern.
    There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3 
screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement 
warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable, 
considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing 
layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on 
chemical fate and transport. If the Tier 3 screening assessment 
indicates that risks above levels of concern cannot be ruled out, the 
EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific 
assessment.
    In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of 
lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission 
rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure 
concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS) for lead.\13\ Values below the level of the primary 
(health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for 
multipathway risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a 
primary NAAQS--that a standard is requisite to protect public health 
and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))--
differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other 
things, that the standard provide an ``ample margin of safety to 
protect public health''). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a 
reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the 
first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to 
protect the most susceptible group in the human population--
children, including children living near major lead emitting 
sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition, 
applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk 
acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS 
reflects an adequate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For further information on the multipathway assessment approach, 
see the Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt 
Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for 
this action.
5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effects, Environmental HAP, and Ecological 
Benchmarks
    The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential 
for an adverse environmental effect as required under section 
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse 
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse 
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, 
or other natural resources, including

[[Page 18936]]

adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or 
significant degradation of environmental quality over broad areas.''
    The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as 
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two 
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic 
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both 
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid 
gases included in the screening assessment are HCl and hydrogen 
fluoride (HF).
    HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental 
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The 
acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented 
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the 
environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four 
exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes 
water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and 
air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological 
assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and 
its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and 
population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological 
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.
    An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has 
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each 
environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks 
for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological 
benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels, 
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect 
level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a 
particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available 
effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist 
and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and 
widespread.
    For further information on how the environmental risk screening 
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics 
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological 
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 
Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review 
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
    For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first 
determined whether any facilities in the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt 
Roofing Manufacturing source categories emitted any of the 
environmental HAP. For the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing source categories, we identified emissions of cadmium 
compounds, HCl, lead, mercury, and POM. Because one or more of the 
environmental HAP evaluated are emitted by at least one facility in the 
source categories, we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation.
c. PB-HAP Methodology
    The environmental screening assessment includes six PB-HAP, arsenic 
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both 
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the 
exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-
HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk 
screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model 
that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment. 
TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1 
screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission 
rates represent the emission rate in tpy that results in media 
concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant ecological 
benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the category, the 
reported emission rate for each PB-HAP was compared to the Tier 1 
screening threshold emission rate for that PB-HAP for each assessment 
endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do not exceed 
the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' 
the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated further 
under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility exceed the 
Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility 
further in Tier 2.
    In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening 
threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology 
and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did 
not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the 
average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius 
for each facility and PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue 
concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant 
is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the 
Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the 
screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If 
emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold 
emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3.
    As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of 
the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of 
the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that 
are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are 
industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-
by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the 
screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an 
adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the 
screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more 
refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after 
additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the 
screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential 
to cause an adverse environmental effect.
    To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from 
lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM-3) 
of lead around each facility in the source categories to the level of 
the secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable 
means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide 
substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can 
include ``effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made 
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage 
to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as 
well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-
being.''
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology
    The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the 
potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to 
chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening 
methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screening assessment that 
compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the 
ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential 
adverse

[[Page 18937]]

environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the CAA) from 
emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics: The size of 
the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological 
benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km\2\; the percentage of the 
modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological benchmark 
for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average screening value around 
each facility (calculated by dividing the area-weighted average 
concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the ecological 
benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the 
environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for 
this action.
6. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments?
    To put the source categories risks in context, we typically examine 
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all 
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common 
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the 
source categories' emission points of interest, but also emissions of 
HAP from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have 
data. For these source categories, we conducted the facility-wide 
assessment using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI. The source 
category records of that NEI dataset were removed, evaluated, and 
updated as described in section II.C of this preamble: What data 
collection activities were conducted to support this action? Once a 
quality assured source category dataset was available, it was placed 
back with the remaining records from the NEI for that facility. The 
facility-wide file was then used to analyze risks due to the inhalation 
of HAP that are emitted ``facility-wide'' for the populations residing 
within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the 
source category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk 
analyses, the modeled source category risks were compared to the 
facility-wide risks to determine the portion of the facility-wide risks 
that could be attributed to the source categories addressed in this 
proposal. We also specifically examined the facility that was 
associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the 
percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of 
interest. The Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and 
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, available through the docket 
for this action, provides the methodology and results of the facility-
wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the percentage of 
source categories contribution to facility-wide risks.
7. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk 
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although 
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used 
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are 
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the 
uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, 
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows 
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute 
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our 
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of 
these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories 
in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which 
is available in the docket for this action. If a multipathway site-
specific assessment was performed for these source categories, a full 
discussion of the uncertainties associated with that assessment can be 
found in Appendix 11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health 
Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset
    Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved 
quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions 
values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to 
which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions 
made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission 
estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this 
analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not 
reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or 
variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission 
rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an 
emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly 
emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations 
due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
    We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration 
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended 
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate 
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to 
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the 
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not 
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other 
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts 
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select 
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels 
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the 
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient 
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in 
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP 
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset 
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to 
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in 
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
    Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant 
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate 
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the 
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the 
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our 
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each 
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor 
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor 
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the 
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. 
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high 
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants 
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when 
possible. For example, with respect to census-block

[[Page 18938]]

centroids, we analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust 
locations of the block centroids to better represent the population in 
the blocks. We also add additional receptor locations where the 
population of a block is not well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
    There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from 
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute 
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, 
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a 
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that 
is stated in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; 
namely, that ``the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human 
health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, 
including default options that are used in the absence of scientific 
data to the contrary, should be health protective'' (the EPA's 2005 
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1-7). This is the 
approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs.
    Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been 
developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.\14\ 
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of 
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical 
confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low 
as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\15\ 
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose values represent chronic 
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To 
derive dose-response values that are intended to be ``without 
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor 
(UF) approach,\16\ which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps 
in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response 
values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of 
deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
    \15\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is 
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is 
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum 
likelihood estimates.
    \16\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference 
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for 
Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of 
Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in 
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to 
those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often 
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations 
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all 
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care 
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of 
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values 
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of 
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be 
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
    Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks 
for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a 
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of 
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment 
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but 
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had 
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels 
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used 
all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk 
exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and 
widespread.
    Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health 
effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources 
in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by these source categories 
are lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants 
cannot be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could 
result in quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to 
alleviate this potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity 
with a HAP for which a dose-response value is available, we use that 
value as a surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value 
is available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable 
risk, we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS 
assessment for that substance. We additionally note that, generally 
speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental exposures and 
hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have been 
performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP 
not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively 
and considered in the risk characterization that informs the risk 
management decisions, including consideration of HAP reductions 
achieved by various control options.
    For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol 
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value 
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, 
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl 
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also 
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds 
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
    In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are 
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA 
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The 
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the 
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, 
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of humans 
at the location of the maximum concentration. In the acute screening 
assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we assume that peak 
emissions from the source categories and worst-case meteorological 
conditions co-occur, thus, resulting in maximum ambient concentrations. 
These two events are unlikely to occur at the same time, making these 
assumptions conservative. We then include the additional assumption 
that a person is located at this point during this same time period. 
For these source categories, these assumptions would tend to be worst-
case actual exposures, as it is unlikely that a person would be located 
at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions 
and worst-case meteorological conditions occur simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening 
Assessments
    For each source categories, we generally rely on site-specific 
levels of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a 
refined assessment of the impacts from

[[Page 18939]]

multipathway exposures is necessary or whether it is necessary to 
perform an environmental screening assessment. This determination is 
based on the results of a three-tiered screening assessment that relies 
on the outputs from models--TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD--that estimate 
environmental pollutant concentrations and human exposures for five PB-
HAP (dioxins, POM, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases 
(HF and HCl). For lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air 
concentrations, which are then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard 
for lead. Two important types of uncertainty associated with the use of 
these models in RTR risk assessments and inherent to any assessment 
that relies on environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input 
uncertainty.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty'' 
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in 
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing 
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in 
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents 
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur 
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the 
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is 
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from 
previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the 
models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-
the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk 
assessments conducted in support of RTR.
    Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have 
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier 
1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we 
configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This 
was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally 
representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the 
environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of 
the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface 
water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We 
also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human 
exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
    In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening 
assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological 
patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end 
national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the 
facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1. 
By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local 
geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that 
concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby 
increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the 
screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for 
hour-by-hour plume rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also 
use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the 
screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These 
refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations 
in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those 
estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding 
the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three 
tiers.
    For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we 
employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations 
and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
    For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening 
assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is 
generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the 
range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the 
models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion 
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach 
reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse 
impacts.
    Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities 
do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we 
are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on 
human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants 
or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not 
mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that 
possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be 
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the 
source categories.
    The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or 
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic, 
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl 
mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can 
cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air 
or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils 
and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web. 
These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful 
multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP 
not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been 
parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases, 
depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models 
that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA 
acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may 
have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may 
evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and 
resources allow.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?

    As described above, for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing source categories, we conducted an inhalation risk 
assessment for all HAP emitted, a multipathway screening assessment for 
the PB-HAP emitted, and an environmental risk screening assessment on 
the PB-HAP and acid gases (e.g., HCl) emitted. We present results of 
the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail in the Residual 
Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for 
this action.
1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    The results of the chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk 
assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current actual and 
allowable emissions, the MIR posed by the two asphalt source 
categories, which were considered together in this analysis, is less 
than 1-in-1 million. The total estimated cancer incidence based on 
actual and allowable emission levels is 0.0007 excess cancer cases per 
year, or 1 case every 1,430 years. The population exposed to cancer 
risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million considering actual and 
allowable emissions is 0 (see Table 2 of this preamble). In addition, 
the

[[Page 18940]]

maximum chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) is less than 1.

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

2. Acute Risk Results
    As presented in Table 2 of this preamble, the acute exposures to 
emissions from the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 
source categories result in a maximum HQ of 4 based on the REL for 
formaldehyde. This is driven by emissions from storage tanks. The next 
highest dose-response value for formaldehyde, the AEGL-1, results in an 
HQ of 0.3. In addition, acute exposure to acrolein results in an HQ of 
2 based on the REL for acrolein. This is driven by emissions from 
blowing stills. The next highest dose-response value for acrolein, the 
AEGL1, results in an HQ of 0.09. These results include a refinement 
performed using aerial photos to ensure the maximum exposure evaluated 
would occur off-site in areas where the public could be exposed. As 
described above, the acute REL represents a health-protective level of 
exposure, with no adverse health effects anticipated below those 
levels, even for the most sensitive individuals and repeated exposures. 
As exposure concentration increases above the acute REL, the potential 
for adverse health effects increases; however, we do not have an acute 
reference value for a level of exposure at which adverse health effects 
might be expected. Therefore, when an REL is exceeded and an AEGL-1 or 
ERPG-1 level is available (i.e., levels at which mild, reversible 
effects are anticipated in the general public for a single exposure), 
we typically use the AEGL-1 and/or ERPG-1 as an additional measure to 
characterize the risk of adverse health effects. For more detail on the 
screening level acute risk assessment results, refer to the draft 
residual risk document: Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt 
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in 
Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is 
available in the docket for this action.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    The multipathway risk screening assessment resulted in a maximum 
Tier 2 cancer screening value of 2 for POM. The Tier 2 screening values 
for all other PB-HAP emitted from the source categories (cadmium 
compounds, lead compounds, and mercury compounds) were less than 1. 
Based on these results, we are confident that the cancer risks due to 
multipathway exposures are lower than 2-in-1 million and the noncancer 
HIs are less than 1.
    In the case of lead, the multipathway risks were assessed by 
comparing modeled ambient lead concentrations against the primary NAAQS 
for lead. The results of this analysis indicate that based on actual 
and allowable emissions, the maximum annual off-site ambient lead 
concentrations are below the primary NAAQS; therefore, we assume there 
are no multipathway risks due to lead emissions.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    The ecological risk screening assessment indicated all modeled 
points were below the Tier 1 screening threshold based on actual and 
allowable emissions of PB-HAPs (cadmium compounds, lead compounds, 
mercury compounds, and POM) and acid gases (HCl) emitted by the source 
categories.
    In the case of lead, the environmental risks were assessed by 
comparing modeled ambient lead concentrations against the secondary 
NAAQS for lead. The results of this analysis indicate that, based on 
actual and allowable emissions, the maximum annual off-site ambient 
lead concentrations were below the secondary NAAQS; therefore, we 
conclude there are no environmental risks due to lead emissions.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    An assessment of whole-facility risks was performed as described 
above to characterize the source category risk in the context of whole 
facility risks.\18\ Whole facility risks were estimated using the NEI-
based data described in section III.C.1 of this preamble. The maximum 
lifetime individual cancer risk posed by the eight facilities, based on 
whole facility emissions, is 9-in-1 million with naphthalene and 
benzene emissions from facility-wide fugitive emissions and nickel 
compound emissions from flares from the Petroleum Refinery source 
category driving the risk. Regarding the noncancer risk assessment, the 
maximum chronic noncancer HI posed by whole facility emissions is 
estimated to be 0.1 (for the respiratory system), which occurred at two 
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The facility-wide risk assessment includes all emission 
points within Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 
source categories (including those for which there are no 
standards), as well as other emission points covered by other 
NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source categories, we performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual 
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of 
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Asphalt Processing and 
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories across different 
demographic groups within the populations living near the eight 
facilities.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White, 
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial, 
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a 
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people 
living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated 
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for six of the 
11 demographic groups, African American,

[[Page 18941]]

Native American, other and multiracial, ages 0-17, ages 18-64, and 
below the poverty level, the percentage of the population living within 
5 km of facilities in the source categories is greater than the 
corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups. When 
examining the risk levels of those exposed to emissions from asphalt 
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities, we find that 
no one is exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a 
chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis 
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Asphalt Processing 
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories Operations, 
available in the docket for this action.

B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample 
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects?

1. Risk Acceptability
    We weigh all health risk factors in our risk acceptability 
determination, including the cancer MIR, the number of persons in 
various cancer and noncancer risk ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum 
noncancer TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of 
noncancer risks, the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the 
exposed population, and risk estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, 
September 14, 1989).
    For the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source 
categories, the risk analysis indicates that the cancer risk to the 
individual most exposed is below 1-in-1 million from both actual and 
allowable emissions. This risk is considerably less than 100-in-1 
million, which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The 
risk analysis also estimates a cancer incidence of 0.0007 excess cancer 
cases per year, or 1 case every 1,430 years, as well a maximum chronic 
noncancer TOSHI value below 1 (0.1). In addition, the risk assessment 
indicates no significant potential for multipathway health effects.
    The results of the acute screening analysis estimate a maximum 
acute noncancer HQ of 4 based on the acute REL. To better characterize 
the potential health risks associated with estimated worst-case acute 
exposures to HAP, we examine a wider range of available acute health 
metrics than we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in 
acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and 
uncertainties in acute reference values than there are in chronic 
reference values. By definition, the acute REL represents a health-
protective level of exposure, with effects not anticipated below those 
levels, even for repeated exposures; however, the level of exposure 
that would cause health effects is not specifically known. As the 
exposure concentration increases above the acute REL, the potential for 
effects increases. Therefore, when an REL is exceeded and an AEGL-1 or 
ERPG-1 level is available (i.e., levels at which mild, reversible 
effects are anticipated in the general public for a single exposure), 
we typically use them as an additional comparative measure, as they 
provide an upper bound for exposure levels above which exposed 
individuals could experience effects.
    Based on the AEGL-1 for formaldehyde, the HQ is less than 1 (0.3), 
below the level at which mild, reversible adverse effects would be 
anticipated. In addition, the acute screening assessment includes the 
conservative (health protective) assumptions that every process 
releases its peak hourly emissions at the same hour, that the worst-
case dispersion conditions occur at that same hour, and that an 
individual is present at the location of maximum concentration for that 
hour. Together, these factors lead us to conclude that significant 
acute effects are not anticipated due to emissions from these 
categories.
    Considering all the health risk information and factors discussed 
above, including the uncertainties, we propose to find that risks from 
the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source 
categories are acceptable. As risks for the Asphalt Processing and 
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories were assessed together 
in one risk assessment, and based on the results of that risk 
assessment, we are proposing risks from the Asphalt Processing source 
category are acceptable and risks from the Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing source category are acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost 
and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures 
(including the controls, measures, and costs reviewed under the 
technology review) that could be applied in these source categories to 
further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP 
identified in the risk assessment. In this analysis, we considered the 
results of the technology review, risk assessment, and other aspects of 
our MACT rule review to determine whether there are any cost-effective 
controls or other measures that would reduce emissions further. 
Although we are proposing that the risks from these source categories 
are acceptable, the maximum acute risk is an HQ of 4 caused by 
formaldehyde emissions from four asphalt storage tanks. There is also 
an HQ of 2 caused by acrolein emissions from a blowing still. We 
considered whether the MACT standards applicable to these emission 
points in particular, as well as all the current MACT standards 
applicable to these source categories, provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health.
    With regard to the sources of acute risks, we identified two 
options for reducing the acute HQ of 4 due to formaldehyde emissions 
from asphalt storage tanks: (1) Installing ductwork and routing the 
exhaust of the four asphalt storage tanks to an existing thermal 
incinerator, or (2) installing ductwork and routing the exhaust of the 
four asphalt storage tanks to a single new packed bed scrubber. Under 
these options, the formaldehyde emissions would be reduced by 99.5 
percent and 95.0 percent, respectively, and the acute HQ would likely 
be reduced to less than 1. However, because formaldehyde emissions from 
asphalt storage tanks are low (i.e., 0.46 tpy formaldehyde is emitted 
from all asphalt storage tanks in the source categories combined), 
reduction in the emissions achieved by these two options is not cost 
effective. We estimate the cost effectiveness to be from $102,400 per 
ton of formaldehyde reduced (option 1) to $3.7 million per ton of 
formaldehyde reduced (option 2). Installing a packed bed scrubber would 
also lead to an increase in energy use from the facility. Due to the 
additional environmental impacts that would be imposed, the small risk 
reduction, and the substantial costs associated with these options, we 
are proposing that additional emissions controls for asphalt storage 
tanks are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health. See the technical memorandum titled Asphalt Storage Tank 
Controls--Ample Margin of Safety Analysis, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0662 for details.
    We did not identify any processes, practices, or control 
technologies to further reduce organic HAP emissions (including 
acrolein emissions) from blowing stills (see section IV.C of this 
preamble for more details). Therefore, we are proposing that revisions 
to the current standards for organic HAP for this emission source are 
not necessary

[[Page 18942]]

and that acrolein-specific standards for this emission source are also 
not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health.
    For other emissions and emissions sources, including asphalt 
loading racks, coating mixers, saturators (including wet loopers), 
coaters, sealant applicators, adhesive (laminate) applicators, and HCl 
emissions from blowing stills, risks are low. Nevertheless, to 
determine whether it was possible to reduce this already low risk 
further, we evaluated possible approaches to reduce HAP emissions from 
these sources.
    With regard to HCl emissions, the risk analysis for the Asphalt 
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories includes 
an assessment of risk from emissions of HCl from blowing stills. As 
detailed in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Asphalt Processing and 
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2018 
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, four major sources within 
these source categories reported HCl emissions. The estimated risk 
associated with HCl emissions is low, less than the source-category 
maximum HI of 0.1, which is from acrolein emissions, indicating that 
HCl emissions are not a risk driver under the NESHAP as it currently 
exists. Nevertheless, we evaluated possible options to further reduce 
HCl emissions and risks under the ample margin of safety analysis. This 
evaluation is discussed in more detail in section IV.C of this 
preamble.
    During development of the 2003 NESHAP (68 FR 24562), the EPA 
evaluated HCl emissions from blowing stills in the Asphalt Processing 
source category. In the 2003 final rule preamble (68 FR 24562), the EPA 
explained that for ``blowing stills that use chlorinated catalysts, 
emissions of HCl can be reduced by a gas scrubber using caustic 
scrubbing media.'' However, EPA did not identify any asphalt processing 
or asphalt roofing manufacturers that were using scrubbers at that 
time. In the 2003 preamble, EPA stated that ``since gas scrubbing has 
not been demonstrated as an effective technology for controlling HCl 
emissions from asphalt processing and due to the potentially high cost 
per megagram of HCl reduced ($23,900), the additional cost of going 
beyond-the-floor was not warranted. Nor is process substitution a 
viable option for controlling HCl emissions . . . .'' \20\ Therefore, 
in the 2003 final rule preamble, the EPA concluded that ``MACT for HCl 
emissions from blowing stills using catalyst was based on no emission 
reduction.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ During development of the 2001 proposed rule (66 FR 58610) 
and the 2003 final rule (68 FR 24562), the EPA also considered 
requiring facilities to use non-chlorinated catalysts. However, the 
EPA determined that the need to use catalyst is driven by the 
quality of the asphalt feedstocks, which is highly variable. Because 
the demand for high-quality asphalt flux can sometimes be greater 
than the supply and because high-quality feedstocks might not be 
available in a particular geographic region, some roofing 
manufacturers must accept lower quality feedstock. These sources 
must use a catalyst in the asphalt flux blowing operation or they 
cannot produce an acceptable asphalt product for roofing materials. 
See 66 FR 58610, 58618-19 (November 21, 2001) and 68 FR 24562, 24565 
(May 7, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in detail in section IV.C of this preamble, the EPA 
again evaluated possible options to reduce HCl emissions, but as in the 
2003 rulemaking (68 FR 24562), we did not identify any cost-effective 
practices, processes, or control technologies to reduce HCl emissions.
    For the other emissions sources (i.e., asphalt loading racks, 
coating mixers, saturators (including wet loopers), coaters, sealant 
applicators, adhesive (laminate) applicators), we also did not identify 
any processes, practices, or control technologies that would further 
reduce emissions and health risks from these sources (see section IV.C 
of this preamble for more details). Therefore, we are proposing that 
additional standards for these emission sources are not necessary to 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
    In summary, due to the low level of current risk, the minimal risk 
reductions that could be achieved with the control options that we 
evaluated for asphalt storage tanks and the substantial costs 
associated with those additional control options, and because we did 
not identify cost-effective processes, practices, or control 
technologies that would further reduce emissions and health risks from 
asphalt loading racks, coating mixers, saturators (including wet 
loopers), coaters, sealant applicators, adhesive (laminate) 
applicators, and blowing stills, we are proposing that the current 
NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
    Considering the results of our environmental risk screening, we do 
not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions 
from these source categories, and we are proposing that it is not 
necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into 
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an 
adverse environmental effect.

C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology 
review?

1. Introduction
    In section III.B of this preamble, we describe our typical approach 
for conducting technology reviews and the types of information we 
gather and evaluate as part of these reviews. In addition, as we 
described in the preamble of the Coke Ovens RTR final rule published on 
April 15, 2005 (70 FR 20009), and in the recent proposed RTR rule for 
coatings operations titled National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Large Appliances; Printing, Coating, 
and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and Surface Coating of Metal 
Furniture Residual Risk and Technology Reviews published on September 
12, 2018 (83 FR 46262), we believe that the results of a CAA section 
112(f) risk determination for a CAA section 112(d) standard should be 
key factors in any subsequent CAA section 112(d)(6) determination for 
that standard. In these two previous actions, the agency described 
potential scenarios where it may not be necessary to revise the 
standards based on developments in technologies, practices, or 
processes if the remaining risks associated with HAP emissions from a 
source category have already been reduced to a level where we have 
determined further reductions under CAA section 112(f) are not 
necessary. Under one scenario, if the ample margin of safety analysis 
for the CAA section 112(f) determination was not based on the 
availability or cost of particular control technologies, practices, or 
processes, then advances in air pollution control technology, 
practices, or processes would not necessarily be a cause to revise the 
MACT standard pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), because the CAA 
section 112(f) standard (or a CAA section 112(d) standard evaluated 
pursuant to CAA section 112(f)) would continue to assure an adequate 
level of safety. Under another scenario, if the ample margin of safety 
analysis for a CAA section 112(f) standard (or a CAA section 112(d) 
standard evaluated pursuant to CAA section 112(f)) shows that lifetime 
excess cancer risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from a 
source in the category is less than 1-in-1 million, and the remaining 
risk associated with threshold pollutants falls below a similar 
threshold of safety, then no further revision under CAA section 
112(d)(6) would be necessary, because an ample margin of safety has 
already been assured.

[[Page 18943]]

    As described in the risk review sections of this preamble (see 
sections IV.A and IV.B), the risks due to HAP emissions from the 
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories 
are low. The inhalation cancer MIR is below 1-in-1 million, the maximum 
inhalation chronic noncancer HI is below 1, and the worst-case maximum 
inhalation acute HQ is 4 (using the REL for formaldehyde). With regard 
to multipathway risks, based on a Tier 2 screening assessment, we are 
confident that the cancer risks due to multipathway exposures are lower 
than 2-in-1 million and the noncancer HI is less than 1. Furthermore, 
as described in our ample margin of safety analysis (see section IV.B 
of this preamble), we concluded that risks are acceptable and the 
current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health.
    We, therefore, solicit comment on whether revisions to the NESHAP 
are ``necessary,'' as that term is used in CAA section 112(d)(6), in 
situations such as this where the EPA has determined that CAA section 
112(d) standards evaluated pursuant to CAA section 112(f) provide an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. In other words, we solicit comment on the 
conclusion that, if remaining risks associated with air emissions from 
a source category have already been reduced to levels where we have 
determined that further reductions are not necessary under CAA section 
112(f), then it is not ``necessary'' to revise the standards based on 
developments in technologies, practices, or processes under CAA section 
112(d)(6). See CAA section 112(d)(6) (``The Administrator shall review, 
and revise as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies), emissions standards promulgated 
under this section no less often than every 8 years.'').
    Though we believe the results of the ample margin of safety 
analysis may eliminate the need to revise the emissions standards based 
on developments in technologies, practices, or processes, we 
nonetheless conducted a technology review to determine whether any 
developments to further reduce HAP emissions have occurred and to 
consider whether the current standards should be revised to reflect any 
such developments.
2. Sources of Emissions and the Information Considered in Our 
Technology Review
    Sources of HAP emissions regulated by the NESHAP for the Asphalt 
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories include 
each blowing still, asphalt loading rack, and asphalt storage tank at 
asphalt processing facilities and each coating mixer, coater, 
saturator, wet looper, asphalt storage tank, and sealant and adhesive 
applicator at asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities. Pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology review to determine 
whether any developments have occurred since promulgation of the 2003 
NESHAP that may warrant revisions to the current Asphalt Processing and 
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP.
    In conducting our technology review, we used and reviewed the RBLC 
database, subsequent air toxic regulatory actions for other source 
categories, information from site visits, and data submitted by 
facilities in response to the CAA section 114 request (see sections 
II.C and II.D of this preamble). The findings of our technology review 
are described below. Further details are provided in the technical 
memorandum titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Review for the 
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories, 
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662, which is available in the docket 
for this proposed rule.
3. Asphalt Loading Racks, Asphalt Storage Tanks, Coating Mixers, 
Saturators (Including Wet Loopers), Coaters, Sealant Applicators, and 
Adhesive Applicators
    After reviewing information from the aforementioned resources, we 
did not find any developments (since promulgation of the original 
NESHAP) in practices, processes, and control technologies that could be 
applied to asphalt loading racks, asphalt storage tanks, coating 
mixers, saturators (including wet loopers), coaters, sealant 
applicators, or adhesive (laminate) applicators and that could be used 
to reduce emissions from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing facilities. We also did not identify any developments in 
work practices, pollution prevention techniques, or process changes 
that could achieve emission reductions from these emissions sources.
    We determined that the control technologies used to control stack 
emissions from these emission sources have not changed since the EPA 
promulgated the NESHAP on April 29, 2003 (68 FR 22975). In general, 
facilities continue to use combustion technology to control organic HAP 
emissions from asphalt loading racks and asphalt storage tanks in the 
Asphalt Processing source category, and facilities in the Asphalt 
Roofing Manufacturing source category continue to use either combustion 
technology or PM control devices to control organic HAP emissions from 
coaters, saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, sealant and adhesive 
applicators, and asphalt storage tanks.
    In light of the results of the technology review for asphalt 
loading racks, asphalt storage tanks, coating mixers, saturators 
(including wet loopers), coaters, sealant applicators, and adhesive 
(laminate) applicators, we propose to conclude that no revisions to the 
current standards are necessary for these emission sources pursuant to 
CAA section 112(d)(6). For further details on the information, 
assumptions, and methodologies used in this analysis, see the technical 
memorandum titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Review for the 
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories, 
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662. We solicit comment on our 
proposed decision for these emission sources.
4. Blowing Stills
    The main HAP emitted from blowing stills are organic HAP (such as 
formaldehyde, methylene chloride, phenol, POM, toluene) and HCl. We 
evaluated potential developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies for these HAP.
    As previously discussed in the proposal for the original 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart LLLLL, rulemaking standards (66 FR 58610), in asphalt 
processing, heated asphalt flux is taken from storage and charged to a 
heated blowing still where air is bubbled up through the flux. This 
process raises the softening temperature of the asphalt. The blowing 
process also decreases the penetration rate of the asphalt when applied 
to the roofing substrate. Organic HAP volatilize and/or are formed 
during asphalt processing because of the exothermic oxidation reactions 
that occur in the blowing still. Facilities use thermal oxidizers to 
control organic HAP emissions from these sources. We did not identify 
any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies, nor 
any developments in work practices, pollution prevention techniques, or 
process changes to control organic HAP from blowing stills at asphalt 
processing facilities.

[[Page 18944]]

    Some processing operations use a catalyst (e.g., ferric chloride, 
phosphoric acid) in the blowing still that promotes the oxidation of 
asphalt in the blowing still. The need to use a catalyst is primarily 
driven by the type of feedstock used (i.e., certain feedstocks require 
the catalyst to be used to attain desired product specifications). If 
facilities use a chlorinated catalyst in the blowing still during 
asphalt processing, then HCl emissions can result from (1) the 
conversion of ferric chloride catalyst to ferrous chloride in the 
blowing still, (2) HCl present in the ferric catalyst itself, (3) trace 
amount of HCl present in the asphalt flux, and (4) oxidation of 
chlorinated compounds by the blowing still thermal oxidizer.
    In addition to assessing developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies for organic HAP emitted from blowing stills, the 
EPA also elected to conduct a technology review for these HCl 
emissions. Based on the responses to the EPA's CAA section 114 request 
(see section II.C of this preamble for details about our CAA section 
114 request), we determined that none of the 10 existing blowing stills 
that use a chlorinated catalyst uses an air pollution control device 
(APCD) to control HCl emissions. However, we identified two potential 
HCl emission reduction options: (1) Installing a packed bed scrubber at 
the outlet of the blowing still (or at the outlet of the combustion 
device controlling organic HAP emissions) or (2) installing a dry 
sorbent injection and fabric filter at the outlet of the blowing still. 
Although the EPA previously considered (and rejected) the installation 
of scrubbers to control HCl emissions from blowing stills under the 
beyond-the-floor analysis for the original 2001 rulemaking proposal (66 
FR 58610),\21\ we identified option 1 as a potential development in 
practices, processes, and control technologies based on a response 
received from the CAA section 114 request indicating that one facility 
uses a caustic scrubber to control hydrogen sulfide (non-HAP) emissions 
from one of their blowing stills. We believe that while the primary 
purpose of the caustic scrubber is to reduce hydrogen sulfide 
emissions, there is also likely a reduction in HCl emissions due to the 
use of caustic as the scrubbing medium. We identified option 2 as a 
potential development in practices, processes, and control technologies 
because it reflects HCl control options used in EPA's New Source 
Performance Standards and Emission Guidelines for Hospital/Medical/
Infectious Waste Incinerators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The EPA determined in the original 2001 proposal that no 
facility was using scrubbers to control HCl emissions from blowing 
stills, and scrubbers were not cost effective for controlling HCl 
emissions from blowing stills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 of this preamble presents the nationwide impacts for the 
two HCl emission reduction options considered for blowing stills. We 
estimate the total capital costs for these controls would be about $7.4 
million to $10.7 million with annualized costs of $1.4 million to $2.3 
million. Based on available information, only three facilities in the 
U.S. currently use the chlorinated catalyst. The cost estimates shown 
in Table 3 reflect the total estimated costs for those three 
facilities. Therefore, the average capital costs for option 1 would be 
about $2,480,000 per facility, the average annualized costs would be 
about $500,000 per facility, and the average HCl cost effectiveness 
would be about $60,000 per ton. The costs for option 2 are higher.

  Table 3--Nationwide Emissions Reductions and Cost Impacts of Control Options Considered for Blowing Stills at
                                          Asphalt Processing Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    HCl cost
           Control option               Total capital     Total annualized     HCl emission    effectiveness ($/
                                        investment ($)      costs ($/yr)     reductions (tpy)         ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................          7,436,000          1,440,000                134             10,800
2...................................         10,719,000          2,337,000                127             18,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See the technical memorandum titled Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) 
Review for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 
Source Categories, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662 for details 
regarding the information, assumptions, and methodologies used to 
calculate these estimates. Given that the estimated risks due to HCl 
emissions are low and based on the relatively high costs per facility 
for each of the options, we propose to conclude that neither of these 
options is necessary for reducing HCl emissions from blowing stills 
that use chlorinated catalysts. In addition, we considered whether it 
might be feasible for facilities that need to use a catalyst to use 
non-chlorinated substitute catalysts. However, we did not identify a 
viable non-chlorinated catalyst substitute. Therefore, in light of the 
results of the technology review, we are proposing that it is not 
necessary to promulgate an emissions standard in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart LLLLL, for blowing stills pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). We 
solicit comment on our proposed decision.

D. What are the overall results of the risk and technology reviews?

    As noted in section IV.B of this preamble, we conclude that risks 
are acceptable and that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health and prevents an adverse environmental 
effect.
    Based on our technology review, we did not identify any 
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that 
warrant revisions to the NESHAP. Therefore, we propose that no 
revisions to the NESHAP are necessary pursuant to sections 112(f) or 
112(d)(6) of the CAA for HAP emitted from these source categories.

E. What other actions are we proposing?

    In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are 
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing 
revisions to the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) provisions of 
the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with the 
Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 
which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement 
to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission 
standards during periods of SSM. We also are proposing revisions to 
require electronic reporting of emissions test results and reports, 
performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and Notification of 
Compliance Status reports, to add an option for establishing the 
maximum pressure drop across a control device used to comply with the 
PM standards,

[[Page 18945]]

to add requirements for periodic performance testing, and to clarify 
text or correct typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-
reference errors. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these 
issues are discussed below.
1. SSM Requirements
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's 
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during 
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that 
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations 
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the 
CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply 
continuously.
a. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule, 
which appears at 40 CFR 63.8685(a), as well as other provisions related 
to that exemption as discussed below. Consistent with Sierra Club v. 
EPA, we are proposing that the standards in this rule apply at all 
times. We are proposing several revisions to Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL 
of Part 63 (the General Provisions Applicability Table, hereafter 
referred to as the ``General Provisions table to subpart LLLLL'') as is 
explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing at 40 CFR 
63.8685(c) to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' 
requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We are also proposing 
to make 40 CFR 63.8691(d) no longer applicable beginning 181 days after 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, which specifies 
that deviations during SSM periods are not violations, and to remove 
the portion of the ``deviation'' definition in 40 CFR 63.8698 that 
specifically addresses SSM periods. We also are proposing to eliminate 
and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to 
the SSM exemption as further described below.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are 
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in 
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment 
on whether we have successfully done so. In proposing the removal of 
the exemptions, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown 
periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not proposed 
alternate standards for those periods.
    We are proposing that startups and shutdowns are normal operation 
for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source 
categories; therefore, emissions from startup and shutdown activities 
must be included when determining if all the standards are being 
attained. We are proposing at 40 CFR 63.8685(a) that facilities must be 
in compliance with the emission limitations (including operating 
limits) in this subpart ``at all times,'' except during periods of 
nonoperation of the affected source (or specific portion thereof) 
resulting in cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies. 
Similar language is also being proposed for 40 CFR 63.8690(b) and 40 
CFR 63.8691(b) for monitoring and collecting data, and meeting 
operating limits, respectively. We are proposing to clarify that the 
standards and operating limits do not apply ``. . . during periods of 
nonoperation of the affected source (or specific portion thereof) 
resulting in cessation of the emissions . . .'' because industry 
stakeholders requested this clarification in their responses to the CAA 
section 114 request (see section II.C of this preamble), and this 
language is used in other MACT standards (e.g., 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
YY). Furthermore, based on the information we received for control 
device operations from the responses to the CAA section 114 request 
(see section II.C of this preamble), we concluded that control devices 
can be operated normally during periods of startup or shutdown for 
these source categories. Emission reductions from blowing stills, 
storage tanks, saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, sealant 
applicators, and adhesive applicators are typically achieved by routing 
vapors to a combustion device (e.g., thermal oxidizer, flare, process 
heater, or boiler) to meet a THC standard, or to a particulate control 
device (e.g., high velocity air filter, electrostatic precipitator, or 
fiberbed filter) to meet a PM standard. In some cases, the facility may 
need to run a combustion device on supplemental fuel before there are 
enough volatile organic compounds for the combustion to be (nearly) 
self-sustaining. It is common practice to start a control device prior 
to startup of the emissions source it is controlling, so the control 
device would be operating before emissions are routed to it. We expect 
control devices would be operating during startup and shutdown events 
in a manner consistent with normal operating periods, and that these 
control devices will be operated to maintain and meet the monitoring 
parameter operating limits set during the performance test. We do not 
expect startup and shutdown events to affect emissions from blowing 
stills, storage tanks, saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, sealant 
applicators, or adhesive applicators. Emissions generated during 
startup and shutdown periods are the same or lower than during steady-
state conditions because the amount of feed materials (e.g., asphalt 
flux or oxidized asphalt) introduced to the process during those 
periods is lower compared to normal operations. Therefore, if the 
emission control devices are operated during startup and shutdown, then 
HAP emissions will be the same or lower than during steady-state 
operating conditions.
    We are also proposing new related language in 40 CFR 63.8685(b) to 
require that the owner or operator operate and maintain any affected 
source, including air pollution control equipment and monitoring 
equipment, at all times to minimize emissions. For example, in the 
event of an emission capture system or control device malfunction for a 
controlled operation, to comply with the proposed new language in 40 
CFR 63.8685(b), the facility would need to cease the controlled 
operation as quickly as practicable to ensure that excess emissions 
during emission capture system and control device malfunctions are 
minimized. See section IV.E.1.b.i of this preamble for further 
discussion of this proposed revision.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, 
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by 
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures 
of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) 
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not 
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be 
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards, and this 
reading has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. 
v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions 
standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level 
``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source, and for existing 
sources, generally, must be no less stringent than the average emission 
limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of sources in 
the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the 
Agency to

[[Page 18946]]

consider malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved'' by the best 
performing sources when setting emission standards. As the Court has 
recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation achieved by the 
best performing 12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how the 
performance of the best units is to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of 
Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 
While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, 
nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions 
as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a 
malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance 
that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a 
failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner,'' and 
no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in 
setting CAA section 112 standards.
    As the D.C. Circuit recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for 
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not 
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 
occur across all sources in the category, and given the difficulties 
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and 
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the 
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to 
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an 
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely 
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of 
circumstances.''). As such, the performance of units that are 
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra 
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically 
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary 
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to 
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than 
to `invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.' ''). See also, 
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the 
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any 
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain 
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable 
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator 
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be 
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement 
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In 
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly 
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For 
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal 
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for 
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a 
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source 
would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control 
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction 
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the 
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual 
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example 
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that 
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels 
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is 
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The 
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and 
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for 
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For 
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a 
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in 
releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events 
because we had information to determine that such work practices 
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performing 
sources. 80 FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will 
consider whether circumstances warrant setting work practice standards 
for a particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has 
sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources 
and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage 
commenters to provide any such information.
    It is unlikely that a malfunction in the Asphalt Processing and 
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing source categories would result in a 
violation of the standard. Because a process malfunction could lead to 
defective products, it would need to be corrected by the operators as 
quickly as possible to minimize economic losses. Furthermore, a process 
malfunction would not necessarily lead to an increase in the HAP 
content of the asphalt flux or oxidized asphalt used in the process, or 
the amount of HAP emitted from the process. Finally, a malfunction of 
an emission capture system and control device in which the operator 
responds by quickly ceasing the associated operation is also unlikely 
to lead to a violation because compliance is based on a 3-hour average 
compliance period.
    In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the 
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction 
event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among 
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize 
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and 
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and 
rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the 
source's failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in 
fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable, and was not 
instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 
CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement 
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is 
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that 
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, 
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement 
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative 
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether 
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA's interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, 
CAA section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid 
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing 
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur 
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those 
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
b. Proposed Revisions Related to the General Provisions Applicability 
Table
i. 40 CFR 63.8685(b) General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes'' 
in column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) would no longer 
be applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register. Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty 
to minimize

[[Page 18947]]

emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary 
or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are 
proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 
63.8685(b) that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while 
eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The 
current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general 
duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM 
exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations, 
startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general 
duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 
63.8685(b) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to 
subpart LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) would be 
no longer applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes 
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM 
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being 
added at 40 CFR 63.8685(b).
ii. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 4 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require development 
of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to make the current 
provisions at 40 CFR 63.8685(c) requiring the SSM plan to no longer be 
applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM 
exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission 
standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during 
such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for 
and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no 
longer necessary.
iii. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) would no longer be 
applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts 
sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed 
above, the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA vacated the exemptions contained 
in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 
112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 
the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all 
times.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) would no longer be 
applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts 
sources from opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed 
above, the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA vacated the exemptions contained 
in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 
112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA 
is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
iv. 40 CFR 63.8687 Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) would no longer be 
applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register. We are also proposing to remove a similar 
requirement at 40 CFR 63.8687(c). Section 63.7(e)(1) describes 
performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a 
performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.8687(b) applicable 
beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. The performance testing requirements we are proposing to add 
differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in 
several respects. The proposed regulatory text does not include the 
language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and 
language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being 
considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. The 
proposed performance testing provisions will not allow performance 
testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), 
performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted 
during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often 
not representative of normal operating conditions. 40 CFR 63.7(e) 
requires that the owner or operator maintain records of process 
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during 
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such 
conditions represent normal operation. The EPA is proposing at 40 CFR 
63.8687(b) to add language clarifying that the owner or operator must 
make such records available to the Administrator upon request.
v. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing 
the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and 
(iii) would no longer be applicable beginning 181 days after 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The cross-
references to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in those 
subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other requirements of 40 
CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 
63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control 
program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
vi. 40 CFR 63.8694 Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes'' 
in column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) would no longer 
be applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the 
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording 
provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that 
recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply 
to startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions 
applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown 
plan, there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup 
and shutdown periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) would 
no longer be applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii)

[[Page 18948]]

describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, 
requiring a record of ``the occurrence and duration of each 
malfunction.'' A similar recordkeeping requirement is already in 40 CFR 
63.8694(a)(1), requiring owners and operators to retain a copy of each 
compliance report; and we are proposing at 40 CFR 63.8693(d) that the 
compliance report contain, amongst other data elements, a record of 
``the date, time, and duration'' of each deviation from an emission 
limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and visible emission limit. The 
regulatory text we are proposing to add differs from the General 
Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions requires the 
creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of 
each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring 
equipment; however, the EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to 
any failure to meet an applicable standard (e.g., any malfunction that 
leads to a deviation from an emission limit, operating limit, opacity 
limit, or visible emission limit) and is requiring that the source 
record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the 
``occurrence.'' For each deviation, the EPA is also proposing to add to 
40 CFR 63.8693(d)(4) and (13) a requirement that sources include in 
their compliance reports (and, therefore, keep records pursuant to 40 
CFR 63.8694(a)(1)) a list of the affected source or equipment and 
actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of 
each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limitation for which 
the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method 
used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include 
product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when 
available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. 
The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this 
information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the 
EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to 
provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to 
minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable 
standard.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) would 
no longer be applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register. When applicable, the provision 
requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions 
were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer 
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The 
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to 
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is 
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.8693(d)(4) (i.e., the 
requirement to include this information in each compliance report and 
keep records pursuant to 63.8694(a)(1)).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes'' 
in column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) would no longer 
be applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register. When applicable, the provision requires sources 
to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken 
were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer 
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    We are proposing to make the requirement in 40 CFR 63.8693(d)(4) 
and at Table 6 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 that deviation records 
specify whether deviations from a standard occurred during a period of 
SSM (i.e., the requirement to include this information in each 
compliance report and keep records pursuant to 40 CFR 63.8694(a)(1)) is 
no longer applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register. This revision is being proposed due to 
the proposed removal of the SSM exemption and because, as discussed 
above in this section, we are proposing that deviation records must 
specify the cause of each deviation, which could include a malfunction 
period as a cause. We are also proposing to remove the requirement to 
report the SSM records in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) by making 
40 CFR 63.8694(a)(2) no longer applicable beginning 181 days after 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
vii. 40 CFR 63.8693 Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) would no longer be 
applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register. Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting 
requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the 
General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add 
reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.8693. The replacement language 
differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates 
periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language 
that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any 
time to report the information concerning such events in the semi-
annual compliance report already required under this rule. The rule 
currently requires reporting of the date and time of each deviation, 
and a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations by cause. We 
are clarifying in the rule that the cause of each deviation be 
reported, and if the cause of a deviation from the standard is unknown, 
this should be specified in the report. We are also proposing to make a 
harmonizing change between provisions in the reporting section. In 40 
CFR 63.8693(d)(1), (2), and (4), the current rule requires reporting of 
the ``date and time'' of periods where a source deviates from a 
standard; whereas 40 CFR 63.8693(d)(3) requires a record of the ``date, 
time and duration'' of periods where a source deviates from a standard. 
The EPA is proposing to change the terminology in 40 CFR 63.8693(d)(1), 
(2), and (4) for periods where a source deviates from a standard, to 
report the ``start date, start time, and duration'' of the deviation. 
Note that ``date and time'' carries the same meaning as ``start date, 
start time, and duration.'' We are proposing that the report must also 
contain the number of deviations from the standard, a list of the 
affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each 
regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description 
of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate 
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission 
limitation for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a 
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, examples of 
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance 
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment 
based on known process parameters (e.g., asphalt HAP content and 
application rates, and control efficiencies). The EPA is proposing this 
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine 
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure 
to

[[Page 18949]]

meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how 
the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure 
to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether 
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, 
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, 
therefore, eliminate (beginning 181 days after publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register) the requirement in paragraph 5.d at Table 
6 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 and 40 CFR 63.8693(c)(4) that requires 
reporting of whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including 
required actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the cross 
reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the 
previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this 
section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the 
events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar 
format and submittal requirements.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
LLLLL (Table 7) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) would no longer be 
applicable beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register and remove the requirement in paragraph 6 at Table 
6 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 for reasons discussed above; and because 
40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups, 
shutdowns, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable 
standard but, did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require 
owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan, because 
plans would no longer be required.
    We are proposing to make the requirement in 40 CFR 63.8693(d)(4) 
that deviation reports specify whether deviation from a standard 
occurred during a period of SSM no longer applicable beginning 181 days 
after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. This 
revision is being proposed due to the proposed removal of the SSM 
exemption and because, as discussed above in this section, we are 
proposing that deviation reports must specify the cause of each 
deviation, which could include a malfunction period as a cause. 
Further, we are proposing to make the requirement in 40 CFR 
63.8693(d)(6) that deviation reports must break down the total duration 
of deviations into those that are due to ``startup'' and ``shutdown'' 
causes are no longer applicable beginning 181 days after publication of 
the final rule in the Federal Register. These categories are no longer 
needed because these periods are proposed to be considered normal 
operation, as discussed in section IV.E.1.a of this preamble.
2. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that beginning 181 days 
after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, owners and 
operators of asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing 
facilities submit electronic copies of required performance test 
reports, performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and 
Notification of Compliance Status reports through the EPA's Central 
Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 
Interface (CEDRI). A description of the electronic data submission 
process is provided in the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting 
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, 
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662. The proposed rule 
requires that performance test results collected using test methods 
that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as 
listed on the ERT website \22\ at the time of the test be submitted in 
the format generated through the use of the ERT, and that other 
performance test results be submitted in portable document format (PDF) 
using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance 
evaluation results of continuous monitoring systems measuring relative 
accuracy test audit pollutants that are supported by the ERT at the 
time of the test must be submitted in the format generated through the 
use of the ERT and other performance evaluation results be submitted in 
PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For compliance reports, the proposed rule requires that owners and 
operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit 
information to CEDRI beginning 181 days after publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register. A draft version of the proposed template 
for these reports is included in the docket for this rulemaking.\23\ 
The EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and 
overall design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 
40_CFR_Part_63_Subpart_LLLLL_Asphalt_Processing_and_Asphalt_Roofing_M
anufacturing_Semiannual_Spreadsheet_Template_Draft.xlsm, available 
at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in 
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both 
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional 
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and 
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these 
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance 
in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the 
reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The first 
situation in which an extension may be warranted is due to outages of 
the EPA's CDX or CEDRI that precludes an owner or operator from 
accessing the system and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 
CFR 63.8693(h). The second situation is due to a force majeure event, 
which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by 
circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its 
contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to 
submit a report electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 
40 CFR 63.8693(i). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of 
war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the 
control of the facility.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed 
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those 
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and 
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health 
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the 
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with 
requirements, and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, 
local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and 
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated 
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting 
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and 
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing 
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the 
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, 
electronic reporting is

[[Page 18950]]

consistent with the EPA's plan \24\ to implement Executive Order 13563 
and is in keeping with the EPA's Agency-wide policy \25\ developed in 
response to the White House's Digital Government Strategy.\26\ For more 
information on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum 
titled Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance 
Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0662.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, 
August 2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \25\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \26\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Operating Limits for Control Devices Used To Comply With the 
Particulate Standards
    As part of the CAA section 114 request (see section II.C of this 
preamble), the EPA asked companies for suggestions to improve rule 
implementation or facilitate compliance activities. In lieu of the 
current requirement for facilities to set operating limits (i.e., the 
maximum inlet gas temperature and maximum pressure drop across the 
device) based on levels measured during a performance test for control 
devices used to comply with the PM standards, several companies 
requested that the EPA allow facilities to use manufacturers' 
specifications to establish these site-specific operating limits. These 
companies pointed out that the EPA allows owners and operators to use 
manufacturers' specifications in the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt 
Roofing Manufacturing area source NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.11562(b)(3)(iii) 
for control devices other than thermal oxidizers. These companies also 
asserted that PM control devices achieve compliance with the PM 
standards of the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 
NESHAP across a broad range of temperatures and pressure drops, but it 
is difficult to schedule testing dates that capture the maximum inlet 
gas temperature and maximum pressure drop across the device (i.e., to 
demonstrate compliance across the entirety of the effective ranges) due 
to their dependence on ambient temperature and operating life of the 
filter media.
    Based on this feedback, the EPA is proposing to add an option at 40 
CFR 63.8689(d) and Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 to allow the use 
of manufacturers' specifications to establish the maximum pressure drop 
across the control device used to comply with the PM standards. 
However, although the manufacturers' specification for temperature 
would normally indicate proper operation of the control device, in this 
rule PM is acting as a surrogate for organic emissions. The particulate 
in question is condensed asphalt fumes, and formation of the PM and the 
emissions of organic compounds are temperature dependent. Therefore, 
instead of proposing the use of manufacturers' specifications for 
temperature limits, but to still provide facilities some flexibility 
with regard to an appropriate temperature range, the EPA is proposing 
to add a footnote to Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 of the Asphalt 
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP to allow owners and 
operators to use the performance test average inlet temperature and 
apply an operating margin of +20 percent to determine maximum inlet gas 
temperature of a control device used to comply with the PM standards. 
For example, during the three test runs conducted for an owner's or 
operator's performance test that demonstrated compliance with the 
emission limit, if the arithmetic average of the device inlet gas 
temperature recorded was 100 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F), then under 
this proposed option, the owner's or operator's maximum operating limit 
for this control device would be 120 [deg]F, or +20 percent of 100 
[deg]F. The +20 percent buffer addresses the high impact of ambient 
conditions on the inlet temperature and removes some of the scheduling 
uncertainty while still accounting for the temperature dependence of 
emissions.
4. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations Using Periodic 
Performance Testing
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various 
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance 
demonstration requirements in the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt 
Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP. Currently, the results of an initial 
performance test are used to determine compliance with the standards; 
however, the current NESHAP does not require on-going periodic 
performance testing.
    As mentioned by the Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC) in 
their comments on proposed revisions to the NESHAP General Provisions 
(72 FR 69, January 3, 2007), ongoing maintenance and checks of control 
devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions control technology 
remains effective.\27\ To ensure ongoing compliance with the standards, 
and given these comments from ICAC (suppliers of air pollution control 
and monitoring technology) on the need for vigilance in maintaining 
equipment to stem degradation, the EPA is proposing periodic 
performance testing requirements at 40 CFR 63.8691(e) for each APCD 
used to comply with the PM, THC, opacity, or visible emission 
standards, in addition to the current one-time initial performance 
testing and ongoing operating limit monitoring. We are proposing that 
the performance tests must be conducted at least once every 5 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094-0173, available at 
https://www.regulations.gov. A copy of the ICAC's comments on the 
proposed revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the 
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For PM and THC standards, we are proposing that owners and 
operators of asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing 
facilities would conduct three 1-hour (or longer) test runs to measure 
emissions according to 40 CFR 63.8687(d), and compliance would be 
determined based on the average of the three test runs according to 40 
CFR 63.7(e)(3). To measure PM, we are proposing at Table 3 to Subpart 
LLLLL of Part 63 that owners and operators would use EPA Method 5A of 
appendix A to 40 CFR part 60; and for THC emissions, we are proposing 
at Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 that owners and operators would 
use EPA Method 25A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 (with EPA Methods 3A 
and 10 if owners and operators are complying with the combustion 
efficiency standards or with EPA Methods 1-4 if meeting the THC 
destruction efficiency standards), which are the methods currently 
required for the initial compliance demonstration. To measure opacity, 
we are proposing at Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 that owners and 
operators would use EPA Method 9 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60; and 
for visible emissions, we are proposing at Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of 
Part 63 that owners and operators would use EPA Method 22 of appendix A 
to 40 CFR part 60, which are also the methods currently required for 
the initial compliance demonstration.
    Finally, we recognize some affected sources are used infrequently. 
Therefore, we are proposing that owners and operators would not be 
required to

[[Page 18951]]

restart an affected source for the sole purpose of complying with the 
periodic performance testing. Instead, upon restart of the affected 
source, we are proposing owners and operators conduct the first 
periodic performance test within 60 days of achieving normal operating 
conditions, but no later than 181 days from startup.
    See section IV.F of this preamble for a discussion of when we are 
proposing that the first and subsequent periodic performance tests must 
be performed.
    We estimated a cost for PM performance testing using EPA Test 
Method 5A to be $16,500 for the first emission point, with an 
additional cost of $11,100 for each additional emission point at a 
facility. We estimated a cost for THC performance testing using EPA 
Test Method 25A to range from $16,200 (if complying with the 
concentration standard) to $20,750 (if complying with an efficiency 
standard). We estimated a cost for opacity testing using EPA Test 
Method 9 to be $1,500. Details of these cost estimates are included in 
the memorandum titled Cost Impacts of Asphalt Processing and Asphalt 
Roofing Manufacturing Risk and Technology Review Proposal in Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662. We solicit comment on our cost estimates for 
conducting these tests.
5. Other Corrections
    There are several additional revisions that we are proposing to 40 
CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL to clarify text or correct typographical 
errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors. These proposed 
editorial corrections and clarifications are summarized in Table 4 of 
this preamble.

 Table 4--Summary of Proposed Editorial and Minor Corrections to 40 CFR
                         Part 63, Subpart LLLLL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Provision                        Proposed revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.8681(a) and (f), and      Remove duplicative cross-reference
 63.8683(c).                         to definition of major source and
                                     point directly to 40 CFR 63.2.
40 CFR 63.8683(d).................  Clarify which paragraphs of 40 CFR
                                     63.9 are applicable to be
                                     consistent with the General
                                     Provisions table to subpart LLLLL
                                     (Table 7).
40 CFR 63.8684....................  Revise heading to include ``and
                                     operating limits'' to clarify
                                     content of 40 CFR 63.8684.
40 CFR 63.8686....................  Revise heading to include
                                     ``initial'' to clarify content of
                                     40 CFR 63.8686.
40 CFR 63.8686(a).................  Clarify paragraph is applicable to
                                     initial performance tests.
40 CFR 63.8688(f) and               Clarify which paragraphs of 40 CFR
 63.8688(h)(1).                      63.8 are applicable to be
                                     consistent with the General
                                     Provisions table to subpart LLLLL
                                     (Table 7).
40 CFR 63.8688(h)(3)..............  Clarify which paragraphs of 40 CFR
                                     63.10 are applicable to be
                                     consistent with the General
                                     Provisions table to subpart LLLLL
                                     (Table 7). Also, for consistency,
                                     add references to reporting and
                                     recordkeeping sections of rule.
40 CFR 63.8691....................  Revise heading to ``How do I conduct
                                     periodic performance tests and
                                     demonstrate continuous compliance
                                     with the emission limits and
                                     operating limits?'' to clarify
                                     content of 40 CFR 63.8691.
40 CFR 63.8691(a).................  Replace the words ``test methods''
                                     with ``the procedures'' because
                                     Table 5 contains procedures not
                                     test methods.
40 CFR 63.8692(a).................  Delete the word ``of.''
40 CFR 63.8692(e).................  Clarify this paragraph is applicable
                                     to all compliance demonstrations
                                     (not just initial compliance
                                     demonstrations).
40 CFR 63.8693(d).................  Clarify paragraph applies to
                                     compliance reports.
40 CFR 63.8697(b)(1)..............  Clarify approval of alternatives to
                                     the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8684
                                     and 40 CFR 63.8685 are retained by
                                     the Administrator of U.S. EPA.
40 CFR 63.8698....................  Clarify definitions of ``adhesive
                                     applicator'' and ``sealant
                                     applicator'' that open pan-type
                                     applicators were part of the
                                     asphalt roofing manufacturing lines
                                     that were considered in the
                                     original MACT analysis, and, thus,
                                     subject to the emission
                                     limitations. See Docket Item No.
                                     EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0035-0009 titled
                                     Documentation of Existing and New
                                     Source Maximum Achievable Control
                                     Technology (MACT) Floors for the
                                     National Emission Standards for
                                     Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
                                     for Asphalt Processing and Roofing
                                     Manufacturing for descriptions of
                                     adhesive and sealant applicators.
Paragraph 1 of Table 1 to Subpart   Remove the duplicative reference to
 LLLLL of Part 63.                   Group 1 asphalt storage tanks at
                                     new and reconstructed asphalt
                                     roofing manufacturing lines and add
                                     the word ``asphalt'' to the
                                     phrasing ``roofing manufacturing
                                     lines.''
Footnote b of Table 1 to Subpart    Correct reference to paragraph 3.a
 LLLLL of Part 63.                   of Table 1 to Subpart LLLLL of Part
                                     63.
Paragraph 4 of Table 2 to Subpart   Clarify if owners and operators use
 LLLLL of Part 63.                   other control devices that are
                                     neither a combustion device or a
                                     control device used to comply with
                                     the PM emission standards, then row
                                     4 of Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of
                                     Part 63 applies.
Footnote a of Table 2 to Subpart    Correct reference to Table 2 to
 LLLLL of Part 63.                   Subpart LLLLL of Part 63.
Footnote c of Table 2 to Subpart    Replace the word ``of'' with ``to.''
 LLLLL of Part 63.
Paragraphs 11, 12, and 13 of Table  Clarify these paragraphs are
 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63.      applicable to all performance
                                     testing (not just initial
                                     performance testing).
Paragraph 13 of Table 3 to Subpart  Clarify if owners and operators use
 LLLLL of Part 63.                   other control devices that are
                                     neither a combustion device or a
                                     control device used to comply with
                                     the PM emission standards, then row
                                     13 of Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of
                                     Part 63 applies.
Footnote a of Table 3 to Subpart    Correct reference to alternative
 LLLLL of Part 63.                   option that allows results of a
                                     previously-conducted emission test
                                     to document conformance with the
                                     emission standards and operating
                                     limits of this subpart, and clarify
                                     this option is only applicable to
                                     initial performance testing.
Footnote c of Table 3 to Subpart    Replace the word ``of'' with ``to.''
 LLLLL of Part 63.

[[Page 18952]]

 
Table 4 to Subpart LLLLL of Part    Clarify table is applicable for both
 63.                                 initial and continuous compliance.
                                     Also, remove the word ``initial''
                                     in last column heading to clarify
                                     the requirements in the column are
                                     applicable to all performance
                                     testing (not just initial
                                     performance testing).
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Table 4 to    Correct reference to 40 CFR 63.8686.
 Subpart LLLLL of Part 63.
Paragraph 4 of Table 5 to Subpart   Clarify if owners and operators use
 LLLLL of Part 63.                   other control devices that are
                                     neither a combustion device or a
                                     control device used to comply with
                                     the PM emission standards, then row
                                     4 of Table 5 to Subpart LLLLL of
                                     Part 63 applies.
Footnote a of Table 5 to Subpart    Correct references to Tables 2 and
 LLLLL of Part 63.                   5, and references to 40 CFR 63.8690
                                     and 63.8(g)(1) through (4).
Footnote d of Table 5 to Subpart    Replace the word ``of'' with ``to.''
 LLLLL of Part 63.
Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL of Part    Correct typographical error to show
 63.                                 that 40 CFR 63.8(d) does apply.
                                     Note, the typographical error is
                                     inconsistent with 40 CFR
                                     63.8688(h)(2) which says 40 CFR
                                     63.8(d) applies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    For three of the proposed rule revisions--changes related to 
removal of the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard 
during SSM periods, changes related to removal of the requirement to 
develop and implement an SSM plan, and addition of electronic reporting 
requirements--we anticipate that facilities would need 180 days to 
comply. This period of time will allow facilities to read and 
understand the amended rule requirements, to evaluate their operations 
to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup 
and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments, 
and to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary hardware and 
software. The EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most 
expeditious compliance period practicable for these source categories 
and, thus, we are proposing that all affected sources must comply with 
the revisions to the SSM provisions and electronic reporting 
requirements no later than 181 days after the effective date of the 
final rule, or upon startup, whichever is later. We specifically seek 
comment on whether 180 days is enough time for owners and operators to 
comply with these proposed amendments, and if the proposed time window 
is not adequate, we request the commenter provide an explanation.
    Also, we are proposing new requirements to conduct on-going 
periodic performance testing every 5 years (see section IV.E.4 of this 
preamble). Establishing a compliance date earlier than 3 years for the 
first periodic performance test can cause scheduling issues as affected 
sources compete for a limited number of testing contractors. 
Considering these scheduling issues, we are proposing that each 
existing affected source, and each new and reconstructed affected 
source that commences construction or reconstruction after November 21, 
2001, and on or before [date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register] that uses an APCD to comply with the standards, must 
conduct the first periodic performance test on or before [date 3 years 
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] and 
conduct subsequent periodic performance tests no later than 60 months 
thereafter following the previous performance test. For each new and 
reconstructed affected source that commences construction or 
reconstruction after [date of publication of final rule in the Federal 
Register] that uses an APCD to comply with the standards, we are 
proposing that owners and operators must conduct the first periodic 
performance no later than 60 months following the initial performance 
test required by 40 CFR 63.8689 and conduct subsequent periodic 
performance tests no later than 60 months thereafter following the 
previous performance test. If owners and operators used the alternative 
compliance option specified in 40 CFR 63.8686(b) to comply with the 
initial performance test, then we are proposing that they must conduct 
the first periodic performance no later than 60 months following the 
date they demonstrated to the Administrator that the requirements of 40 
CFR 63.8686(b) had been met.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

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

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The EPA estimates that annual HAP emissions from the eight asphalt 
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities that are 
subject to the NESHAP are approximately 255 tpy. Because we are not 
proposing revisions to the emission limits, we do not anticipate any 
air quality impacts as a result of the proposed amendments.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We estimate that the proposed amendments will result in a 
nationwide net cost savings of $221,100 over the 5-year period 
following promulgation of amendments. Because periodic performance 
testing would be required every 5 years, we estimated and summarized 
the cost savings over a 5-year period. The EPA believes that the eight 
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities that 
are known to be subject to the NESHAP can meet the proposed 
requirements without incurring additional capital costs. Therefore, the 
costs associated with the proposed amendments are related to 
recordkeeping and reporting labor costs and periodic performance 
testing. The proposed requirement for periodic testing of once every 5 
years results in an estimated increase in costs of about $92,500 over 
the 5-year period in addition to an estimated cost of about $3,300 for 
reviewing the proposed amendments. However, the proposed changes to the 
monitoring requirements

[[Page 18953]]

for PM control devices result in an estimated cost savings of about 
$316,900 over the 5-year period. Therefore, overall, we estimate a net 
cost savings of about $221,100 for the 5-year period. The proposed 
amendments to the monitoring requirements are projected to alleviate 
some need for asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities to have to 
retest the PM control device for the sole purpose of reestablishing new 
temperature and pressure drop operating limits, and to allow facilities 
to extend filter replacement by 3 months. For further information on 
the amendments being proposed, see section IV.E of this preamble. For 
further information on the costs and cost savings associated with the 
proposed amendments, see the memoranda, Cost Impacts of Asphalt 
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Risk and Technology Review 
Proposal, and Economic Impact Analysis for Asphalt Processing and 
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP RTR Proposal, which are available 
in the docket for this action. We solicit comment on these estimated 
cost impacts.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    As noted earlier, we estimated a nationwide cost savings associated 
with the proposed requirements over the 5-year period following 
promulgation of these amendments. Therefore, we do not expect the 
actions in this proposed rulemaking to result in business closures, 
significant price increases, or substantial profit loss. For further 
information on the economic impacts associated with the requirements 
being proposed, see the memorandum, Economic Impact Analysis for 
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP RTR 
Proposal, which is available in the docket for this action.

E. What are the benefits?

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

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general 
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional 
data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are 
specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used 
in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such 
data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to 
allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the 
data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more 
information on submitting data.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source categories 
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for 
download on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP 
emissions release point for the facilities in the source categories.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are 
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason 
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if 
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide 
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your 
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the 
RTR website, complete the following steps:
    1. Within the downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the 
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested 
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email 
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions 
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in 
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662 (through the method described in the 
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple 
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file 
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility 
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be 
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are 
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are 
provided on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, 
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.

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

    This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 
regulatory action because this action is not significant under 
Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The information 
collection request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 2029.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the 
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    We are proposing amendments that require periodic performance 
testing, require electronic reporting, remove the malfunction 
exemption, and impose other revisions that affect reporting and 
recordkeeping for asphalt processing facilities and asphalt roofing 
manufacturing facilities. This information would be collected to assure 
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of asphalt 
processing facilities and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart LLLLL).
    Estimated number of respondents: Eight (total).
    Frequency of response: Initial, semiannual, and annual.
    Total estimated burden: 69 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 
CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $53,800 (per year), which includes $46,300 
annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs.
    The estimated costs described in this section of the preamble are 
entirely offset by cost savings that are projected to alleviate some 
need for asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities to have to retest a 
PM control device for the sole purpose of reestablishing new

[[Page 18954]]

temperature and pressure drop operating limits; and allow facilities to 
extend filter replacement by 3 months (see section V.C of this preamble 
for details). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified 
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related 
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via 
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no 
later than June 3, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in 
sections III.A and C and sections IV.A and B of this preamble, and are 
further documented in the risk report, Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories 
in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, 
available in the docket for this action.

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

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

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

    This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 
conducted searches for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems 
Network Database managed by the American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI). We also contacted voluntary consensus standards (VCS) 
organizations and accessed and searched their databases. We conducted 
searches for EPA Methods 3A, 5A, 9, 10, 22, and 25A of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A. During the EPA's VCS search, if the title or abstract (if 
provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and analytical 
procedures that are similar to the EPA's reference method, the EPA 
reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential 
standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This 
review requires significant method validation data that meet the 
requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or 
scientific, engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA 
reference methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of 
impracticality when additional information is available for particular 
VCS.
    No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 5A and 22. The 
following VCS were identified as acceptable alternatives to the EPA 
test methods for the purpose of this rule.
    The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the VCS ASTM D7520-
2013 ``Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in 
the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA 
Method 9 with conditions. During the digital camera opacity technique 
(DCOT) certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-
2013, you or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of 
various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions 
anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed 
backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand). You must also have 
standard operating procedures in place, including daily or other 
frequency quality checks, to ensure the equipment is within 
manufacturing specifications as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-
2013. You must follow the recordkeeping procedures outlined in 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data sheets, 
and all raw unaltered JPEG formatted images used for opacity and 
certification determination. You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum 
of four (4) independent technology users apply the software to 
determine the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each 
set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 15-percent opacity of any one 
reading, and the average error must not exceed 7.5-percent opacity. 
This approval does not provide or imply a certification or validation 
of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain and verify 
the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera, software, and 
operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-2013 and this letter is on the 
facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor. This method is available at 
ASTM International, 1850 M Street NW, Suite 1030, Washington, DC 20036. 
See https://www.astm.org/.

[[Page 18955]]

    Finally, the search identified 11 other VCS that were potentially 
applicable for this rule in lieu of the EPA reference methods. After 
reviewing the available standards, the EPA determined that 11 candidate 
VCS identified for measuring emissions of pollutants or their 
surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be 
practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data, 
and other important technical and policy considerations. Additional 
information for the VCS search and determinations can be found in the 
memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Asphalt Processing and 
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for 
this action.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed 
rulemaking, and, specifically, invites the public to identify 
potentially applicable VCS, and to explain why the EPA should use such 
standards in this regulation.

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

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: April 16, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 
title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 
follows:

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

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(95) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (95) ASTM D7520-13, Standard Test Method for Determining the 
Opacity of a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved December 
1, 2013. IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.1510(f), 63.1511(d), 
63.1512(a), 63.1517(b) and 63.1625(b), and table 3 to subpart LLLLL.
* * * * *

Subpart LLLLL--[Amended]

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


Sec.  63.8681  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an 
asphalt processing facility or an asphalt roofing manufacturing 
facility, as defined in Sec.  63.8698, that is a major source as 
defined in Sec.  63.2, or is located at, or is part of a major source 
as defined in Sec.  63.2.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.8683 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.8683  When must I comply with this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its 
potential to emit such that it becomes a (or part of a) major source as 
defined in Sec.  63.2, then the following requirements apply.
    (d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec.  63.8692 
according to the schedules in Sec. Sec.  63.8692 and 63.9(a) through 
(f) and (h). Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are 
required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.
0
5. Section 63.8684 is amended by revising the section heading to read 
as follows:


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

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


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

    (a) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], you must be in compliance with the emission 
limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, 
except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and 
after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], you must be in compliance with the emission 
limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, 
except during periods of nonoperation of the affected source (or 
specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to 
which this subpart applies.
    (b) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain your 
affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment, according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i). On and 
after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], at all times, you must operate and maintain any 
affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment 
and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good 
air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general 
duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further 
efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable 
standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is 
operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements 
will be based on information available to the Administrator that may 
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation 
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance 
records, and inspection of the affected source.
    (c) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], you must develop a written startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in Sec.  
63.6(e)(3). On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 
FINAL RULE IN THE Federal

[[Page 18956]]

Register], a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.8686 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(3); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(4).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


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

    (a) For existing affected sources, you must conduct initial 
performance tests no later than 180 days after the compliance date that 
is specified for your source in Sec.  63.8683 and according to the 
provisions in Sec.  63.7(a)(2).
    (b) As an alternative to the requirement specified in paragraph (a) 
of this section, you may use the results of a previously-conducted 
emission test to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations 
in this subpart if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction 
that:
    (1) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (3) The control device and process parameter values established 
during the previously-conducted emission test are used to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with this subpart; and
    (4) The previously-conducted emission test was completed within the 
last 5 years.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.8687 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and removing 
and reserving paragraph (c) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Each performance test must be conducted under normal operating 
conditions and under the conditions specified in Table 3 to this 
subpart. Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, or 
nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions for purposes 
of conducting a performance test. You may not conduct performance tests 
during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information 
that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and 
explain why the conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, 
you must make available to the Administrator such records as may be 
necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.8688 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) and (h) to 
read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (f) As an option to installing the CPMS specified in paragraph (a) 
of this section, you may install a continuous emissions monitoring 
system (CEMS) or a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) that 
meets the applicable requirements in Sec.  63.8 according to Table 7 to 
this subpart and the applicable performance specifications of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix B.
* * * * *
    (h) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address 
the following:
    (1) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii), 
(c)(7), and (c)(8);
    (2) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d); and
    (3) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance 
with Sec. Sec.  63.8693, 63.8694, and the general requirements of Sec.  
63.10(e)(1) and (e)(2)(i).
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.8689 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding 
paragraph (d) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, you must 
establish each site-specific operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart 
that applies to you according to the requirements in Sec.  63.8687 and 
Table 3 to this subpart.
* * * * *
    (d) For control devices used to comply with the particulate matter 
standards, you may establish the pressure drop across the control 
device operating limit using manufacturers' specifications in lieu of 
complying with paragraph (b) of this section.
0
11. Section 63.8690 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, 
and required quality assurance or control activities (including, as 
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), 
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required 
intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating including 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction when the affected source 
is operating. On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must monitor and collect data at all 
times in accordance with Sec.  63.8685(b), except during periods of 
nonoperation of the affected source (or specific portion thereof) 
resulting in cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.8691 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (d); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (e).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


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

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating 
limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the 
procedures specified in Table 5 to this subpart, and you must conduct 
performance tests as specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (b) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], you must report each instance in which you did not 
meet each operating limit in Table 5 to this subpart that applies to 
you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. These 
instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. 
These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in 
Sec.  63.8693. On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 
FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must report each instance in 
which you did not meet each operating limit in Table 5 to this subpart 
that applies to you, except during periods of nonoperation of the 
affected source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of 
the emissions to which this subpart applies.
* * * * *
    (d) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 
63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the

[[Page 18957]]

Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with 
Sec.  63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will determine whether deviations 
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are 
violations, according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e). On and after 
[date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal 
Register], this paragraph no longer applies.
    (e) For each control device used to comply with the PM, THC, 
opacity, or visible emission standards of this subpart, you must 
conduct periodic performance tests using the applicable procedures 
specified in Sec.  63.8687 and Table 4 to this subpart to demonstrate 
compliance with Sec.  63.8684(a), and to confirm or reestablish the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.8684(b). You must conduct 
periodic performance tests according to the schedule specified in 
paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, for 
each existing affected source, and for each new and reconstructed 
affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after 
November 21, 2001 and on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], you must conduct the first periodic 
performance test on or before [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION 
OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] and conduct subsequent periodic 
performance tests no later than 60 months thereafter following the 
previous performance test.
    (2) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, for 
each new and reconstructed affected source that commences construction 
or reconstruction after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], you must conduct the first periodic performance no 
later than 60 months following the initial performance test required by 
Sec.  63.8689 and conduct subsequent periodic performance tests no 
later than 60 months thereafter following the previous performance 
test. If you used the alternative compliance option specified in Sec.  
63.8686(b) to comply with the initial performance test, then you must 
conduct the first periodic performance no later than 60 months 
following the date you demonstrated to the Administrator that the 
requirements of Sec.  63.8686(b) had been met.
    (3) If an affected source is not operating on the dates the 
periodic performance test is required to be conducted as specified in 
paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section, then you are not required to 
restart the affected source for the sole purpose of complying with 
paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section. Instead, upon restart of the 
affected source, you must conduct the first periodic performance test 
within 60 days of achieving normal operating conditions but no later 
than 180 days from startup. You must conduct subsequent periodic 
performance tests no later than 60 months thereafter following the 
previous performance test.
0
13. Section 63.8692 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (e), and (f) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  63.8692  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all the notifications in Sec. Sec.  63.6(h)(4) 
and (5), 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f), and 63.9(b) through (f) and (h) that 
apply to you by the dates specified.
* * * * *
    (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design 
evaluation, opacity observation, visible emission observation, or other 
compliance demonstration as specified in Table 3 or 4 to this subpart, 
you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to Sec.  
63.9(h)(2)(ii). You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, 
including the performance test results, before the close of business on 
the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test 
according to Sec.  63.10(d)(2). On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE 
OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must submit 
all subsequent Notification of Compliance Status reports to EPA via the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be 
accessed through EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). If you claim some of the information required to be 
submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI), then 
submit a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to 
EPA. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly 
used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail 
the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: 
Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., 
Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted 
to EPA via EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. You may 
assert a claim of EPA system outage or force majeure for failure to 
timely comply with this reporting requirement provided you meet the 
requirements outlined in Sec. Sec.  63.8693(h) or (i), as applicable.
    (f) If you are using data from a previously-conducted emission test 
to serve as documentation of conformance with the emission standards 
and operating limits of this subpart as specified in Sec.  63.8686(b), 
you must submit the test data in lieu of the initial performance test 
results with the Notification of Compliance Status required under 
paragraph (e) of this section.
0
14. Section 63.8693 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5), (d)(1) through (d)(4), and 
(d)(6);
0
c. Adding paragraph (d)(13);
0
d. Revising paragraph (f); and
0
e. Adding paragraphs (g) through (i).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.8693  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must submit all compliance reports 
to EPA via the CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report template 
on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for 
this subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed 
on the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the deadline 
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report 
is submitted. If you claim some of the information required to be 
submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a complete report, including 
information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The report must be generated 
using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website or an alternate 
electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) 
schema listed on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, 
flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and 
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file 
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as 
described earlier in this paragraph. You may assert a claim of EPA 
system outage or force majeure for failure to timely comply with this 
reporting requirement

[[Page 18958]]

provided you meet the requirements outlined in Sec. Sec.  63.8693(h) or 
(i), as applicable.
    (c) * * *
    (4) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], if you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction 
during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your 
SSMP, the compliance report must include the information in Sec.  
63.10(d)(5)(i). On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION 
OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], this paragraph no longer 
applies.
    (5) For each reporting period, you must include in the compliance 
report the total number of deviations that occurred during the 
reporting period. If there are no deviations from any emission 
limitations (emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and 
visible emission limit) that apply to you, then you must include a 
statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations 
during the reporting period.
    (d) * * *
    (1) The start date, start time, and duration of each malfunction.
    (2) For each instance that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was inoperative, 
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks, the start date, 
start time, and duration that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was inoperative; 
the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS being 
inoperative; and descriptions of corrective actions taken.
    (3) For each instance that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was out-of-
control as specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), the start date, start time, 
and duration that the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was out-of-control, including 
the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (4) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], the start date, start time, and duration of 
the deviation, and whether each deviation occurred during a period of 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. On and 
after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], the start date, start time, and duration of the 
deviation including a description of the deviation and the actions you 
took to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.8685(b). You 
must also include:
    (i) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the 
deviation occurred;
    (ii) The cause of the deviation (including unknown cause, if 
applicable); and
    (iii) Any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to 
its normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
    (6) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the 
deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to 
startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other 
known causes, and other unknown causes. On and after [DATE 181 DAYS 
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], a 
breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting 
period into those that are due to control equipment problems, process 
problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
* * * * *
    (13) On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission 
limitation in Sec.  63.8684, you must include an estimate of the 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission 
limitation in Sec.  63.8684, and a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
    (f) On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register], within 60 days after the date of 
completing each performance test required by this subpart, you must 
submit the results of the performance test following the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by EPA's Electronic 
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on EPA's ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test to EPA via the CEDRI, which can be accessed through 
EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file 
format generated through the use of EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may 
submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on 
EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. The 
results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in 
the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema 
listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or 
alternative file to EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) CBI. If you claim some of the information submitted under 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete 
file, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The file must be 
generated through the use of EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the 
file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic 
storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic 
medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, 
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via 
EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
    (g) On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register], within 60 days after the date of 
completing each continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance 
evaluation (as defined in Sec.  63.2) as specified in your site-
specific monitoring plan, you must submit the results of the 
performance evaluation following the procedures specified in paragraphs 
(g)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test 
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by EPA's ERT as listed on 
EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the results of 
the performance evaluation to EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed 
through EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file format 
generated through the use of EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit 
an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT 
website.
    (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that 
are not supported by EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the 
time of the evaluation. The results of the performance evaluation must 
be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the 
ERT generated package or alternative file to EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) CBI. If you claim some of the information submitted under 
paragraph (g)(1) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete 
file, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The file must be 
generated through the use of EPA's ERT or an alternate

[[Page 18959]]

electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT 
website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other 
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as 
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, 
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old 
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be 
submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (g)(1) of this 
section.
    (h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for 
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a 
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an 
outage of either EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is 
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow 
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion 
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (i) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for failure 
to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of 
force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs 
(i)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such 
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), 
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond 
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
15. Section 63.8694 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding 
paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.8694  What records must I keep?

    (a) * * *
    (2) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], the records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through 
(v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after [DATE 
181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], this paragraph no longer applies.
* * * * *
    (e) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are 
submitted electronically via EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in 
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not 
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and 
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or EPA as part 
of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
16. Section 63.8697 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.8697  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in Sec.  Sec.  
63.8681, 63.8682, 63.8683, 63.8684, 63.8685, 63.8686, 63.8687, 63.8688, 
63.8689, 63.8690, and 63.8691.
* * * * *
0
17. Section 63.8698 is amended by revising the definitions of 
``Adhesive applicator,'' ``Deviation,'' and ``Sealant applicator'' to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.8698  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Adhesive applicator means the equipment that uses open pan-type 
application (e.g., a roller partially submerged in an open pan of 
adhesive) to apply adhesive to roofing shingles for producing laminated 
or dimensional roofing shingles.
* * * * *
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit), or work practice standard;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart, and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], fails to meet any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard in this 
subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether 
or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. On and after [DATE 
181

[[Page 18960]]

DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], 
this paragraph no longer applies.
* * * * *
    Sealant applicator means the equipment that uses open pan-type 
application (e.g., a roller partially submerged in an open pan of 
sealant) to apply a sealant strip to a roofing product. The sealant 
strip is used to seal overlapping pieces of roofing product after they 
have been applied.
* * * * *
0
18. Table 1 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 is amended by revising row 1 
and footnote b to read as follows:

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

0
19. Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Revising rows 3 and 4;
0
b. Revising footnotes a and c; and
0
c. Adding footnote d.
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

          Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 For--                            You must \a\--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
3. Control devices used to comply with   a. Maintain the 3-hour average
 the particulate matter standards.        \b\ inlet gas temperature at
                                          or below the operating limit
                                          established during the
                                          performance test; \d\ and
                                         b. Maintain the 3-hour average
                                          \b\ pressure drop across the
                                          device \c\ at or below either
                                          the operating limit
                                          established during the
                                          performance test, or as an
                                          alternative, according to
                                          manufacturer's specifications.
4. Other control devices that are        Maintain the approved
 neither a combustion device or a         monitoring parameters within
 control device used to comply with the   the operating limits
 particulate matter emission standards.   established during the
                                          performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The operating limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart are
  applicable if you are monitoring control device operating parameters
  to demonstrate continuous compliance. If you are using a CEMS or COMS,
  you must maintain emissions below the value established during the
  initial performance test.
 * * * * * * *
\c\ As an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control
  device, owners or operators using an ESP to achieve compliance with
  the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart can monitor
  the voltage to the ESP. If this option is selected, the ESP voltage
  must be maintained at or above the operating limit established during
  the performance test.
\d\ The inlet gas temperature operating limit is set at +20 percent of
  the test run average inlet gas temperature measured during the
  performance test.

0
20. Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Revising rows 1, 7, and 11 through 13;
0
b. Revising footnotes a and c; and
0
c. Adding footnote d.
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

[[Page 18961]]



                   Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      According to the following
               For--                       You must--                Using--                requirements--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All particulate matter, total     a. Select sampling      i. EPA test method 1    A. For demonstrating
 hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and    port's location and     or 1A in appendix A     compliance with the total
 carbon dioxide emission tests.       the number of           to part 60 of this      hydrocarbon percent
                                      traverse points.        chapter.                reduction standard, the
                                                                                      sampling sites must be
                                                                                      located at the inlet and
                                                                                      outlet of the control
                                                                                      device prior to any
                                                                                      releases to the
                                                                                      atmosphere.
                                                                                     B. For demonstrating
                                                                                      compliance with the
                                                                                      particulate matter mass
                                                                                      emission rate, THC
                                                                                      destruction efficiency,
                                                                                      THC outlet concentration,
                                                                                      or combustion efficiency
                                                                                      standards, the sampling
                                                                                      sites must be located at
                                                                                      the outlet of the control
                                                                                      device prior to any
                                                                                      releases to the
                                                                                      atmosphere.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
7. All opacity tests...............  Conduct opacity         EPA test method 9 in    Conduct opacity
                                      observations.           appendix A to part 60   observations for at least
                                                              of this chapter, or     3 hours and obtain 30, 6-
                                                              ASTM D7520-2013         minute averages.
                                                              (incorporated by
                                                              reference, see Sec.
                                                              63.14) \d\.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
11. Each combustion device.........  Establish a site-       Data from the CPMS and  You must collect combustion
                                      specific combustion     the applicable          zone temperature data
                                      zone temperature        performance test        every 15 minutes during
                                      limit.                  method(s).              the entire period of the 3-
                                                                                      hour performance test, and
                                                                                      determine the average
                                                                                      combustion zone
                                                                                      temperature over the 3-
                                                                                      hour performance test by
                                                                                      computing the average of
                                                                                      all of the 15-minute
                                                                                      readings.
12. Each control device used to      Establish a site-       Data from the CPMS and  You must collect the inlet
 comply with the particulate matter   specific inlet gas      the applicable          gas temperature and
 emission standards.                  temperature limit;      performance test        pressure drop \b\ data
                                      and establish a site-   method(s).              every 15 minutes during
                                      specific limit for                              the entire period of the 3-
                                      the pressure drop                               hour performance test, and
                                      across the device.                              determine the average
                                                                                      inlet gas temperature and
                                                                                      pressure drop \c\ over the
                                                                                      3-hour performance test by
                                                                                      computing the average of
                                                                                      all of the 15-minute
                                                                                      readings.
13. Each control device that is      Establish site-         Process data and data   You must collect monitoring
 neither a combustion device nor a    specific monitoring     from the CPMS and the   parameter data every 15
 control device used to comply with   parameters.             applicable              minutes during the entire
 the particulate matter emission                              performance test        period of the 3-hour
 standards.                                                   method(s).              performance test, and
                                                                                      determine the average
                                                                                      monitoring parameter
                                                                                      values over the 3-hour
                                                                                      performance test by
                                                                                      computing the average of
                                                                                      all of the 15-minute
                                                                                      readings.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For initial performance tests, as specified in Sec.   63.8686(b), you may request that data from a
  previously-conducted emission test serve as documentation of conformance with the emission standards and
  operating limits of this subpart.
 * * * * * * *
\c\ As an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control device, owners or operators using an
  ESP to achieve compliance with the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart can monitor the
  voltage to the ESP.
\d\ If you use ASTM D7520-2013 in lieu of EPA test method 9, then you must comply with the conditions specified
  in this paragraph. During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) certification procedure outlined in
  Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-2013, you or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various backgrounds
  of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed
  backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand). You must also have standard operating procedures in place
  including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing
  specifications as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-2013. You must follow the record keeping procedures
  outlined in Sec.   63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data sheets, and all raw
  unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification determination. You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum
  of four (4) independent technology users apply the software to determine the visible opacity of the 300
  certification plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 15% opacity of any one reading and
  the average error must not exceed 7.5% opacity. This approval does not provide or imply a certification or
  validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or
  training of the DCOT camera, software and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-2013 and this letter is on
  the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.

0
21. Table 4 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the table title;
0
b. Revising the fourth column heading; and
0
c. Revising rows 4 and 5.
    The revisions read as follows:

[[Page 18962]]



 Table 4 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Initial and Continuous Compliance
                        With Emission Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                For the following         You have
            For--             emission limitation--     demonstrated
                                                       compliance if--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
4. Each saturator (including  a. Limit visible      The visible
 wet looper) and coater at     emissions from the    emissions, measured
 an existing, new, or          emissions capture     using EPA test
 reconstructed asphalt         system to 20          method 22, for any
 roofing manufacturing line.   percent of any        period of
                               period of             consecutive valid
                               consecutive valid     observations
                               observations          totaling 60 minutes
                               totaling 60 minutes.  during the initial
                                                     compliance period
                                                     described in Sec.
                                                     63.8686 do not
                                                     exceed 20 percent.
                              b. Limit opacity      The opacity,
                               emissions to 20       measured using EPA
                               percent.              test method 9, for
                                                     each of the first
                                                     30 6-minute
                                                     averages during the
                                                     initial compliance
                                                     period described in
                                                     Sec.   63.8686 does
                                                     not exceed 20
                                                     percent.
5. Each Group 2 asphalt       Limit exhaust gases   The opacity,
 storage tank at existing,     to 0 percent          measured using EPA
 new, and reconstructed        opacity.              test method 9, for
 asphalt processing                                  each of the first
 facilities and asphalt                              30 6-minute
 roofing manufacturing lines.                        averages during the
                                                     initial compliance
                                                     period described in
                                                     Sec.   63.8686 does
                                                     not exceed 0
                                                     percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

[[Page 18963]]



      Table 6 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 The report must     You must submit the
      You must submit--             contain--             report--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
4. Notification of            The information in    According to the
 compliance status.            Sec.   63.9(h)(2)     requirements in
                               through (5), as       Sec.  Sec.
                               applicable.           63.8692(e) and
                                                     63.9(h)(2) through
                                                     (5), as applicable.
5. A compliance report......  a. A statement that   Semiannually
                               there were no         according to the
                               deviations from the   requirements in
                               emission              Sec.   63.8693(b).
                               limitations during
                               the reporting
                               period, if there
                               are no deviations
                               from any emission
                               limitations
                               (emission limit,
                               operating limit,
                               opacity limit, and
                               visible emission
                               limit) that apply
                               to you.
                              b. If there were no   Semiannually
                               periods during        according to the
                               which the CPMS,       requirements in
                               CEMS, or COMS was     Sec.   63.8693(b).
                               out-of-control as
                               specified in Sec.
                               63.8(c)(7), a
                               statement that
                               there were no
                               periods during
                               which the CPMS,
                               CEMS, or COMS was
                               out-of-control
                               during the
                               reporting period.
                              c. If you have a      Semiannually
                               deviation from any    according to the
                               emission limitation   requirements in
                               (emission limit,      Sec.   63.8693(b).
                               operating limit,
                               opacity limit, and
                               visible emission
                               limit), the report
                               must contain the
                               information in Sec.
                                 63.8693(c) and
                               (d).
                              d. Before [date 181   Semiannually
                               days after date of    according to the
                               publication of        requirements in
                               final rule in the     Sec.   63.8693(b).
                               Federal Register],
                               if you had a
                               startup, shutdown
                               or malfunction
                               during the
                               reporting period
                               and you took
                               actions consistent
                               with your startup,
                               shutdown, and
                               malfunction plan,
                               the compliance
                               report must include
                               the information in
                               Sec.
                               63.10(d)(5)(i). On
                               and after [date 181
                               days after date of
                               publication of
                               final rule in the
                               Federal Register],
                               this paragraph no
                               longer applies.
6. An immediate startup,      The information in    By fax or telephone
 shutdown, and malfunction     Sec.                  within 2 working
 report if you have a          63.10(d)(5)(ii).      days after starting
 startup, shutdown, or                               actions
 malfunction during the                              inconsistent with
 reporting period before                             the plan followed
 [date 181 days after date                           by a letter within
 of publication of final                             7 working days
 rule in the Federal                                 after the end of
 Register], and actions                              the event unless
 taken were not consistent                           you have made
 with your startup,                                  alternative
 shutdown, and malfunction                           arrangements with
 plan. On and after [date                            the permitting
 181 days after date of                              authority.
 publication of final rule
 in the Federal Register],
 this paragraph no longer
 applies.
7. Performance test report..  The information in    Within 60 days after
                               Sec.   63.7.          completion of the
                                                     performance test
                                                     according to the
                                                     requirements in
                                                     Sec.   63.8693(f).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
24. Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the rows for Sec. Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(3), 
63.6(f)(1), 63.6(h)(1), 63.7(e)(1), 63.8(c)(1)(i), 63.8(c)(1)(ii), 
63.8(c)(1)(iii), 63.8(d), 63.10(b)(2)(i), and 63.10(d)(5);
0
b. Adding rows for Sec. Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(ii) and (iii), 63.7(e)(4), 
63.10(b)(2)(ii), 63.10(b)(2)(iii), 63.10(b)(2)(iv), and 63.10(b)(2)(v); 
and
0
c. Removing the row for Sec.  63.8(c)(1).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

            Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart LLLLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Applies to subpart
               Citation                        Subject             Brief description              LLLLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i).................  Operation & Maintenance  Operate to minimize      Yes before [date 181
                                                                 emissions at all times.  days after date of
                                                                                          publication of final
                                                                                          rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register]. No on and
                                                                                          after [date 181 days
                                                                                          after date of
                                                                                          publication of final
                                                                                          rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register]. See Sec.
                                                                                          63.8685(b) for general
                                                                                          duty requirement.

[[Page 18964]]

 
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)................  Operation & Maintenance  Correct malfunctions as  Yes before [date 181
                                                                 soon as practicable.     days after date of
                                                                                          publication of final
                                                                                          rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register]. No on and
                                                                                          after [date 181 days
                                                                                          after date of
                                                                                          publication of final
                                                                                          rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register].
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)...............  Operation & Maintenance  Operation and            Yes.
                                                                 maintenance
                                                                 requirements
                                                                 independently
                                                                 enforceable;
                                                                 information
                                                                 Administrator will use
                                                                 to determine if
                                                                 operation and
                                                                 maintenance
                                                                 requirements were met.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)....................  Startup, Shutdown, and   1. Requirement for SSM   Yes before [date 181
                                        Malfunction (SSM) Plan   and startup, shutdown,   days after date of
                                        (SSMP).                  malfunction plan.        publication of final
                                                                2. Content of SSMP.....   rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register]. No on and
                                                                                          after [date 181 days
                                                                                          after date of
                                                                                          publication of final
                                                                                          rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register].
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)....................  Compliance Except        You must comply with     Yes before [date 181
                                        During SSM.              emission standards at    days after date of
                                                                 all times except         publication of final
                                                                 during SSM.              rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register]. No on and
                                                                                          after [date 181 days
                                                                                          after date of
                                                                                          publication of final
                                                                                          rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(h)(1)....................  Compliance with Opacity/ You must comply with     Yes before [date 181
                                        VE Standards.            opacity/VE emission      days after date of
                                                                 limitations at all       publication of final
                                                                 times except during      rule in the Federal
                                                                 SSM.                     Register]. No on and
                                                                                          after [date 181 days
                                                                                          after date of
                                                                                          publication of final
                                                                                          rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register].
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)....................  Conditions for           1. Performance tests     Yes. before [date 181
                                        Conducting Performance   must be conducted        days after date of
                                        Tests.                   under representative     publication of final
                                                                 conditions. Cannot       rule in the Federal
                                                                 conduct performance      Register]. No on and
                                                                 tests during SSM.        after [date 181 days
                                                                2. Not a violation to     after date of
                                                                 exceed standard during   publication of final
                                                                 SSM..                    rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register]. See Sec.
                                                                                          63.8687.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.7(e)(4)....................  Conduct of performance   Administrator's          Yes.
                                        tests.                   authority to require
                                                                 testing under section
                                                                 114 of the Act.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i).................  Routine and predictable  1. Keep parts for        Yes before [date 181
                                        CMS malfunction.         routine repairs          days after date of
                                                                 readily available.       publication of final
                                                                2. Reporting              rule in the Federal
                                                                 requirements for CMS     Register]. No on and
                                                                 malfunction when         after [date 181 days
                                                                 action is described in   after date of
                                                                 SSM plan..               publication of final
                                                                                          rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register].
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)................  CMS malfunction not in   Keep the necessary       Yes.
                                        SSP plan.                parts for routine
                                                                 repairs if CMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)...............  Compliance with          Develop a written        Yes before [date 181
                                        Operation and            startup, shutdown, and   days after date of
                                        Maintenance              malfunction plan for     publication of final
                                        Requirements.            CMS.                     rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register]. No on and
                                                                                          after [date 181 days
                                                                                          after date of
                                                                                          publication of final
                                                                                          rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.8(d).......................  CMS Quality Control....  1. Requirements for CMS  Yes.
                                                                 quality control,
                                                                 including calibration,
                                                                 etc.
                                                                2. Must keep quality
                                                                 control plan on record
                                                                 for the life of the
                                                                 affected source.
                                                                3. Keep old versions
                                                                 for 5 years after
                                                                 revisions.

[[Page 18965]]

 
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)................  Records related to       Occurrence of each of    Yes before [date 181
                                        Startup and Shutdown.    operation (process       days after date of
                                                                 equipment).              publication of final
                                                                                          rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register]. No on and
                                                                                          after [date 181 days
                                                                                          after date of
                                                                                          publication of final
                                                                                          rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register].
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)...............  Recordkeeping Relevant   Occurrence of each       Yes before [date 181
                                        to Malfunction Periods   malfunction of air       days after date of
                                        and CMS.                 pollution equipment.     publication of final
                                                                                          rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register]. No on and
                                                                                          after [date 181 days
                                                                                          after date of
                                                                                          publication of final
                                                                                          rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register].
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)..............  Recordkeeping Relevant   Maintenance on air       Yes.
                                        to Maintenance of Air    pollution control
                                        Pollution Control and    equipment.
                                        Monitoring Equipment.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)...............  Recordkeeping Relevant   Actions during startup,  Yes before [date 181
                                        to Startup, Shutdown,    shutdown, and            days after date of
                                        and Malfunction          malfunction.             publication of final
                                        Periods and CMS.                                  rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register]. No on and
                                                                                          after [date 181 days
                                                                                          after date of
                                                                                          publication of final
                                                                                          rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register].
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(v)................  Recordkeeping Relevant   Actions during startup,  Yes before [date 181
                                        to Startup, Shutdown,    shutdown, and            days after date of
                                        and Malfunction          malfunction.             publication of final
                                        Periods and CMS.                                  rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register]. No on and
                                                                                          after [date 181 days
                                                                                          after date of
                                                                                          publication of final
                                                                                          rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)...................  Startup, Shutdown, and   Contents and submission  Yes before [date 181
                                        Malfunction Reports.                              days after date of
                                                                                          publication of final
                                                                                          rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register]. No on and
                                                                                          after [date 181 days
                                                                                          after date of
                                                                                          publication of final
                                                                                          rule in the Federal
                                                                                          Register].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-08155 Filed 5-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.