Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678-0093
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Wood Building Products Residual Risk and Technology Review
Posted Date: 2019-03-04T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 42 (Monday, March 4, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7682-7712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01902]

[[Page 7681]]

Vol. 84

Monday,

No. 42

March 4, 2019

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface 
Coating of Wood Building Products Residual Risk and Technology Review; 
Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 42 / Monday, March 4, 2019 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 7682]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678; FRL-9988-71-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT71

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface 
Coating of Wood Building Products Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
(RTR) conducted for the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products 
source category regulated under national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final 
action addressing periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). 
We are finalizing our proposed determination that the risks are 
acceptable and that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health. We identified no new cost-effective 
controls under the technology review to achieve further emissions 
reductions. These final amendments include provisions regarding 
electronic reporting, adding an alternative compliance equation under 
the current standards, and technical and editorial changes. This action 
also finalizes a new EPA test method to measure isocyanate compounds in 
certain surface coatings. These amendments are being made under the 
authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and will improve the effectiveness 
of the rule. The amendments are environmentally neutral.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 4, 2019. The incorporation 
by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by 
the Director of the Federal Register as of March 4, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a 
docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678. All 
documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov 
website. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, 
e.g., confidential business information or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC 
West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, 
DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone 
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
number for the Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Mr. John Bradfield, Sector Policies and Programs Division 
(E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3062; fax number: (919) 541-0516; 
and email address: bradfield.john@epa.gov. For specific information 
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, 
Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 
541-0881; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: 
hirtz.james@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of the 
NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Mail Code 
2221A, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and 
email address: cox.john@epa.gov.

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

ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CORE Central Operations and Resources
CRA Congressional Review Act
EJ environmental justice
E.O. Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
EST Eastern Standard Time
FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HDI hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometers
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MDI methylene diphenyl diisocyanate
MI methyl isocyanate
MIR maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NCASI National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
No. number
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PDF portable document format
POM polycyclic organic matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
QA quality assurance
QC quality control
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTR risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TDI 2,4-toluene diisocyanate
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S. United States
U.S.C. United States Code
UV ultraviolet
VCS voluntary consensus standards
WebFIRE Web Factor Information Retrieval System

    Background information. On May 16, 2018, the EPA proposed revisions 
to the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP based on our 
RTR. In this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the 
rule. We summarize some of the more significant comments we timely 
received regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this 
preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and 
the EPA's responses to those comments are available in Response to 
Public Comments on May 16, 2018 Proposal, December 2018, Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678. A ``track changes'' version of the regulatory 
language that incorporates the changes in this action is available in 
the docket.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

[[Page 7683]]

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source 
category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the 
source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the Surface Coating of Wood 
Building Products source category in our May 16, 2018, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review 
for the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
review for the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source 
category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions 
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Surface Coating of Wood Building 
Products Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the Surface Coating of Wood Building 
Products Source Category
    C. SSM
    D. Alternative Compliance Equation
    E. Emissions Testing
    F. Electronic Reporting
    G. EPA Test Method 326
    H. IBR Under 1 CFR Part 51
    I. Technical and Editorial Changes
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NESHAP and source category                 NAICS \1\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Coating of Wood Building Products.  321211, 321212, 321218,
                                             321219, 321911, 321999.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

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

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this 
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-wood-building-products-national-emission-standard-1. 
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the 
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same 
website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an 
overview of the RTR program, links to project websites for the RTR 
source categories, and detailed emissions and other data we used as 
inputs to the risk assessments.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action 
is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by 
May 3, 2019. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established 
by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or 
criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person 
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public 
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for 
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and 
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. 
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate 
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary 
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources 
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then 
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' 
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a

[[Page 7684]]

rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly 
referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards 
and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP 
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT 
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the 
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, 
including but not limited to those that reduce the volume of or 
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of 
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to 
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from 
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, 
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination 
of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor 
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See 
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can 
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish 
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of 
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the 
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the 
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology 
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them 
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk 
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after 
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, 
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The 
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of 
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In 
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority 
for this rule, see 83 FR 2274.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. What is the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source 
category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source 
category?

    The EPA promulgated the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products 
NESHAP on May 28, 2003 (See 68 FR 31746). The standards are codified at 
40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ. The Wood Building Products Surface 
Coating industry consists of facilities that are engaged in the surface 
coating of wood building products, which means the application of 
coatings using, for example, roll coaters or curtain coaters in the 
finishing or laminating of any wood building product that contains more 
than 50 percent by weight wood or wood fiber, excluding the weight of 
any glass components, and is used in the construction, either interior 
or exterior, of a residential, commercial, or institutional building. 
Regulated operations include all processes and process units 
incorporating wood building products surface coating operations. The 
source category covered by this MACT standard currently includes 57 
facilities.

C. What changes did we propose for the Surface Coating of Wood Building 
Products source category in our May 16, 2018, proposal?

    On May 16, 2018, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register for the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP, 40 
CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ, that took into consideration the RTR 
analyses. In the proposed rule, we proposed revisions to the 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 proposed various 
other changes, including an alternative compliance calculation, 
electronic submittal of notifications, compliance reports, and 
performance test reports, a new EPA test method, IBR of several test 
methods, and various technical and editorial changes. Additionally, we 
requested comment on repeat emissions testing requirements for 
facilities that demonstrate compliance with the standards using add-on 
control devices and for any facilities using the alternative compliance 
equation under the emission rate without add-on controls option.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR 
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Surface Coating of Wood Building 
Products source category. This action also finalizes other changes to 
the NESHAP, including an alternative compliance calculation equation 
that relies on periodic emissions testing; electronic submittal of 
notifications of compliance status, semiannual compliance reports, and 
performance test reports; a new EPA test method for isocyanates, EPA 
Method 326; IBR of several test methods (listed in section IV below); 
and various technical and editorial changes.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the 
Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source category?

    The EPA proposed no changes to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ 
NESHAP based on the risk review conducted pursuant to CAA section 
112(f). We are finalizing our proposed determination that risks from 
the source category are acceptable, considering all of the health 
information and factors evaluated, and also considering risk estimation 
uncertainty. We are also finalizing our proposed determination that 
revisions to the current standards are not necessary to reduce risk to 
an acceptable level, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health, or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. The EPA 
received no new data or other information during the public comment 
period that affected our determinations. Therefore, we are not

[[Page 7685]]

requiring additional controls and, thus, are not making any revisions 
to the existing standards under CAA section 112(f).

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review 
for the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source category?

    We determined that there are no developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT 
standards for this source category. The EPA received no new data or 
other information during the public comment period that affected our 
determinations. Therefore, we are not finalizing revisions to the MACT 
standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?

    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 ``General Provisions'' 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.
    We have eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with 
Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has established standards in this rule that 
apply at all times. We have also revised Table 4 to Subpart QQQQ of 
Part 63 (the General Provisions applicability table) in several 
respects, as is explained in more detail below in section IV.C. For 
example, we have eliminated the incorporation of the General 
Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We have 
also eliminated and revised certain recordkeeping and reporting that is 
related to the SSM exemption as described in detail in the proposal and 
summarized below in section IV.C.

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

    Other changes to the NESHAP that do not fall into the categories in 
the previous section include:
    1. Alternative compliance equation. As proposed in response to a 
request for an alternative method of demonstrating compliance, we have 
amended the rule to add an alternative equation within the requirements 
for facilities meeting the ``emission rate without add-on controls'' 
compliance option under the current standards. The alternative is 
discussed further in section IV.D of this preamble.
    2. Emissions testing. In response to comments and emissions tests 
discussed at proposal, we have amended the allowable compliance tests 
in the rule. Emissions testing is discussed further in section IV.E of 
this preamble.
    3. Electronic reporting. As discussed at proposal, we are 
finalizing amendments to the reporting requirements in the rule to 
require electronic reporting for notifications of compliance status, 
compliance test reports, and semiannual reports. Electronic reporting 
is discussed further in section IV.F of this preamble.
    4. EPA Test Method 326. As discussed at proposal, we are finalizing 
a new test method for isocyanate emissions. EPA Test Method 326 is 
discussed further in section IV.G and is included in appendix A to part 
63 of this preamble.
    5. IBR under 1 CFR part 51. We are incorporating several test 
methods by reference, as discussed further in section IV.H of this 
preamble.
    6. Technical and editorial changes. We are finalizing technical and 
editorial changes, as discussed further in section IV.I of this 
preamble.

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

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on March 4, 2019. The compliance date for existing 
affected sources to comply with the revised requirements is no later 
than 180 days after March 4, 2019. Affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after May 16, 2018, are new sources. New 
sources must comply with the all of the standards immediately upon the 
effective date of the standard, March 4, 2019], or upon startup, 
whichever is later. In section IV.F of this preamble on Electronic 
Reporting, we discuss a semiannual reporting template that will become 
the required form for those reports 1 year after it is posted in the 
EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The 
EPA expects to post the form on March 4, 2019. Consequently, 1 year or 
more after March 4, 2019, facilities subject to this standard will need 
to begin using this form for semiannual reports.
    The EPA is finalizing that existing affected sources must comply 
with the amendments in this rulemaking no later than 180 days after 
March 4, 2019. The EPA is also finalizing that affected sources that 
commence construction or reconstruction after March 4, 2019 must comply 
with all requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being 
finalized, no later than March 4, 2019 or upon startup, whichever is 
later. All affected existing facilities would have to continue to meet 
the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ, until the 
applicable compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not 
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date 
of the final rule is the promulgation date as specified in CAA sections 
112(d)(10) and 112(f)(3). For existing sources, we are finalizing two 
changes that would impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart QQQQ. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are 
adding a requirement that the notification of compliance status, 
performance test results, and the semiannual reports using the new 
template be submitted electronically. We are also changing the 
requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to 
meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to 
develop and implement an SSM plan. Additionally, we are adding an 
optional new compliance demonstration equation that adds flexibility 
for meeting the standard, but this change does not affect ongoing 
compliance. Our experience with similar industries that are required to 
convert reporting mechanisms, install necessary hardware and software, 
become familiar with the process of submitting performance test results 
electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new electronic 
submission capabilities, reliably employ electronic reporting, and 
convert logistics of reporting processes to different time-reporting 
parameters, shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and more 
typically, 180 days, is generally necessary to successfully complete 
these changes. Our experience with similar industries further shows 
that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period 
of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements; 
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; adjust parameter monitoring and recording 
systems to accommodate revisions; and update their operations to 
reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that 
multiple different compliance dates for individual requirements would 
create and the additional burden such an assortment of

[[Page 7686]]

dates would impose. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for 
compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA 
considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance 
period practicable, and, thus, is finalizing that existing affected 
sources be in compliance with all of this regulation's revised 
requirements within 180 days of the regulation's effective date.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale 
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments 
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment 
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary 
and response document available in the docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0678.

A. Residual Risk Review for the Surface Coating of Wood Building 
Products Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Surface 
Coating of Wood Building Products source category?
    For the 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ category risk assessment 
conducted at proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and 
allowable emissions from wood building products surface coating 
sources. Allowable emissions at proposal were estimated to be equal to 
actual emissions. The estimated inhalation cancer risk to the 
individual most exposed to emissions from the source category was 6-in-
1 million at proposal, at one facility. The assessment showed that 
approximately 800 people faced an increased cancer risk greater than 1-
in-1 million due to inhalation exposure to HAP emissions from this 
source category. The risk analysis at proposal indicated very low 
cancer incidence (0.0006 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess 
case every 1,667 years), as well as low potential for adverse chronic 
noncancer health effects with a hazard index (HI) of 0.05 for both 
actual and allowable emissions. The acute screening assessment 
indicated two facilities with a maximum hazard quotient (HQ) equal to 1 
based upon a reference exposure level (REL) for formaldehyde. 
Therefore, we found there was little potential concern for chronic or 
acute noncancer health impacts. The multipathway risk assessment 
indicated no significant potential for exposure from persistent bio-
accumulative HAP (PB-HAP) emissions from the source category.
    Considering all of the health risk information, the EPA proposed 
that the risks from the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products 
source category were acceptable. Although we proposed acceptable risk, 
risk estimates for approximately 800 people in the exposed population 
were above 1-in-1 million, caused by formaldehyde emissions from one 
facility. The maximum acute risk at proposal was an HQ of 1, also 
associated with formaldehyde from the same facility with the highest 
chronic risk. As a result, we further considered whether the MACT 
standards for this source category provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health. Our technology review did not identify any new 
practices, controls, or process options that were being used in this 
industry, or in other industries, that would be cost effective and 
result in further reduction of formaldehyde emissions. Because no new 
controls, technologies, processes, or work practices were identified to 
reduce formaldehyde emissions and the risk assessment determined that 
the health risks associated with HAP emissions remaining after 
implementation of the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products MACT 
were acceptable, we proposed that the current standards protect public 
health with an ample margin of safety.
2. How did the risk review change for the Surface Coating of Wood 
Building Products source category?
    In response to comments on the proposed 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
QQQQ, RTR, we reviewed our facility list and made adjustments, adding 
five facilities and removing four facilities. The five facilities added 
had responded to a separate EPA survey, indicating that 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart QQQQ applied to their facilities. The HAP emissions inventory 
for the source category was revised to reflect these changes to the 
facility list. Further, we found that 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ did 
not apply to four facilities. As such, we removed these four facilities 
from the facility list. In response to comments received, we also 
reviewed our HAP data and added polycyclic organic matter (POM) to the 
HAP emission inventory for the source category. At proposal, we set 
allowable HAP emissions as being equal to actual HAP emissions due to 
the nature of compliance choices made by facilities in the category. In 
response to comments, we reviewed this approach and decided to estimate 
allowable emissions using a 1.6 multiple of actual emissions. The 
multiplier was derived from source category capacity usage information 
in the U.S. Census of Manufacturers. In response to comments, we also 
decided to use the more conservative multiplier of 10 times actual 
emissions to model acute health impacts. See the Addendum to 
Preparation of the Residual Risk Modeling Input File for Subpart QQQQ, 
in the docket for this rule, EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678, for more details 
regarding these changes. In response to comments received, we also 
considered whether a refined risk modeling analysis would better inform 
the EPA about the impact on disadvantaged communities from HAP 
emissions from the source category. The changes in the facility list, 
HAP inventory, allowable and acute emission estimates, and 
environmental justice (EJ) concerns led the EPA to prepare and run a 
new modeling file and prepare a revised risk assessment, Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products Source 
Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, 
which is available in the docket for the rule.
    The revised risk assessment for the source category indicated that 
human health impacts for both chronic and acute risks were lower than 
stated at proposal. The results of the risk assessment showed that 
risks based on actual emissions did not exceed a maximum individual 
risk (MIR) of 1-in-1 million for cancer and resulted in an HI of 0.02 
for noncancer. The results of the final risk assessment also showed 
lower risks based upon allowable emissions with a cancer MIR of 1-in-1 
million and a noncancer HI of 0.03. The revised risk assessment also 
showed lower acute risks than stated at proposal with a maximum acute 
noncancer HQ of 0.6.
    Table 2 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the results 
of the inhalation risk assessment, as discussed in this section of this 
preamble. See the Addendum to Preparation of the Residual Risk Modeling 
Input File for Subpart QQQQ, in the docket for this rule, Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678, for more details regarding preparation of the 
modeling file.

[[Page 7687]]

                                Table 2--Surface Coating of Wood Building Products Inhalation Risk Assessment Results \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Estimated        Estimated
                                                                         Maximum       population at    annual cancer   Maximum chronic      Maximum
                  Risk assessment                      Number of        individual     increased risk     incidence     noncancer TOSHI  screening acute
                                                     facilities \2\  cancer risk (in   of cancer >=1-     (cases per          \4\          noncancer HQ
                                                                      1 million) \3\    in-1 million        year)                              \5\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Actual Emissions:
    Source Category...............................              50               <1                0           0.0004             0.02              0.6
Baseline Allowable Emissions:
    Source Category...............................              50                1              700           0.0007             0.03   ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual and allowable emissions for facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ. See Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating
  of Wood Building Products Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, in the docket for this rule, EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-
  0678, for more details.
\2\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk assessment. Seven facilities in the category reported no HAP emissions from coatings subject to 40 CFR
  part 63, subpart QQQQ. Facilities that did not emit any HAP subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ were only modeled for whole-facility HAP
  emissions. Two facilities in the source category reported zero HAP emissions facility-wide and were not modeled.
\3\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category facilities. The risk driver for the source category is
  naphthalene.
\4\ Maximum target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the source category is the respiratory system. The
  risk drivers for the source category are triethylamine and naphthalene.
\5\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which, in most cases, is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1 in the acute risk screening assessment,
  we conduct further analysis to determine the highest off-site impact. The maximum acute noncancer risk driver is formaldehyde.

    The inhalation risk modeling performed to estimate risks based on 
actual and allowable emissions relied primarily on emissions data from 
the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The results of the inhalation 
cancer risk assessment, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate 
that the MIR could be up to 1-in-1 million for allowable emissions 
under the current standard, with naphthalene emissions from solvent 
evaporation associated with spray paint operations as the major 
contributor to the MIR. The total estimated cancer incidence from wood 
building product coating sources based on actual emission levels is 
0.0004 excess cancer cases per year or one case every 2,500 years, with 
emissions of naphthalene and ethylbenzene contributing to the cancer 
incidence. In addition, we estimate that approximately 700 people have 
cancer risks at 1-in-1 million based on allowable emissions.
    The maximum modeled chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) value for the 
source category based on actual emissions is estimated to be 0.02, with 
emissions of triethylamine and naphthalene contributing to the TOSHI. 
The target organ affected is the respiratory system. No people are 
estimated to have a noncancer HI above 1 as a result of emissions from 
this source category.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    We received two comments on our proposed risk assessment. One 
stakeholder supported our risk assessment proposal and further 
suggested that the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) dose 
response factors for formaldehyde, the principle risk driver in the 
category, were overly conservative and should be re-evaluated. Another 
stakeholder disagreed with our assessment, characterizing it as 
arbitrary because (1) it exceeded the 1-in-1 million CAA presumption of 
acceptability from CAA section 112(f)(2), and (2) the health impacts of 
the risk above 1-in-1 million were concentrated in minority and lower 
income neighborhoods, and, thus, creating what the commenter considered 
an environmental justice issue.
    As stated in our response to comments,\2\ we found the risk from 
HAP exposure from emission sources in this category to be acceptable. 
The cancer dose-response value used in the risk assessment for 
formaldehyde is the current peer reviewed IRIS value. The chronic 
noncancer dose-response value used for formaldehyde is from the Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). At the time this 
analysis was performed, these values were deemed to represent the best 
science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Response to Public Comments on May 16, 2018 Proposal, 
December 2018, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the comments to risk on disadvantaged communities, under 
Executive Order 12898, the EPA is directed to the greatest extent 
practicable and permitted by law, to make EJ part of its mission by 
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low income 
populations in the U.S. Consistent with Executive Order 12898 and the 
Presidential Memorandum \3\ that accompanies it, the EPA's EJ policies 
promote justice by focusing attention and EPA efforts on addressing the 
types of EJ harms and risks that are prevalent among minority, low-
income, and indigenous populations. Executive Order 12898 and the EPA's 
EJ policies do not mandate particular outcomes from an action, but they 
require that decisions involving the action be informed by a 
consideration of EJ issues. With respect to this rule, the EPA found 
that the original NESHAP meets the CAA section 112(f)(2) standard for 
providing an ample margin of safety for all populations in close 
proximity to these sources, including minority and low-income 
populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Memorandum for the Heads of All Departments and Agencies 
from William Clinton, February 11, 1994. Executive Order on Federal 
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 
Low-Income Populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the risk review?
    As noted in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting approach, with an 
analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers 
all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and 
includes a presumptive limit on MIR of ``approximately 1-in-10 
thousand'' (see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). We weigh all health 
risk factors in our risk acceptability

[[Page 7688]]

determination, including the cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum 
cancer TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer 
risks, the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed 
population, and the risk estimation uncertainties.
    Our final risk assessment was revised based on comments we received 
at proposal. It included updated facility information, HAP emissions, 
and production information (see section IV.A.2 of this preamble). The 
total emissions of HAP for the source category are approximately 270 
tpy. The results of the chronic inhalation cancer risk assessment based 
on actual emissions, the total estimated cancer incidence from 
allowable emissions in this source category, and the acute HQ are 
discussed in section IV.A.2 and in Table 2 of this preamble. In 
evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from PB-HAP, 
including carcinogenic emissions of arsenic and POM and non-
carcinogenic emissions of cadmium, lead, and mercury from the source 
category, the risk assessment indicates no significant potential for 
multipathway effects.
    We concluded, based on all the health risk information and factors 
discussed at proposal, that the risks from the Surface Coating of Wood 
Building Products source category were acceptable. As noted above, the 
information in the final risk assessment shows lower risk indicators 
than indicated at proposal. Consequently, the EPA is finalizing an 
acceptable risk determination for the category. We conducted an 
analysis to determine if the current emissions standards provide an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin 
of safety analysis,\4\ the EPA considers all health factors evaluated 
in the risk assessment and evaluates 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 to this source category to further reduce the 
risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in our 
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 to provide an ample 
margin of safety with respect to the risks associated with these 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See CAA section 112(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted, we consider the risks from this source category to be 
acceptable. However, risk estimates for approximately 700 people in the 
exposed population are at 1-in-1 million, based on allowable 
naphthalene emissions from one facility. As a result, we further 
considered whether the MACT standards for this source category provide 
an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
    At proposal, our ample margin of safety review was informed by the 
results of our technology review which did not identify any 
developments in practices, controls, or process options that are being 
used in this industry, or in other industries, that would be cost 
effective and result in further emissions reductions. Similarly, our 
review of the operating permits for major sources subject to the 
Surface Coating of Wood Building Products MACT did not reveal any 
facilities with limits set below the current new or existing source 
limits (Tables 1 and 2 to Subpart QQQQ of Part 63). Limits set below 
the current standards would have been an indication that improved 
controls or lower emission-compliant coatings were available. 
Additionally, our review of the Reasonably Available Control 
Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission 
Rate Clearinghouse identified three sources that are potentially 
covered under 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ, but none contained new 
control methods. Because no developments in controls, technologies, 
processes, or work practices were identified to reduce naphthalene 
emissions and the risk assessment determined that the health risks 
associated with HAP emissions remaining after implementation of the 
Surface Coating of Wood Building Products MACT were acceptable, we are 
finalizing our risk review determination that the current standards 
protect public health with an ample margin of safety.

B. Technology Review for the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products 
Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the 
Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source category?
    Our review of the developments in technology for the Surface 
Coating of Wood Building Products source category did not reveal any 
changes in practices, processes, and controls. In the original NESHAP, 
we noted that the most prevalent form of emission control for surface 
coating of wood building products is the use of low-volatile organic 
compounds and low-HAP coatings, such as waterborne or ultraviolet (UV)-
cured coatings. That continues to be the prevalent compliance approach, 
with less than 10 percent of source category facilities using add-on 
control to reduce HAP emissions. Because our review did not identify 
any developments in practices, processes, or controls to further reduce 
emissions in the category beyond the level required by the current 
NESHAP, we proposed that no revisions to the NESHAP are necessary 
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
2. How did the technology review change for the Surface Coating of Wood 
Building Products source category?
    The technology review did not change from proposal. Therefore, we 
are finalizing our proposed determination that no revisions to the 
NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    We received no comments that identified improved control 
technology, work practices, operational procedures, process changes, or 
pollution prevention approaches to reduce emissions in the category 
since promulgation of the current NESHAP. We received two comments on 
our proposed technology review. One stakeholder supported our review, 
while another stakeholder disagreed with our assessment, holding that 
the new coating application which led to the proposal of an alternative 
compliance equation constituted a change that should have been adopted 
across the category (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678).
    As stated in our comment response (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0678), we are finalizing the conclusion that there have been no 
advances in practices, processes, or controls since promulgation in 
2003 that justify changes to the stringency of the standards for 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart QQQQ sources.
    At proposal, we explained how the coating planned for use by the 
facility submitting the alternative monitoring request is similar to 
other low-HAP coatings in that it uses a liquid catalyst to affect the 
same type of chemical and physical changes as UV light in the UV-
curable coatings, which are low-HAP coatings that predate and were 
considered during development of the original 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
QQQQ NESHAP. Regardless of this explanation, we see how the commenter

[[Page 7689]]

may have misconstrued some of the discussion in the proposal's 
supporting memorandum regarding the coating technology and the new 
compliance equation. The updated memorandum, Technology Review for the 
Surface Coating of Wood Building Products Source Category--Final Rule, 
available in the docket for this rule, EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678, clarifies 
the information used for the technology review. The technology basis of 
the coating technology for which the new compliance equation we 
finalize here is not broadly applicable. It is simply one of many 
technology approaches that can be used to meet the standard. 
Consequently, we did not propose the alternate compliance equation as a 
``development'' under CAA section 112(d)(6), nor are we finalizing it 
as such. Even if the EPA were to consider the new coating to be a 
development within the meaning of CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA has 
discretion to determine when it is ``necessary'' to revise emission 
standards under the statute. In this case, it would not be necessary to 
revise the numeric emission standards in Tables 1 or 2 to Subpart QQQQ 
of Part 63, in order to accommodate the alternative monitoring request 
from one facility that fits within the overarching compliance options 
included in the rule (i.e., the ``emission rate without add-on 
controls'' option).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    Our technology review did not identify any changes in practices, 
processes, or control technologies that would reduce emissions in this 
category. We did not identify any control equipment not previously 
identified; improvements to existing controls; work practices, process 
changes, or operational procedures not previously considered; or any 
new pollution prevention alternatives for this same category. We also 
did not find any changes in the cost of applying controls previously 
considered in this same category. Consequently, we have determined that 
no revisions to the NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6).

C. SSM

    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 General Provisions 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.
    We are finalizing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this 
rule. The SSM provisions appear at 40 CFR 63.4700, 40 CFR 63.4720, and 
in Table 4 to Subpart QQQQ of Part 63. Consistent with Sierra Club v. 
EPA, we are finalizing that the standards in this rule apply at all 
times. We are also finalizing several revisions to Table 4 (the General 
Provisions Applicability Table), as explained in more detail below. For 
example, we are eliminating incorporation of the General Provisions' 
requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We also are 
eliminating and revising 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 
eliminating are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence 
of the SSM exemption. The EPA believes the removal of the SSM exemption 
creates no additional burden to facilities regulated under the Surface 
Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP. Deviations addressed in 
current SSM plans are now required to be reported in the semiannual 
compliance report (40 CFR 63.4720). Facilities no longer need to 
develop an SSM plan or keep it current (Table 4 to Subpart QQQQ of Part 
63). Facilities also no longer have to file SSM reports for deviations 
not described in the their SSM plan (40 CFR 63.4720(c)(2)).
    Periods of startup and shutdown. In finalizing the standards in 
this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods 
and, for the reasons explained below, is not finalizing alternate 
standards for those periods.
    For add-on control systems, the Surface Coating of Wood Building 
Products NESHAP requires the measurement of thermal oxidizer operating 
temperature or catalytic oxidizer average temperature across the 
catalyst bed as well as other types of parameter monitoring. Parameter 
limits now apply at all times, including during periods of startup and 
shutdown. The Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP requires 
thermal oxidizer or catalytic oxidizer operating temperature and 
operating parameters for other add-on control devices to be recorded at 
least once every 15 minutes. The Surface Coating of Wood Building 
Products NESHAP specifies in 40 CFR 63.4763(c) that if an operating 
parameter is out of the allowed range, this is a deviation from the 
operating limit and must be reported as specified in 40 CFR 
63.4710(c)(6) and 63.4720(a)(7).
    Our permit review of the facilities using add-on control as a 
compliance approach indicated that all were required, by permit, to 
have their control system in operation during all time periods when 
coating processes were operational. The 2003 rule requires compliance 
based on a 12-month rolling average emissions calculation. Periods of 
startup and shutdown were included, but, because of operational 
requirements in the category, are a very small component of the 
emissions calculation and have little, if any, impact on the 12-month 
rolling average. Therefore, we are not finalizing separate standards 
for startup and/or shutdown periods.
    Periods of malfunction. 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 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.'' National Association 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

[[Page 7690]]

that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a 
failure of the source to perform in ``normal or usual manner,'' and no 
statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting 
CAA section 112 standards.
    As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corporation, 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 information regarding petroleum refinery sources was available 
to determine that such work practices reflected the level of control 
that applies to the best performing sources in that source category. 
See 80 FR 75178, 75211-75214 (December 1, 2015). The EPA considered 
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.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112 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 standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused, in part, by poor 
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of 
malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement 
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is 
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that 
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, 
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement 
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative 
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether 
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA's interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, 
CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid 
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing 
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur 
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those 
situations. U.S. Sugar Corporation v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 
(2016).
1. General Duty
    We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 
4) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1) and (2) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of 
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate 
considering the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are instead adding 
general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.4700(b) that reflects the 
general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to 
periods covered by an SSM exemption. The previous language in 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterized 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 and SSM events in 
describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is 
finalizing for 40 CFR 63.4700(b) does not include that language from 40 
CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also revising the General Provisions table (Table 4) to add 
an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and include a ``no'' in column 3. 
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 63.4700(b). We are also 
finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 4) to add 
an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(iii) and include a ``yes'' in column 3, 
which became necessary with the elimination of the SSM. Finally, we are 
finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 4) to add 
an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(2) and include a ``no'' in column 3. This 
paragraph is reserved and is not applicable to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
QQQQ.
2. SSM Plan
    We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 
4) to add an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and

[[Page 7691]]

include a ``no'' in column 3. Generally, these paragraphs require 
development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is finalizing 
removal of 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.
3. Compliance With Standards
    We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 
4) entries for 40 CFR 63.6(f) by redesignating this section as 40 CFR 
63.6(f)(1) and including a ``no'' in column 3. The previous language in 
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) excluded sources from non-opacity standards during 
periods of SSM, while the previous language in 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) 
excluded sources from opacity standards during periods of SSM. As 
discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club 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 finalizing the revised standards in this rule to apply 
at all times.
4. Performance Testing
    We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 
4) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) 
and including a ``yes'' in column 3. Section 63.7(e)(1) describes 
performance testing requirements. Section 63.4764(a) of the rule 
specifies that performance testing must be conducted when the coating 
operation, emission capture system, and add-on control device are 
operating at representative conditions. You must document why the 
conditions represent normal operation. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), 
performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted 
during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction because conditions 
during malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating 
conditions. The EPA is finalizing added language that requires the 
owner or operator to record the 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 
operations. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make 
available to the Administrator such records ``as may be necessary to 
determine the condition of the performance test'' available to the 
Administrator upon request, but does not specifically require the 
information to be recorded. The added regulatory text to this provision 
that the EPA is finalizing builds on that requirement and makes 
explicit the requirement to record the information.
5. Monitoring
    We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 
4) by redesignating 40 CFR 63.8(c) as 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1), adding entries 
for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) through (iii), and including ``no'' in column 
3 for paragraphs (i) and (iii). The cross-references to the general 
duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary 
considering 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 (QC) program for monitoring equipment 
(40 CFR 63.8(d)).
6. Recordkeeping
    We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 
4) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and including a ``no'' 
in column 3. 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 finalizing that 
recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply 
to startup and shutdown. Special provisions applicable to startup and 
shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown plan, have been removed from 
the rule (with exceptions discussed below), thereby reducing the need 
for additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
    We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 
4) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) and including 
a ``no'' in column 3. 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.
    We are also finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table 
(Table 4) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including a 
``no'' in column 3. The EPA is finalizing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no 
longer applies. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or 
operator to use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to 
satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 
CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) 
through (12). The EPA is finalizing elimination of this requirement 
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
7. Reporting
    We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table 
4) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to 
a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for 
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General 
Provisions reporting requirement for malfunctions, the EPA is 
finalizing replacing the SSM report under 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) with the 
existing reporting requirements under 40 CFR 63.4720(a). The 
replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in 
that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are 
finalizing language that requires sources that fail to meet an 
applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning 
such events in the semiannual report to be required under the final 
rule. We are finalizing that the report must contain the number, date, 
time, duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, 
if applicable), 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. 
Examples of such methods would include mass balance calculations, 
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known 
process parameters. The EPA is finalizing this requirement to ensure 
that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow 
the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to 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 final amendments, 
therefore, eliminate 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

[[Page 7692]]

otherwise required reports with similar format and submittal 
requirements.
    The final amendments also eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 
63.10(d)(5)(ii). Section 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 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.

D. Alternative Compliance Equation

    The EPA proposed the option of using a HAP emission factor based on 
site-specific measurement of HAP emissions to demonstrate compliance 
with the emission rate without add-on controls compliance option, 
instead of assuming that all HAP in the coating is emitted to the 
atmosphere. As discussed below, we are finalizing a new compliance 
calculation approach in this rulemaking to allow any facility using a 
similar process to use the approach without requiring the submittal of 
an alternative monitoring request to the EPA under the provisions of 40 
CFR 63.8(f). The final amendment adds compliance flexibility, but does 
not alter the originally promulgated emission standards in Tables 1 and 
2 to Subpart QQQQ of Part 63.
    We are finalizing a new equation within the existing compliance 
demonstration calculations to more adequately represent the HAP amounts 
emitted by this type of surface coating or any similar coating.

E. Emissions Testing

    The EPA is finalizing amendments to the Surface Coating of Wood 
Building Products NESHAP that provide an additional compliance 
demonstration equation. Facilities using the alternative compliance 
demonstration equation (40 CFR 63.4751(i)) of the emission rate without 
add-on controls option are required to conduct an initial performance 
test to demonstrate compliance. Those same facilities are also required 
to conduct repeat performance testing every 5 years to update/verify 
the process-specific emission factor used to demonstrate continuing 
compliance for the new alternative equation (see 40 CFR 63.4752(e)).

F. Electronic Reporting

    The EPA is requiring owners and operators of wood building product 
surface coating facilities to submit electronic copies of the required 
notification of compliance status, performance test results, and 
semiannual compliance status reports through the EPA's Central Data 
Exchange (CDX) using CEDRI. The final rule requires that performance 
test reports be submitted to CEDRI using the Electronic Reporting Tool 
(ERT). The final rule requires owners and operators to submit any 
future notification of compliance status (e.g., for a new coating 
process) in portable document format (PDF) to CEDRI. For semiannual 
compliance status reports, in conjunction with the final rule, owners 
and operators are provided a spreadsheet template to submit information 
to CEDRI. The template is expected to facilitate reporting and improve 
reporting consistency. Facilities will be required to use the template 
to file their semiannual reports 1 year after the reporting template 
becomes available in CEDRI. The EPA expects to post the reporting 
template in conjunction with the final rule, so facilities can expect 
the requirement to begin for the semiannual reporting using the 
template by March 4, 2020.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this 
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in these 
reports; is in keeping with current trends in data availability, 
accountability, 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 the 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 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. A more streamlined and accurate review of 
performance test data will become available to the public through the 
EPA's Web Factor Information Retrieval System (WebFIRE).
    In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, 
control strategy development, and other air pollution control 
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance 
test data will save industry, state, local, tribal agencies, and the 
EPA significant time, money, and effort while improving the quality of 
emission inventories and air quality regulations.
    For a more thorough discussion of electronic reporting, see the 
discussion in the preamble of the proposal, at 83 FR 22754, and 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-2016-0678.

G. EPA Test Method 326

    We are finalizing EPA Method 326 to improve test methodology 
related to volatile organic HAP content measured in certain surface 
coatings containing isocyanates. Because there was no EPA test method 
for isocyanate emissions, as part of this action, we are finalizing 
specific isocyanate compound sample collection and analytical 
requirements as EPA Method 326 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. EPA 
Method 326 is based on ``A Method for Measuring Isocyanates in 
Stationary Source Emissions,'' which was proposed on December 8, 1997 
(see 62 FR 64532) as EPA Method 207, but was never promulgated. EPA 
Method 326 does not significantly modify the sampling and analytical 
techniques of the previously proposed method, but includes additional 
QC procedures and associated performance criteria to ensure the overall 
quality of the measurement.
    EPA Method 326 is based on the EPA Method 5 sampling train 
employing a derivatizing reagent (1-(2-pyridyl) piperazine in toluene) 
in the impingers to immediately stabilize the isocyanate compounds upon 
collection. Collected samples are analyzed using high performance 
liquid chromatography and an appropriate detector under laboratory 
conditions sufficient to separate and quantify the isocyanate 
compounds.
    The sampling and analytical techniques were validated at three 
sources according to EPA Method 301 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) and 
the report of this validation, titled Laboratory Development and Field 
Evaluation of a Generic Method for Sampling and Analysis of 
Isocyanates, can be found in the docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-
0678. Under the final rule, this validated technique would be used to 
reliably collect and analyze gaseous isocyanate emissions from surface 
coatings of wood building products for methylene diphenyl diisocyanate 
(MDI), methyl isocyanate (MI), hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate (HDI), 
and 2,4 toluene diisocyanate (TDI). This method will also provide a 
tool for state and local governments,

[[Page 7693]]

industry, and the EPA to reliably measure emissions of MDI, MI, HDI, 
and/or TDI from other types of stationary sources, such as pressed 
board, flexible foam, and spray booths.

H. IBR Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes IBR. In 
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by 
reference National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream 
Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) Method ISS/FP A105.01 and the following 
voluntary consensus standards (VCS) described in the amendments to 40 
CFR 63.14:
     ANSI A135.4-2012, Basic Hardboard, approved June 8, 2012, 
IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4781.
     ASTM D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid 
Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, approved November 1, 2013, IBR 
approved for 40 CFR 63.4741(b)(3) and (c) and 63.4751(c).
     ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for 
Specific Gravity and Density of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their 
Admixtures, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for 40 CFR 
63.4741(a)(2)(i).
     ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015) \e\, Standard Test Method 
for Volatile Content of Coatings, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved 
for 40 CFR 63.4741(a)(2)(ii).
     ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for 
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, approved July 
1, 2014, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4741(a)(2)(iii) and (b).
     ASTM D4840-99 (Reapproved 2018) \e\, Standard Guide for 
Sampling Chain-of-Custody Procedures, approved August 15, 2018, IBR 
approved for EPA Method 326 in appendix A to part 63.
     ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for 
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using 
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, Approved December 1, 2016, IBR approved for 40 
CFR 63.4741(a)(2)(iv) and (b)(1).
     ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface 
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 
through A8, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR approved for 40 CFR 
63.4751(i) introductory paragraph and (i)(4), 63.4752(e), and 
63.4766(b) introductory paragraph and (b)(4).
    While the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) methods 
D2697-86 and D6093-97 were incorporated by reference when 40 CFR part 
63, subpart QQQQ, was originally promulgated (68 FR 31760), the methods 
have been updated and reapproved and are also being cited in additional 
paragraphs in the final rule, requiring a revision to their IBR. NCASI 
Method ISS/FP A105.01 was incorporated by reference when 40 CFR part 
63, subpart DDDD, Table 4 was amended in 2006. The American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI) method (published by the Composite Panel 
Association) and the other ASTM methods are being incorporated by 
reference for 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ, for the first time under 
this rulemaking.

I. Technical and Editorial Changes

    The following are additional final changes that address technical 
and editorial corrections:
     Revised the monitoring requirements section in 40 CFR 
63.4764 to clarify ongoing compliance provisions to address startup and 
shutdown periods when certain parameters cannot be met;
     Revised the recordkeeping requirements section in 40 CFR 
63.4730 to include the requirement to record information on failures to 
meet the applicable standard;
     Revised the references to several test method appendices;
     Revised the General Provisions applicability table (Table 
4 to Subpart QQQQ of Part 63) to align with sections of the General 
Provisions that have been amended or reserved over time; and
     Revised 40 CFR 63.4681 to update reference to 40 CFR part 
63, subpart DDDD.

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

A. What are the affected facilities?

    There are currently 57 wood building product manufacturing 
facilities operating in the United States that conduct surface coating 
operations and are subject to the Surface Coating of Wood Building 
Products NESHAP. The 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ, affected source is 
the collection of all the items listed in 40 CFR 63.4682(b)(1) through 
(4) that are used for surface coating of wood building products. A new 
affected source is a completely new wood building products surface 
coating source where previously no wood building products surface 
coating source had existed.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    At the current level of control, the EPA estimates emissions of 
total HAP are approximately 270 tpy.\5\ Compared to pre-MACT levels, 
this represents a significant reduction of HAP for the category. Prior 
to the development of the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products 
NESHAP, the EPA estimated HAP emissions to be 14,300 tons annually.\6\ 
The final amendments will require all 57 major sources with equipment 
subject to the Wood Building Products Coating NESHAP to operate without 
the SSM exemption. We are unable to quantify the specific emissions 
reductions associated with eliminating the SSM exemption, but 
eliminating the SSM exemption will reduce emissions by requiring 
facilities to meet the applicable standard during SSM periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For more information, see the memorandum in the docket 
titled, Addendum to Preparation of the Residual Risk Modeling Input 
File for Subpart QQQQ; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678.
    \6\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP) for the Wood Building Products (Surface Coating) Industry--
Background Information for Proposed Standards; EPA-453/R-00-003; May 
2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would 
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the 
operation of control devices (i.e., increased secondary emissions of 
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the 
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other 
equipment that would be required under this rule. The EPA expects no 
secondary air emissions impacts or energy impacts from this rulemaking 
because this action does not amend the numeric emission limit.
    For further information, see the memoranda titled Cost Impacts of 
the Subpart QQQQ Residual Risk and Technology Review and Economic 
Impact and Small Business Screening Assessments for Final Amendments to 
the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface 
Coating of Wood Building Products, in the docket for this action, 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We estimate that, as a result of these final amendments, each 
facility in the source category will experience reporting and 
recordkeeping costs. Each facility will experience costs to read and 
understand the rule amendments. Costs associated with the elimination 
of the SSM exemption were estimated as part of the reporting and 
recordkeeping costs and include time for re-evaluating previously 
developed SSM record systems. Costs associated with the requirement to 
electronically submit

[[Page 7694]]

notifications and semiannual compliance reports using CEDRI were 
estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include 
time for becoming familiar with CEDRI and the reporting template for 
semiannual compliance reports. The reporting and recordkeeping costs 
are presented in this section of the preamble. A thorough discussion of 
the facility-by-facility costs is contained in the supporting statement 
for the 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ amendments, Supporting Statement, 
NESHAP for the Wood Building Products Surface Coating Industry (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart QQQQ) (Final Amendments); December 2018, which can be 
found in the docket for this rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678.
    The EPA estimates that one facility will be impacted by this final 
regulatory action. This facility will conduct an initial performance 
test to demonstrate compliance with the alternative compliance 
equation, as related to their request for an alternative monitoring 
method. This initial performance test has a cost of $22,000, and the 
repeat testing will cost $22,000 every 5 years.
    The total estimated labor costs for the rule are summarized in the 
Supporting Statement for the information collection request (ICR) in 
the docket for this action. The estimated labor cost is $38,000 for all 
57 affected facilities to become familiar with the final rule 
requirements. For further information, see the memorandum titled Cost 
Impacts of the Subpart QQQQ Residual Risk and Technology Review, in the 
docket for this action, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and 
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the 
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may 
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a 
final rule and the distribution of these costs among affected 
facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in 
response to a final rule.
    For the one facility expected to conduct an initial performance 
test and become familiar with the final rule requirements, the costs 
associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ's final requirements are 
approximately 0.002 percent of annual sales revenues. For the remaining 
56 facilities, the costs associated with becoming familiar with the 
final rule requirements are less than 0.001 percent of annual sales 
revenues. These costs are not expected to result in a significant 
market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the 
purchaser or absorbed by the firms. For further information, see the 
memorandum titled Economic Impact and Small Business Screening 
Assessments for Final Amendments to the National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Wood Building Products, in 
the docket for this action, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678.

E. What are the benefits?

    The EPA did not change any of the emission limit requirements and 
estimates the final changes to SSM, recordkeeping, reporting, and 
monitoring are not economically significant. Because these final 
amendments are not considered economically significant, as defined by 
Executive Order 12866, and because no emission reductions were 
estimated, we did not estimate any benefits from reducing emissions.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on EJ. Its main provision directs federal 
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to 
make EJ part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on 
minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated 
with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is 
an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the 
populations living within 5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of the 
facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-
related cancer and noncancer risks from the Surface Coating of Wood 
Building Products source category across different demographic groups 
within the populations living near facilities.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3 
below. These results for various demographic groups are based on the 
estimated risks from actual emissions levels for the population living 
within 50 km of the facilities.

      Table 3--Surface Coating of Wood Building Products Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Population with cancer
                                                                risk at or above 1-in-1  Population with chronic
                                                  Nationwide      million due to wood     HI above 1 due to wood
                                                                   building products        building products
                                                                  surface coating \1\        surface coating
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population..............................     317,746,049                        0                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.........................................              62                        0                        0
All Other Races...............................              38                        0                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.........................................              62                        0                        0
African American..............................              12                        0                        0
Native American...............................             0.8                        0                        0

[[Page 7695]]

 
Other and Multiracial.........................               7                        0                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Ethnicity by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic......................................              18                        0                        0
Non-Hispanic..................................              82                        0                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level...........................              14                        0                        0
Above Poverty Level...........................              86                        0                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without High School Diploma.......              14                        0                        0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma........              86                        0                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.......................              6%                       0%                       0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual emissions in the category.

    The results of the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source 
category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source 
category do not expose people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 
million based on actual emissions. Also, no people are exposed to a 
chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk 
population are demographically similar to their respective nationwide 
percentages for all demographic groups.
    The EPA received a comment on our proposed rule stating that we 
ignored unacceptably disproportionate effects on EJ communities. As 
noted above, we re-evaluated our risk impacts from the category with a 
revised risk assessment. One aspect of this assessment was that it 
generated a risk report based on a more refined risk assessment model. 
Those risk model results did show lower risk in the EJ communities 
where larger impacts were noted at proposal. The EPA considered this 
comment and has reaffirmed its determination that this final rule will 
not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on minority, low income, or indigenous 
populations because it increases the level of environmental protection 
for all affected populations.
    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 Surface Coating of 
Wood Building Products Source Category Operations, available in the 
docket for this action, EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA 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 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Wood Building 
Products Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology 
Review Final Rule, available in the docket for this action, Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    This action is not 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 final rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the 
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2034.08. You can find a 
copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0678), and it is briefly summarized here.
    We are finalizing changes to the paperwork requirements for the 
Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP in the form of 
eliminating the SSM reporting and SSM plan requirements, and requiring 
electronic submittal of semiannual compliance reports and any future 
notifications of compliance status or performance test reports.
    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents include wood building 
product manufacturing facilities with surface coating operations 
subject to the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (authorized by 
section 114 of the CAA).
    Estimated number of respondents: 57.

[[Page 7696]]

    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending 
on the burden item. Responses include notifications, reports of 
performance tests, and semiannual compliance reports.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting 
burden for this information collection, averaged over the first 3 years 
of this ICR, is estimated to total 20,208 labor hours per year. Burden 
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,465,000 per year in labor costs, including 
$38,000 in labor cost for all 57 facilities to become familiar with the 
final rule requirements. An additional cost of $22,000 is estimated for 
an initial performance test at one facility during the 3-year ICR 
period. These estimated costs represent the full ongoing information 
collection burden for 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ, as revised by the 
final amendments being promulgated.
    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. In addition, 
the EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 to list the regulatory 
citations for the information collection activities contained in this 
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. In 
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant 
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no 
net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small 
entities subject to the rule. We conducted an economic impact analysis 
which is available in the docket for this final rule, Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678. For all but one of the facilities affected by the 
final rule, including the small businesses, the costs associated with 
the final rule requirements are less than 0.001 percent of annual sales 
revenues; for the remaining facility, the costs are less than 0.002 
percent of annual sales revenues. We have, therefore, concluded that 
this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly 
regulated small entities.

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. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government 
and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the federal government and Indian Tribes, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. This final rule imposes requirements on owners 
and operators of wood building product surface coating facilities and 
not tribal governments. The EPA discussed the proposed action at a 
meeting of the National Tribal Air Association,\8\ and has not been 
informed and does not know of any wood building product surface coating 
facilities owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. However, if 
there are any, the effect of this rule on communities of tribal 
governments would not be unique or disproportionate to the effect on 
other communities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See National Tribal Air Association--EPA Air Policy Update 
Call; Thursday May 31, 2018, in the docket for this rule; Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. A description of the health risk assessment conducted as part 
of this action is provided in sections III and IV of this preamble and 
further documented in the risk report titled Residual Risk Assessment 
for the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products Source Category in 
Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, in the 
docket for this action, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678.

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 action involves technical standards. The EPA is finalizing the 
use of NCASI Method ISS/FP A105.01, ``Impinger Source Sampling Method 
for Selected Aldehydes, Ketones, and Polar Compounds,'' December 2005, 
Methods Manual, and ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), ``Standard Test 
Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct 
Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy'' as 
alternatives to using EPA Method 320 under certain conditions, and is 
incorporating these alternative methods by reference. EPA Method 320 is 
added for the measurement of organic HAP emissions if formaldehyde is a 
major organic HAP component of the surface coating exhaust stream. EPA 
Method 320 can also be used for other HAP that may be found in wood 
building products coatings. NCASI Method ISS/FP A105.01 is an impinger 
source sampling method for the collection and analysis of a wider range 
of aldehydes, ketones, and polar organics, has previously been 
incorporated by reference at 40 CFR 63.14, and is reasonably available 
from National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream 
Improvement, Inc. (NCASI), P.O. Box 133318, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27709-3318 or at http://www.ncasi.org.
    Instead of the current ASTM D6348-12 standard, the ASTM D6348-03 
(Reapproved 2010) standard is referenced in the Surface Coating of Wood 
Building Products NESHAP. The QC criteria in ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 
2010) are more closely matched to the testing requirements in this 
NESHAP. Use of ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010) is defined in 40 CFR 
63.4751(i)(4). ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010) is an extractive FTIR

[[Page 7697]]

spectroscopy-based field test method and is used to quantify gas phase 
concentrations of multiple target compounds in emission streams from 
stationary sources.
    ANSI A135.4-2012, ``Basic Hardboard,'' is reasonably available from 
the Composite Panel Association, 19465 Deerfield Avenue, Suite 306, 
Leesburg, VA 20176. The standard specifies requirements and test 
methods for water absorption, thickness swelling, modulus of rupture, 
tensile strength, surface finish, dimensions, squareness, edge 
straightness, and moisture content for five classes of hardboard, 
including tileboard, part of a subcategory in the standard.
    The EPA is also using ASTM D4840-99 (Reapproved 2018)\e\, 
``Standard Guide for Sampling Chain-of-Custody Procedures,'' in EPA 
Method 326 for its chain of custody procedures and is incorporating 
this alternative method by reference. The ASTM D4840-99 (Reapproved 
2018)\e\ guide contains a comprehensive discussion of potential 
requirements for a sample chain-of-custody program and describes the 
procedures involved in sample chain-of-custody. The purpose of ASTM 
D4840-99 (Reapproved 2018)\e\ procedures is to provide accountability 
for and documentation of sample integrity from the time samples are 
collected until the time samples are disposed. EPA Method 326 is added 
for the measurement of organic HAP emissions if isocyanate is a major 
organic HAP component of the surface coating exhaust stream.
    The EPA is finalizing the use of the following four VCS as 
alternatives to EPA Method 24 for the determination of volatile matter 
content, water content, density, volume solids, and weight solids of 
surface coatings and incorporate these VCS by reference:
     ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), ``Standard Test Methods 
for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their 
Admixtures.'' These test methods are used for the determination of the 
specific gravity of halogenated organic solvents and solvent 
admixtures.
     ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, ``Standard Test Method 
for Volatile Content of Coatings.'' This test method describes a 
procedure used for the determination of the weight percent volatile 
content of solvent-borne and waterborne coatings.
     ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), ``Standard Test Method 
for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings.'' This 
test method is applicable to the determination of the volume of 
nonvolatile matter in coatings.
     ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), ``Standard Test Method 
for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings 
Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer.'' This test method is used for the 
determination of the percent volume nonvolatile matter in clear and 
pigmented coatings.
    The ASTM standards are reasonably available from the American 
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post 
Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See http://www.astm.org/.
    While the EPA has identified another 18 VCS as being potentially 
applicable to this final rule, we have decided not to use these VCS in 
this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would not be practical due to 
lack of equivalency, documentation, validation date, and other 
important technical and policy considerations. See the memorandum 
titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Wood 
Building Products, in the docket for this final rule for the reasons 
for these determinations.
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General 
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use 
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or 
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.

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

    The EPA 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 the technical report titled Risk and Technology 
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near 
Wood Building Products Surface Coating Sources, which is located in the 
public docket for this action, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678.
    We examined the potential for any EJ issues that might be 
associated with the source category by performing a demographic 
analysis of the population close to the facilities. See section V.F, 
above. In this analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related 
cancer and noncancer risks from the Surface Coating of Wood Building 
Products NESHAP source category across different social, demographic, 
and economic groups within the populations living near facilities 
identified as having the highest risks. The methodology and the results 
of the demographic analyses are included in a technical report, Risk 
and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations 
Living Near Surface Coating of Wood Building Products Source Category 
Operations, available in the docket for this action, Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2016-0678.
    The results of the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP 
source category demographic analysis indicate that approximately 700 
people may be exposed to a cancer risk of 1-in-1 million based on 
allowable emissions from the source category and no one is exposed to a 
chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The specific demographic 
results indicate that the percentage of the population potentially 
impacted by wood building products emissions is similar among all 
demographic groups (see Table 3 of this preamble). The proximity 
results (irrespective of risk) indicate that the population percentages 
for certain demographic categories within 5 km of source category 
emissions are greater than the corresponding national percentage for 
those same demographics. The following demographic percentages for 
populations residing within close proximity to facilities with Surface 
Coating of Wood Building Products source category facilities are higher 
than the corresponding nationwide percentage: African American, ages 65 
and up, over age 25 without a high school diploma, and below the 
poverty level.
    The risks due to actual HAP emissions from this source category are 
low for all populations (e.g., inhalation cancer risks are less than 1-
in-1 million for all populations and noncancer HIs are less than 1). We 
do not expect this final rule to achieve significant reductions in HAP 
emissions. We have concluded that this final rule will not have 
unacceptable adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
or low-income populations. The final rule does not affect the level of 
protection provided to human health or the environment. However, this 
final rule will provide additional benefits to these demographic groups 
by improving the compliance, monitoring, and implementation of the 
NESHAP.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to

[[Page 7698]]

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Surface Coating of Wood Building Products Residual Risk and Technology 
Review, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: December 20, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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:
0
a. In paragraph (a), by removing-- ``http://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html'' and 
adding ``www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html'' in 
its place;
0
b. By redesignating the paragraphs in the Old Paragraph column as the 
paragraphs in the New Paragraph column as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Old paragraph                        New paragraph
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c).......................................  (f)
(d).......................................  (g)
(e) through (g)...........................  (c) through (e)
(l) through (s)...........................  (m) through (t);
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
c. In paragraph (h)--
0
i. In the introductory text, by removing ``American Society for Testing 
and Materials (ASTM)'' and adding ``ASTM International'' in its place;
0
 ii. By redesignating the paragraphs in the Old Paragraph column as the 
paragraphs in the New Paragraph column as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Old paragraph                        New paragraph
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(h)(13) through (h)(19)...................  (h)(14) through (h)(20)
(h)(20) through (h)(23)...................  (h)(22) through (h)(25)
(h)(24) through (h)(26)...................  (h)(27) through (h)(29)
(h)(27) through (h)(59)...................  (h)(31) through (h)(63)
(h)(60) through (h)(73)...................  (h)(65) through (h)(78)
(h)(74) through (h)(105)..................  (h)(80) through (h)(111);
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
iii. By adding new paragraphs (h)(13), (21), (26), (30), (64), and 
(79); and
0
iv. By revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(84).
0
d. By adding new paragraph (l); and
0
e. By revising newly designated paragraph (p)(5).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (13) ASTM D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid 
Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, approved November 1, 2013, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  63.4741(b) and (c) and 63.4751(c).
* * * * *
    (21) ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for 
Specific Gravity and Density of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their 
Admixtures, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for Sec.  63.4741(a).
* * * * *
    (26) ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, Standard Test Method for 
Volatile Content of Coatings, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for 
Sec.  63.4741(a).
* * * * *
    (30) ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for 
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, approved July 
1, 2014, IBR approved for Sec.  63.4741(a) and (b).
* * * * *
    (64) ASTM D4840-99 (Reapproved 2018)\e\, Standard Guide for 
Sampling Chain-of-Custody Procedures, approved August 15, 2018, IBR 
approved for appendix A to part 63.
* * * * *
    (79) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for 
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using 
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, Approved December 1, 2016, IBR approved for 
Sec.  63.4741(a) and (b).
* * * * *
    (84) ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface 
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 
through A8, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
63.1571(a), 63.4751(i), 63.4752(e), 63.4766(b), tables 4 and 5 to 
subpart JJJJJ, tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK, tables 1, 2, and 5 to 
subpart UUUUU and appendix B to subpart UUUUU.
* * * * *
    (l) Composite Panel Association, 19465 Deerfield Avenue, Suite 306, 
Leesburg, VA 20176, Telephone (703)724-1128, and 
www.compositepanel.org.
    (1) ANSI A135.4-2012, Basic Hardboard, approved June 8, 2012, IBR 
approved for Sec.  63.4781.
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (p) * * *
    (5) NCASI Method ISS/FP A105.01, Impinger Source Sampling Method 
for Selected Aldehydes, Ketones, and Polar Compounds, December 2005, 
Methods Manual, IBR approved for table 4 to subpart DDDD and Sec. Sec.  
63.4751(i) and 63.4752(e).
* * * * *

Subpart QQQQ--[Amended]

0
 4. Section 63.4681 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) 
introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.4681  Am I subject to this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Surface coating in the processes identified in paragraphs 
(c)(1)(i) through (xi) of this section that are part of plywood and 
composite wood product manufacturing and subject to subpart DDDD of 
this part including:
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.4683 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  63.4683   When do I have to comply with this subpart?

* * * * *
    (a) For a new or reconstructed affected source, the compliance date 
is the applicable date in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section:
    (1) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected 
source is before May 28, 2003, the compliance date is May 28, 2003; 
except that the compliance date for the revised requirements 
promulgated at Sec. Sec.  63.4700, 63.4710, 63.4720, 63.4730, 63.4741, 
63.4751, 63.4752, 63.4761, 63.4763, 63.4764, 63.4766, 63.4781, table 4 
of this subpart QQQQ, and appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 is September 3, 
2019.
    (2) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected 
source occurs after May 28, 2003, the compliance date is March 4, 2019 
or the date of initial startup of your affected source, whichever is 
later; except that if you commenced construction or reconstruction of 
your new or reconstructed affected source after May 28, 2003, but on or 
before May 16, 2018, the compliance date for the revised requirements 
promulgated at

[[Page 7699]]

Sec. Sec.  63.4700, 63.4710, 63.4720, 63.4730, 63.4741, 63.4751, 
63.4752, 63.4761, 63.4763, 63.4764, 63.4766, 63.4781, table 4 of this 
subpart QQQQ, and appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 is September 3, 2019.
    (b) For an existing affected source, the compliance date is the 
date 3 years after May 28, 2003, except that the compliance date for 
the revised requirements promulgated at Sec. Sec.  63.4700, 63.4710, 
63.4720, 63.4730, 63.4741, 63.4751, 63.4752, 63.4761, 63.4763, 63.4764, 
63.4766, 63.4781, table 4 of this subpart QQQQ of part 63, and appendix 
A to 40 CFR part 63 is September 3, 2019.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 63.4700 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2) introductory text and paragraphs (a)(2)(i) 
and (ii);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(3); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b) and (d).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  63.4700   What are my general requirements for complying with 
this subpart?

    (a) * * *
    (2) Any coating operation(s) at existing sources for which you use 
the emission rate with add-on controls option, as specified in Sec.  
63.4691(c), must be in compliance with the applicable emission 
limitations as specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) Before September 3, 2019, the coating operation(s) must be in 
compliance with the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.4690 at all 
times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
(SSM). On and after September 3, 2019, the coating operation(s) must be 
in compliance with the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.4690 at 
all times.
    (ii) Before September 3, 2019, the coating operation(s) must be in 
compliance with the applicable operating limits for emission capture 
systems and add-on control devices required by Sec.  63.4692 at all 
times, except during periods of SSM, and except for solvent recovery 
systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according 
to Sec.  63.4761(j). On and after September 3, 2019, the coating 
operation(s) must be in compliance with the operating limits for 
emission capture systems and add-on control devices required by Sec.  
63.4692 at all times, except for solvent recovery systems for which you 
conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to Sec.  63.4761(j).
* * * * *
    (3) For new or reconstructed sources with initial startup after May 
16, 2018, any coating operation(s) for which you use the emission rate 
with add-on controls option, as specified in Sec.  63.4691(c), must be 
in compliance with the applicable emission limitations and work 
practice standards as specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) 
of this section.
    (i) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the 
applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.4690 at all times.
    (ii) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the 
operating limits for emission capture systems and add-on control 
devices required by Sec.  63.4692 at all times, except for solvent 
recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances 
according to Sec.  63.4761(j).
    (iii) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the work 
practice standards in Sec.  63.4693 at all times.
    (b) For existing sources as of March 4, 2019, before September 3, 
2019, you must always operate and maintain your affected source, 
including all air pollution control and monitoring equipment you use 
for purposes of complying with this subpart, according to the 
provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i). On and after September 3, 2019 for 
such existing sources and after March 4, 2019 for new or reconstructed 
sources, you must always operate and maintain your 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 which may include, but is 
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance 
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection 
of the source.
* * * * *
    (d) For existing sources, before September 3, 2019, if your 
affected source uses an emission capture system and add-on control 
device, you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3). The SSMP 
must address startup, shutdown, and corrective actions in the event of 
a malfunction of the emission capture system or the add-on control 
device. The SSMP must also address any coating operation equipment that 
may cause increased emissions or that would affect capture efficiency 
if the process equipment malfunctions, such as conveyors that move 
parts among enclosures.

0
7. Section 63.4710 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(8)(ii) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  63.4710   What notifications must I submit?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (ii) For the emission rate without add-on controls option, provide 
the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions for each 
month; the calculation of the total volume of coating solids used each 
month; and the calculation of the 12-month organic HAP emission rate, 
using Equations 1 and 1A (or 1A-alt) through 1C, 2, and 3, 
respectively, of Sec.  63.4751.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.4720 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(6)(ii) and paragraph (a)(7) introductory 
text;
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (xiv) as paragraphs 
(a)(7)(i)(A) through (N);
0
c. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(i) introductory text and paragraph 
(a)(7)(ii);
0
d. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text; and
0
e. Adding paragraph (d).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.4720   What reports must I submit?

    (a) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) The calculations used to determine the 12-month organic HAP 
emission rate for the compliance period in which the deviation 
occurred. You must provide the calculations for Equations 1, 1A (or 1A-
alt) through 1C, 2, and 3 in Sec.  63.4751; and if applicable, the 
calculation used to determine mass of organic HAP in waste materials 
according to Sec.  63.4751(e)(4). You do not need to submit background 
data supporting these calculations (e.g., information provided by 
materials suppliers or manufacturers, or test reports).
* * * * *
    (7) Deviations: Emission rate with add-on controls option. You must 
be in compliance with the emission limitations in this subpart as 
specified in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section.

[[Page 7700]]

    (i) For existing sources, before September 3, 2019, if you used the 
emission rate with add-on controls option and there was a deviation 
from an emission limitation (including any periods when emissions 
bypassed the add-on control device and were diverted to the 
atmosphere), the semiannual compliance report must contain the 
information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i)(A) through (N) of this section. 
This includes periods of SSM during which deviations occurred.
* * * * *
    (ii) After March 4, 2019 for new and reconstructed sources, and on 
and after September 3, 2019 for existing sources, if you used the 
emission rate with add-on controls option and there was a deviation 
from an emission limitation (including any periods when emissions 
bypassed the add-on control device and were diverted to the 
atmosphere), the semiannual compliance report must contain the 
information in paragraphs (a)(7)(ii)(A) through (M) of this section.
    (A) The beginning and ending dates of each compliance period during 
which the 12-month organic HAP emission rate exceeded the applicable 
emission limit in Sec.  63.4690.
    (B) The calculations used to determine the 12-month organic HAP 
emission rate for each compliance period in which a deviation occurred. 
You must provide the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP 
emissions for the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used each 
month, using Equations 1 and 1A through 1C of Sec.  63.4751; and, if 
applicable, the calculation used to determine mass of organic HAP in 
waste materials according to Sec.  63.4751(e)(4); the calculation of 
the total volume of coating solids used each month, using Equation 2 of 
Sec.  63.4751; the calculation of the mass of organic HAP emission 
reduction each month by emission capture systems and add-on control 
devices, using Equations 1 and 1A through 1D of Sec.  63.4761, and 
Equations 2, 3, and 3A through 3C of Sec.  63.4761, as applicable; the 
calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions each month, 
using Equation 4 of Sec.  63.4761; and the calculation of the 12-month 
organic HAP emission rate, using Equation 5 of Sec.  63.4761. You do 
not need to submit the background data supporting these calculations 
(e.g., information provided by materials suppliers or manufacturers, or 
test reports).
    (C) A brief description of the CPMS.
    (D) The date of the latest CPMS certification or audit.
    (E) The date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for 
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (F) The date, time, and duration that each CPMS was out-of-control, 
including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (G) The date and time period of each deviation from an operating 
limit in Table 3 to this subpart, date and time period of any bypass of 
the add-on control device.
    (H) A summary of the total duration of each deviation from an 
operating limit in Table 3 to this subpart, each bypass of the add-on 
control device during the semiannual reporting period, and the total 
duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that 
semiannual reporting period.
    (I) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from the 
operating limits in Table 3 to this subpart and bypasses of the add-on 
control device during the semiannual reporting period by identifying 
deviations due to control equipment problems, process problems, other 
known causes, and other unknown causes; 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.
    (J) A summary of the total duration of CPMS downtime during the 
semiannual reporting period and the total duration of CPMS downtime as 
a percent of the total source operating time during that semiannual 
reporting period.
    (K) A description of any changes in the CPMS, coating operation, 
emission capture system, or add-on control device since the last 
semiannual reporting period.
    (L) For each deviation from the standard, including work practice 
standards, a description of the deviation, the date and time period of 
the deviation, and the actions you took to correct the deviation.
    (M) A statement of the cause of each deviation.
* * * * *
    (c) SSM reports. For existing sources, before September 3, 2019, if 
you used the emission rate with add-on controls option and you had an 
SSM during the semiannual reporting period, you must submit the reports 
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (d) Electronic reporting. (1) 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 (d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) 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 the 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/). 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 
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on EPA's ERT website.
    (ii) 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 the EPA via CEDRI.
    (iii) Confidential business information (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 the 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 the EPA via EPA's CDX as described in 
paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section.
    (2) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status required 
in Sec.  63.4710(c) and the semiannual compliance reports required in 
paragraph (a) of this section to the EPA via the CEDRI. (CEDRI can be 
accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/)). For semiannual 
compliance reports, you must use the appropriate electronic report in 
CEDRI for this subpart or an alternative electronic file format 
consistent with the XML schema listed on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri). If the reporting form 
specific to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that

[[Page 7701]]

the report is due, you must submit the report to the Administrator at 
all the appropriate addresses listed in Sec.  63.13. Once the reporting 
template has been available in CEDRI for 1 year, you must begin 
submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI. For the Notification of 
Compliance Status, you must submit a file in portable document format 
(PDF) to CEDRI. The reports must be submitted by the deadlines 
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the 
reports are submitted.
    (3) 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 (d)(3)(i) through (vii) of this section.
    (i) 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.
    (ii) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is 
due.
    (iii) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (iv) 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.
    (v) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (A) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (B) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (C) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (D) 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.
    (vi) 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.
    (vii) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (4) 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 
(d)(4)(i) through (v) of this section.
    (i) 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).
    (ii) You must submit the 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.
    (iii) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (A) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (B) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (C) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (D) 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.
    (iv) 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.
    (v) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.

0
9. Section 63.4730 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(3) and paragraph (k) introductory text;
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(1) through (4) as paragraphs (k)(1)(i) 
through (iv);
0
c. Adding paragraph (k)(1) introductory text and paragraph (k)(2);
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(5)(i) through (iii) as paragraphs 
(k)(1)(v)(A) through (C);
0
e. Redesignating paragraph (k)(5) introductory text as paragraph 
(k)(1)(v) introductory text and revising it;
0
f. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(6)(i) and (ii) as paragraphs 
(k)(1)(vi)(A) and (B);
0
g. Redesignating paragraph (k)(6) introductory text as paragraph 
(k)(1)(vi) introductory text and revising it; and
0
h. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(7) and (8) as paragraphs (k)(1)(vii) 
and (viii).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.4730   What records must I keep?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) For the emission rate without add-on controls option, a record 
of the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions for the 
coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used each month, using 
Equations 1, 1A (or 1A-alt) through 1C, and 2 of Sec.  63.4751; and, if 
applicable, the calculation used to determine mass of organic HAP in 
waste materials according to Sec.  63.4751(e)(4); the calculation of 
the total volume of coating solids used each month, using Equation 2 of 
Sec.  63.4751; and the calculation of each 12-month organic HAP 
emission rate, using Equation 3 of Sec.  63.4751.
* * * * *
    (k) If you use the emission rate with add-on controls option, you 
must keep the records specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (2) of 
this section.
    (1) For existing sources, before September 3, 2019:
* * * * *
    (v) For each capture system that is not a PTE, the data and 
documentation you used to determine capture efficiency according to the 
requirements specified in Sec. Sec.  63.4764 and 63.4765(b) through 
(e), including the records specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(v)(A) through 
(C) of this section that apply to you.
* * * * *
    (vi) The records specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(vi)(A) and (B) of 
this section for each add-on control device organic HAP destruction or 
removal efficiency determination as specified in Sec.  63.4766.
* * * * *
    (2) After March 4, 2019 for new and reconstructed sources, and on 
and after September 3, 2019 for existing sources:
    (i) The records required to show continuous compliance with each 
operating limit specified in Table 3 to this subpart that applies to 
you.
    (ii) For each capture system that is a PTE, the data and 
documentation you used to support a determination that the capture 
system meets the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 
for a PTE and has a capture efficiency of 100 percent, as specified in 
Sec.  63.4765(a).
    (iii) For each capture system that is not a PTE, the data and 
documentation

[[Page 7702]]

you used to determine capture efficiency according to the requirements 
specified in Sec. Sec.  63.4764 and 63.4765(b) through (e), including 
the records specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of this 
section that apply to you.
    (A) Records for a liquid-to-uncaptured-gas protocol using a 
temporary total enclosure or building enclosure. Records of the mass of 
total volatile hydrocarbon (TVH) as measured by Method 204A or F of 
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for each material used in the coating 
operation, and the total TVH for all materials used during each capture 
efficiency test run, including a copy of the test report. Records of 
the mass of TVH emissions not captured by the capture system that 
exited the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during each 
capture efficiency test run as measured by Method 204D or E of appendix 
M to 40 CFR part 51, including a copy of the test report. Records 
documenting that the enclosure used for the capture efficiency test met 
the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for either a 
temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure.
    (B) Records for a gas-to-gas protocol using a temporary total 
enclosure or a building enclosure. Records of the mass of TVH emissions 
captured by the emission capture system as measured by Method 204B or C 
of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 at the inlet to the add-on control 
device, including a copy of the test report. Records of the mass of TVH 
emissions not captured by the capture system that exited the temporary 
total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency 
test run as measured by Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 
51, including a copy of the test report. Records documenting that the 
enclosure used for the capture efficiency test met the criteria in 
Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for either a temporary total 
enclosure or a building enclosure.
    (C) Records for an alternative protocol. Records needed to document 
a capture efficiency determination using an alternative method or 
protocol as specified in Sec.  63.4765(e), if applicable.
    (iv) The records specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(iv)(A) and (B) of 
this section for each add-on control device organic HAP destruction or 
removal efficiency determination as specified in Sec.  63.4766.
    (A) Records of each add-on control device performance test 
conducted according to Sec. Sec.  63.4764 and 63.4766.
    (B) Records of the coating operation conditions during the add-on 
control device performance test showing that the performance test was 
conducted under representative operating conditions.
    (v) Records of the data and calculations you used to establish the 
emission capture and add-on control device operating limits as 
specified in Sec.  63.4767 and to document compliance with the 
operating limits as specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
    (vi) A record of the work practice plan required by Sec.  63.4693, 
and documentation that you are implementing the plan on a continuous 
basis.

0
10. Section 63.4741 is amended by revising:
0
a. Paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. The subject heading and first sentence of paragraph (b)(1);
0
 c. The defined terms ``mvolatiles'' and ``Davg'' 
in Equation 1 in paragraph (b)(3) introductory text; and
0
d. Paragraph (c).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.4741   How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) Method 24 (appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60). For coatings, you 
may use Method 24 to determine the mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile 
matter and use that value as a substitute for mass fraction of organic 
HAP. (Note: Method 24 is not appropriate for those coatings with a 
water content that would result in an effective detection limit greater 
than the applicable emission limit.) One of the voluntary consensus 
standards in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) may be used as an 
alternative to using Method 24.
    (i) ASTM Method D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), ``Standard Test Methods 
for Specific Gravity and Density of Halogenated Organic Solvents and 
Their Admixtures,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14);
    (ii) ASTM Method D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, ``Standard Test 
Method for Volatile Content of Coatings,'' (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  63.14);
    (iii) ASTM Method D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), ``Standard Test 
Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,'' 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14); and
    (iv) ASTM Method D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), ``Standard Test Method 
for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings 
Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
63.14).
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) ASTM Method D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014) or D6093-97 (Reapproved 
2016). You may use ASTM Method D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), ``Standard 
Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented 
Coatings'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), or D6093-97 
(Reapproved 2016), ``Standard Test Method for Percent Volume 
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas 
Pycnometer'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), to determine 
the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating. * * *
* * * * *
    (3) * * *

mvolatiles = Total volatile matter content of the 
coating, including HAP, volatile organic compounds (VOC), water, and 
exempt compounds, determined according to Method 24 in appendix A-7 
of 40 CFR part 60, grams volatile matter per liter coating.
Davg = Average density of volatile matter in the coating, 
grams volatile matter per liter volatile matter, determined from 
test results using ASTM Method D1475-13, ``Standard Test Method for 
Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products,'' 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), information from the 
supplier or manufacturer of the material, or reference sources 
providing density or specific gravity data for pure materials. If 
there is disagreement between ASTM Method D1475-13 test results and 
other information sources, the test results will take precedence.

    (c) Determine the density of each coating. Determine the density of 
each coating used during the compliance period from test results using 
ASTM Method D1475-13, ``Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid 
Coatings, Inks, and Related Products,'' (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  63.14), or information from the supplier or manufacturer of the 
material. If there is disagreement between ASTM Method D1475-13 test 
results and the supplier's or manufacturer's information, the test 
results will take precedence.
* * * * *

0
11. Section 63.4751 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c);
0
b. Revising the defined term ``A'' in Equation 1 in of paragraph (e) 
introductory text; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (i).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  63.4751  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (c) Determine the density of each material. Determine the density 
of each coating, thinner, and cleaning material

[[Page 7703]]

used during each month from test results using ASTM Method D1475-13 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), information from the 
supplier or manufacturer of the material, or reference sources 
providing density or specific gravity data for pure materials. If there 
is disagreement between ASTM Method D1475-13 test results and such 
other information sources, the test results will take precedence.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *

A = Total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used during the month, 
grams, as calculated in Equation 1A (or 1A-alt) of this section.
* * * * *
    (i) Alternative compliance demonstration. As an alternative to 
paragraph (h) of this section, you may demonstrate initial compliance 
by identifying each organic HAP component in the coating(s) and 
conducting a performance test using Method 320 of appendix A to 40 CFR 
part 63 or NCASI Method ISS/FP A105.01 (incorporated by reference in 
Sec.  63.14) (for formaldehyde) or Method 326 of appendix A to 40 CFR 
part 63 (for isocyanates) to obtain an organic HAP emission factor 
(EF). The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010) 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) may be used as an 
alternative to using Method 320 under the conditions specified in 
paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (1) You must also calculate the mass of organic HAP emitted from 
the coatings used during the month using Equation 1A-alt of this 
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04MR19.010

Where:

A = Total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used during the month, 
grams.
Volc,i = Total volume of coating, i, used during the 
month, liters.
Dc,j = Density of coating, i, grams coating per liter of 
coatings.
Wc,i = Mass fraction of organic HAP in coating, i, grams 
organic HAP per gram coating.
EFc,i = Organic HAP emission factor (three-run average 
from performance testing, evaluated as proportion of mass organic 
HAP emitted to mass of organic HAP in the coatings used during the 
performance test).
m = Number of different coatings used during the month.

    (2) Calculate the organic HAP emission rate for the 12-month 
compliance period, grams organic HAP per liter coating solids used, 
using Equation 3 of this section.
    (3) The organic HAP emission rate for the initial 12-month 
compliance period, calculated using Equation 3 of this section, must be 
less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.4690. 
You must keep all records as required by Sec. Sec.  63.4730 and 
63.4731. As part of the Notification of Compliance Status required by 
Sec.  63.4710, you must identify the coating operation(s) for which you 
used the emission rate without add-on controls option and submit a 
statement that the coating operation(s) was (were) in compliance with 
the emission limitations during the initial compliance period because 
the organic HAP emission rate was less than or equal to the applicable 
emission limit in Sec.  63.4690, determined according to this section.
    (4) If ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010) is used, the conditions 
specified in paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (ii) must be met.
    (i) Test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM 
D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), sections A1 through A8 are mandatory.
    (ii) In ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010) Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking 
Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target 
analyte (Equation A5.5 of ASTM D6348-03). In order for the test data to 
be acceptable for a compound, %R must be between 70 and 130 percent. If 
the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the 
test data are not acceptable for that compound, and the test must be 
repeated for that analyte following adjustment of the sampling and/or 
analytical procedure before the retest. The %R value for each compound 
must be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be 
corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound using the 
following equation: Reported Result = (Measured Concentration in the 
Stack x 100)/%R.

0
12. Section 63.4752 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.4752   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (e) If you use the alternative compliance demonstration described 
in Sec.  63.4751(i), you must identify each organic HAP component in 
the coating(s) and conduct a performance test every 5 years to obtain 
an organic HAP emission factor (EF). You must use the following 
methods, as appropriate: Method 320 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 or 
NCASI Method ISS/FP A105.01 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
63.14) (for formaldehyde) or Method 326 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 
(for isocyanates). The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6348-03 
(Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) may be 
used as an alternative to using Method 320 under the conditions 
specified in Sec.  63.4751(i)(4)(i) and (ii).

0
13. Section 63.4761 is amended by revising paragraph (j)(3) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.4761   How do I demonstrate initial compliance?

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (3) Determine the mass fraction of volatile organic matter for each 
coating, thinner, and cleaning material used in the coating operation 
controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, grams 
volatile organic matter per gram coating. You may determine the 
volatile organic matter mass fraction using Method 24 of 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A-7, one of the voluntary consensus standards specified in 
Sec.  63.4741(a)(2)(i) through (iv), or an EPA approved alternative 
method, or you may use information provided by the manufacturer or 
supplier of the coating. In the event of any inconsistency between 
information provided by the manufacturer or supplier and the results of 
Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, or an approved alternative 
method, the test method results will take precedence unless after 
consultation, a regulated source could demonstrate to the satisfaction 
of the enforcement agency that the formulation data were correct.
* * * * *

0
14. Section 63.4763 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.4763   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (h) For existing sources, before September 3, 2019, consistent with 
Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a 
period of SSM of the

[[Page 7704]]

emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating operation 
that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency are not 
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that 
you were operating in accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)(1). The 
Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur during a 
period you identify as an SSM are violations, according to the 
provisions in Sec.  63.6(e).
* * * * *

0
15. Section 63.4764 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  63.4764   What are the general requirements for performance 
tests?

    (a) * * *
    (1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must 
conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions 
for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions. 
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 shall make available to 
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
    (2) Representative emission capture system and add-on control 
device operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test when 
the emission capture system and add-on control device are operating at 
a representative flow rate, and the add-on control device is operating 
at a representative inlet concentration. Representative conditions 
exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct 
performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record 
information that is necessary to document emission capture system and 
add-on control device operating conditions during the test and explain 
why the conditions represent normal operation.
* * * * *

0
16. Section 63.4766 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(4), (b), (d), and (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.4766   How do I determine the add-on control device emission 
destruction or removal efficiency?

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) Use Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 60, as 
appropriate, to select sampling sites and velocity traverse points.
    (2) Use Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 
60, or Method 2G of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, to 
measure gas volumetric flow rate.
    (3) Use Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60, as 
appropriate, for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. You 
may also use as an alternative to Method 3B, the manual method for 
measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of 
exhaust gas in ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas 
Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus]'' (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  63.14).
    (4) Use Method 4 of appendix A-3 to 40 CFR part 60 to determine 
stack gas moisture.
* * * * *
    (b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the 
inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously, using 
Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60, and Method 320 or 
326 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (5) of this section. The voluntary consensus standard ASTM 
D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference in Sec.  63.14) 
may be used as an alternative to using Method 320 if the conditions 
specified in Sec.  63.4751(i)(4)(i) and (ii) are met. You must use the 
same method for both the inlet and outlet measurements.
    (1) Use Method 25 of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on 
control device is an oxidizer, and you expect the total gaseous organic 
concentration as carbon to be more than 50 parts per million (ppm) at 
the control device outlet.
    (2) Use Method 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on 
control device is an oxidizer, and you expect the total gaseous organic 
concentration as carbon to be 50 ppm or less at the control device 
outlet.
    (3) Use Method 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on 
control device is not an oxidizer.
    (4) If Method 25A is used, and if formaldehyde is a major organic 
HAP component of the surface coating exhaust stream, use Method 320 of 
appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 or NCASI Method ISS/FP A105.01 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  63.14) or ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 
2010) (incorporated by reference in Sec.  63.14) to determine 
formaldehyde concentration.
    (5) In addition to Method 25 or 25A, use Method 326 of appendix A 
to 40 CFR part 63 if isocyanate is a major organic HAP component of the 
surface coating exhaust stream.
* * * * *
    (d) For each test run, determine the total gaseous organic 
emissions mass flow rates for the inlet and the outlet of the add-on 
control device, using Equation 1 of this section. If there is more than 
one inlet or outlet to the add-on control device, you must calculate 
the total gaseous organic mass flow rate using Equation 1 of this 
section for each inlet and each outlet and then total all of the inlet 
emissions and total all of the outlet emissions. The mass emission 
rates for formaldehyde and individual isocyanate must be determined 
separately.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04MR19.000

Where:

Mf = Total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rate, 
grams per hour (h).
MW = Molecular weight of analyte of interest (12 for Method 25 and 
25A results).
Cc = Concentration of organic compounds in the vent gas 
(as carbon if determined by Method 25 or Method 25A), parts per 
million by volume (ppmv), dry basis.
Qsd = Volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting 
the add-on control device, as determined by Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 
2F, or 2G, dry standard cubic meters/hour (dscm/h).
41.6 = Conversion factor for molar volume, gram-moles per cubic 
meter (mol/m\3\) (@293 Kelvin (K) and 760 millimeters of mercury 
(mmHg)).
* * * * *
    (f) Determine the emission destruction or removal efficiency of the 
add-on control device as the average of the efficiencies determined in 
the three test runs and calculated in Equation 2 of this section. 
Destruction and removal efficiency must be determined independently for 
formaldehyde and isocyanates.

0
17. Section 63.4781 is amended by revising paragraph (3) under the 
definition of ``deviation'' and revising the definition of 
``tileboard'' to read as follows:

[[Page 7705]]

Sec.  63.4781  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Deviation * * *
    (3) On and after September 3, 2019, fails to meet any emission 
limit, or operating limit, or work practice standard in this subpart 
during SSM.
* * * * *
    Tileboard means hardboard that meets the specifications for Class I 
given by the standard ANSI A135.4-2012 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  63.14) as approved by the American National Standards Institute. 
The standard specifies requirements and test methods for water 
absorption, thickness swelling, modulus of rupture, tensile strength, 
surface finish, dimensions, squareness, edge straightness, and moisture 
content for five classes of hardboard. Tileboard is also known as Class 
I hardboard or tempered hardboard.
* * * * *

0
18. Table 4 to Subpart QQQQ is revised to read as follows:
    Table 4 to Subpart QQQQ of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart QQQQ of Part 63
    You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements 
according to the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Applicable to
              Citation                         Subject               subpart QQQQ             Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1)-(14)..............  General Applicability....  Yes.................
Sec.   63.1(b)(1)-(3)...............  Initial Applicability      Yes.................  Applicability to subpart
                                       Determination.                                   QQQQ is also specified
                                                                                        in Sec.   63.4681.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1)...................  Applicability After        Yes.................
                                       Standard Established.
Sec.   63.1(c)(2)...................  Applicability of Permit    No..................  Area sources are not
                                       Program for Area Sources.                        subject to subpart QQQQ.
Sec.   63.1(c)(3)...................  [Reserved]...............  No..................
Sec.   63.1(c)(4)-(5)...............  Extensions and             Yes.................
                                       Notifications.
Sec.   63.1(d)......................  [Reserved]...............  No..................
Sec.   63.1(e)......................  Applicability of Permit    Yes.................
                                       Program Before Relevant
                                       Standard is Set.
Sec.   63.2.........................  Definitions..............  Yes.................  Additional definitions
                                                                                        are specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.4781.
Sec.   63.3(a)-(c)..................  Units and Abbreviations..  Yes.................
Sec.   63.4(a)(1)-(5)...............  Prohibited Activities....  Yes.................
Sec.   63.4(b)-(c)..................  Circumvention/             Yes.................
                                       Severability.
Sec.   63.5(a)......................  Construction/              Yes.................
                                       Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(b)(1)-(6)...............  Requirements for           Yes.................
                                       Existing, Newly
                                       Constructed, and
                                       Reconstructed Sources.
Sec.   63.5(c)......................  [Reserved]...............  No..................
Sec.   63.5(d)......................  Application for Approval   Yes.................
                                       of Construction/
                                       Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(e)......................  Approval of Construction/  Yes.................
                                       Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(f)......................  Approval of Construction/  Yes.................
                                       Reconstruction Based on
                                       Prior State Review.
Sec.   63.6(a)......................  Compliance With Standards  Yes.................
                                       and Maintenance
                                       Requirements--Applicabil
                                       ity.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(7)...............  Compliance Dates for New   Yes.................  Sec.   63.4683 specifies
                                       and Reconstructed                                compliance dates.
                                       Sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(5)...............  Compliance Dates for       Yes.................  Sec.   63.4683 specifies
                                       Existing Sources.                                compliance dates.
Sec.   63.6(d)......................  [Reserved]...............  No..................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)................  General Duty to Minimize   No..................  See Sec.   63.4700(b) for
                                       Emissions.                                       general duty
                                                                                        requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)...............  Requirement to Correct     No..................
                                       Malfunctions ASAP.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)..............  Operation and Maintenance  Yes.................
                                       Requirements Enforceable
                                       Independent of Emissions
                                       Limitations.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)...................  [Reserved]...............  No..................
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)...................  SSMP.....................  No..................
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)...................  Compliance Except During   No..................
                                       SSM.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)...............  Methods for Determining    Yes.................
                                       Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3)...............  Use of an Alternative      Yes.................
                                       Standard.
Sec.   63.6(h)......................  Compliance with Opacity/   No..................  Subpart QQQQ does not
                                       Visible Emissions                                establish opacity
                                       Standards.                                       standards and does not
                                                                                        require continuous
                                                                                        opacity monitoring
                                                                                        systems (COMS).
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(16)..............  Extension of Compliance..  Yes.................
Sec.   63.6(j)......................  Presidential Compliance    Yes.................
                                       Exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)...................  Performance Test           Yes.................  Applies to all affected
                                       Requirements--Applicabil                         sources. Additional
                                       ity.                                             requirements for
                                                                                        performance testing are
                                                                                        specified in Sec.  Sec.
                                                                                         63.4751, 63.4752,
                                                                                        63.4764, 63.4765, and
                                                                                        63.4766.
Sec.   63.7(a)(2)...................  Performance Test           Yes.................  Applies only to
                                       Requirements--Dates.                             performance tests for
                                                                                        capture system and
                                                                                        control device
                                                                                        efficiency at sources
                                                                                        using these to comply
                                                                                        with the standard. Sec.
                                                                                         63.4760 specifies the
                                                                                        schedule for performance
                                                                                        test requirements that
                                                                                        are earlier than those
                                                                                        specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.7(a)(2).
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)...................  Performance Tests          Yes.................
                                       Required By the
                                       Administrator.
Sec.   63.7(a)(4)...................  Notification of Delay in   Yes.................
                                       Performance Testing Due
                                       to Force Majeure.

[[Page 7706]]

 
Sec.   63.7(b)-(d)..................  Performance Test           Yes.................  Applies only to
                                       Requirements--Notificati                         performance tests for
                                       on, Quality Assurance,                           capture system and add-
                                       Facilities Necessary for                         on control device
                                       Safe Testing, Conditions                         efficiency at sources
                                       During Test.                                     using these to comply
                                                                                        with the standard.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)...................  Performance Testing......  Yes.................
Sec.   63.7(f)......................  Performance Test           Yes.................  Applies to all test
                                       Requirements--Use of                             methods except those
                                       Alternative Test Method.                         used to determine
                                                                                        capture system
                                                                                        efficiency.
Sec.   63.7(g)-(h)..................  Performance Test           Yes.................  Applies only to
                                       Requirements--Data                               performance tests for
                                       Analysis, Recordkeeping,                         capture system and add-
                                       Reporting, Waiver of                             on control device
                                       Test.                                            efficiency at sources
                                                                                        using these to comply
                                                                                        with the standard.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(2)...............  Monitoring Requirements--  Yes.................  Applies only to
                                       Applicability.                                   monitoring of capture
                                                                                        system and add-on
                                                                                        control device
                                                                                        efficiency at sources
                                                                                        using these to comply
                                                                                        with the standard.
                                                                                        Additional requirements
                                                                                        for monitoring are
                                                                                        specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.4768.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)...................  [Reserved]...............  No..................
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)...................  Additional Monitoring      No..................  Subpart QQQQ does not
                                       Requirements.                                    have monitoring
                                                                                        requirements for flares.
Sec.   63.8(b)......................  Conduct of Monitoring....  Yes.................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)...................  Continuous Monitoring      Yes.................  Applies only to
                                       System (CMS) Operation                           monitoring of capture
                                       and Maintenance.                                 system and add-on
                                                                                        control device
                                                                                        efficiency at sources
                                                                                        using these to comply
                                                                                        with the standard.
                                                                                        Additional requirements
                                                                                        for CMS operations and
                                                                                        maintenance are
                                                                                        specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.4768.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)................  General Duty to Minimize   No..................
                                       Emissions and CMS
                                       Operation.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)...............  Operation and Maintenance  Yes.................
                                       of CMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)..............  Requirement to Develop     No..................
                                       SSM Plan for CMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)...............  Monitoring System          Yes.................
                                       Installation.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)...................  CMSs.....................  No..................  Sec.   63.4768 specifies
                                                                                        the requirements for the
                                                                                        operation of CMS for
                                                                                        capture systems and add-
                                                                                        on control devices at
                                                                                        sources using these to
                                                                                        comply.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)...................  COMS.....................  No..................  Subpart QQQQ does not
                                                                                        have opacity for visible
                                                                                        emission standards.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)...................  CMS Requirements.........  Yes.................  Sec.   63.4768 specifies
                                                                                        the requirements for
                                                                                        monitoring systems for
                                                                                        capture systems and add-
                                                                                        on control devices at
                                                                                        sources using these to
                                                                                        comply.
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)...................  CMS Out-of-Control         Yes.................
                                       Periods.
Sec.   63.8(c)(8)...................  CMS Out-of-Control         No..................  Sec.   63.4720 requires
                                       Periods Reporting.                               reporting of CMS out-of-
                                                                                        control periods.
Sec.   63.8(d)-(e)..................  Quality Control Program    No..................  Subpart QQQQ does not
                                       and CMS Performance                              require the use of
                                       Evaluation.                                      continuous emissions
                                                                                        monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)...............  Use of an Alternative      Yes.................
                                       Monitoring Method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)...................  Alternative to Relative    No..................  Subpart QQQQ does not
                                       Accuracy Test.                                   require the use of
                                                                                        continuous emissions
                                                                                        monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.8(g)(1)-(5)...............  Data Reduction...........  No..................  Sec.  Sec.   63.4767 and
                                                                                        63.4768 specify
                                                                                        monitoring data
                                                                                        reduction.
Sec.   63.9(a)-(d)..................  Notification Requirements  Yes.................
Sec.   63.9(e)......................  Notification of            Yes.................  Applies only to capture
                                       Performance Test.                                system and add-on
                                                                                        control device
                                                                                        performance tests at
                                                                                        sources using these to
                                                                                        comply with the
                                                                                        standard.
Sec.   63.9(f)......................  Notification of Visible    No..................  Subpart QQQQ does not
                                       Emissions/Opacity Test.                          have opacity or visible
                                                                                        emission standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(1)-(3)...............  Additional Notifications   No..................  Subpart QQQQ does not
                                       When Using CMS.                                  require the use of
                                                                                        continuous emissions
                                                                                        monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.9(h)......................  Notification of            Yes.................  Sec.   63.4710 specifies
                                       Compliance Status.                               the dates for submitting
                                                                                        the Notification of
                                                                                        Compliance Status.
Sec.   63.9(i)......................  Adjustment of Submittal    Yes.................
                                       Deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j)......................  Change in Previous         Yes.................
                                       Information.
Sec.   63.10(a).....................  Recordkeeping/Reporting--  Yes.................
                                       Applicability and
                                       General Information.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)..................  General Recordkeeping      Yes.................  Additional requirements
                                       Requirements.                                    are specified in Sec.
                                                                                        Sec.   63.4730 and
                                                                                        63.4731.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii)..........  Recordkeeping of           No..................
                                       Occurrence and Duration
                                       of Startups and
                                       Shutdowns.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii).............  Recordkeeping Relevant to  Yes.................
                                       CMS.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)..........  Recordkeeping Relevant to  No..................
                                       SSM.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi).........  Recordkeeping for CMS      Yes.................
                                       Malfunctions.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii).............  Records..................  Yes.................

[[Page 7707]]

 
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)............  .........................  No..................  Subpart QQQQ does not
                                                                                        require the use of
                                                                                        continuous emissions
                                                                                        monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv).............  .........................  Yes.................
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)..................  Recordkeeping              Yes.................
                                       Requirements for
                                       Applicability
                                       Determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(6)..............  Additional Recordkeeping   Yes.................
                                       Requirements for Sources
                                       with CMS.
Sec.   63.10(c)(7)-(8)..............  .........................  No..................  The same records are
                                                                                        required in Sec.
                                                                                        63.4720(a)(7).
Sec.   63.10(c)(9)-(14).............  .........................  Yes.................
Sec.   63.10(c)(15).................  Use of SSM Plan..........  No..................
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)..................  General Reporting          Yes.................  Additional requirements
                                       Requirements.                                    are specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.4720.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)..................  Report of Performance      Yes.................  Additional requirements
                                       Test Results.                                    are specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.4720(b).
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)..................  Reporting Opacity or       No..................  Subpart QQQQ does not
                                       Visible Emissions                                require opacity or
                                       Observations.                                    visible emissions
                                                                                        observations.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)..................  Progress Reports for       Yes.................
                                       Sources With Compliance
                                       Extensions.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)..................  SSM Reports..............  No..................  Malfunctions shall be
                                                                                        reported based on
                                                                                        compliance option under
                                                                                        Sec.   63.4720(a)(5-7).
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)-(2)..............  Additional CMS Reports...  No..................  Subpart QQQQ does not
                                                                                        require the use of
                                                                                        continuous emissions
                                                                                        monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)..................  Excess Emissions/CMS       No..................  Sec.   63.4720(b)
                                       Performance Reports.                             specifies the contents
                                                                                        of periodic compliance
                                                                                        reports.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4)..................  COMS Data Reports........  No..................  Subpart QQQQ does not
                                                                                        specify requirements for
                                                                                        opacity or COMS.
Sec.   63.10(f).....................  Recordkeeping/Reporting    Yes.................
                                       Waiver.
Sec.   63.11........................  Control Device             No..................  Subpart QQQQ does not
                                       Requirements/Flares.                             specify use of flares
                                                                                        for compliance.
Sec.   63.12........................  State Authority and        Yes.................
                                       Delegations.
Sec.   63.13........................  Addresses................  Yes.................
Sec.   63.14........................  Incorporation by           Yes.................  Test Methods ANSI A135.4-
                                       Reference.                                       2012, ANSI/ASME PTC
                                                                                        19.10-1981, Part 10,
                                                                                        ASTM D1475-13, ASTM
                                                                                        D2111-10 (Reapproved
                                                                                        2015), ASTM D2369-10
                                                                                        (Reapproved 2015) \e\,
                                                                                        ASTM D2697-03
                                                                                        (Reapproved 2014), ASTM
                                                                                        D4840-99 (2018) \e\,
                                                                                        ASTM D6093-97
                                                                                        (Reapproved 2016), ASTM
                                                                                        D6348-03 (Reapproved
                                                                                        2010) and NCASI Method
                                                                                        ISS/FP A105.01
                                                                                        (incorporated by
                                                                                        reference, see Sec.
                                                                                        63.14).
Sec.   63.15........................  Availability of            Yes.................
                                       Information/
                                       Confidentiality.
Sec.   63.16........................  Requirements for           Yes.................
                                       Performance Track Member
                                       Facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
19. Appendix A to part 63 is amended by adding Method 326 in numerical 
order to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 63--Test Methods

* * * * *

Method 326--Method for Determination of Isocyanates in Stationary 
Source Emissions

1.0 Scope and Application

    This method is applicable to the collection and analysis of 
isocyanate compounds from the emissions associated with 
manufacturing processes. This method is not inclusive with respect 
to specifications (e.g., equipment and supplies) and sampling 
procedures essential to its performance. Some material is 
incorporated by reference from other EPA methods. Therefore, to 
obtain reliable results, persons using this method should have a 
thorough knowledge of at least Method 1, Method 2, Method 3, and 
Method 5 found in Appendices A-1, A-2, and A-3 in Part 60 of this 
title.
    1.1 Analytes. This method is designed to determine the mass 
emission of isocyanates being emitted from manufacturing processes. 
The following is a table (Table 1-1) of the isocyanates and the 
manufacturing process at which the method has been evaluated:

                                              Table 326-1--Analytes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Detection
                Compound's name                     CAS No.       limit (ng/          Manufacturing process
                                                                   m\3\) \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,4-Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI)................        584-84-9             106  Flexible Foam Production.
1,6-Hexamethylene Diisocyanate (HDI)..........        822-06-0             396  Paint Spray Booth.
Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanate (MDI).........        101-68-8             112  Pressed Board Production.
Methyl Isocyanate (MI)........................        624-83-0             228  Not used in production.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Estimated detection limits are based on a sample volume of 1 m\3\ and a 10-ml sample extraction volume.

[[Page 7708]]

    1.2 Applicability. Method 326 is a method designed for 
determining compliance with National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Method 326 may also be specified 
by New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), State Implementation 
Plans (SIPs), and operating permits that require measurement of 
isocyanates in stationary source emissions, to determine compliance 
with an applicable emission standard or limit.
    1.3 Data Quality Objectives (DQO). The principal objective is to 
ensure the accuracy of the data at the actual emissions levels and 
in the actual emissions matrix encountered. To meet this objective, 
method performance tests are required and NIST-traceable calibration 
standards must be used.

2.0 Summary of Method

    2.1 Gaseous and/or aerosol isocyanates are withdrawn from an 
emission source at an isokinetic sampling rate and are collected in 
a multicomponent sampling train. The primary components of the train 
include a heated probe, three impingers containing derivatizing 
reagent in toluene, an empty impinger, an impinger containing 
charcoal, and an impinger containing silica gel.
    2.2 The liquid impinger contents are recovered, concentrated to 
dryness under vacuum, brought to volume with acetonitrile (ACN) and 
analyzed with a high pressure liquid chromatograph (HPLC).

3.0 Definitions [Reserved]

4.0 Interferences

    4.1 The greatest potential for interference comes from an 
impurity in the derivatizing reagent, 1-(2-pyridyl)piperazine (1,2-
PP). This compound may interfere with the resolution of MI from the 
peak attributed to unreacted 1,2-PP.
    4.2 Other interferences that could result in positive or 
negative bias are (1) alcohols that could compete with the 1,2-PP 
for reaction with an isocyanate and (2) other compounds that may co-
elute with one or more of the derivatized isocyanates.
    4.3 Method interferences may be caused by contaminants in 
solvents, reagents, glassware, and other sample processing hardware. 
All these materials must be routinely shown to be free from 
interferences under conditions of the analysis by preparing and 
analyzing laboratory method (or reagent) blanks.
    4.3.1 Glassware must be cleaned thoroughly before using. The 
glassware should be washed with laboratory detergent in hot water 
followed by rinsing with tap water and distilled water. The 
glassware may be dried by baking in a glassware oven at 400 [deg]C 
for at least one hour. After the glassware has cooled, it should be 
rinsed three times with methylene chloride and three times with 
acetonitrile. Volumetric glassware should not be heated to 400 
[deg]C. Instead, after washing and rinsing, volumetric glassware may 
be rinsed with acetonitrile followed by methylene chloride and 
allowed to dry in air.
    4.3.2 The use of high purity reagents and solvents helps to 
reduce interference problems in sample analysis.

5.0 Safety

    5.1 Organizations performing this method are responsible for 
maintaining a current awareness file of Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration (OSHA) regulations regarding safe handling of 
the chemicals specified in this method. A reference file of material 
safety data sheets should also be made available to all personnel 
involved in performing the method. Additional references to 
laboratory safety are available.

6.0 Equipment and Supplies

    6.1 Sample Collection. A schematic of the sampling train used in 
this method is shown in Figure 207-1. This sampling train 
configuration is adapted from Method 5 procedures, and, as such, 
most of the required equipment is identical to that used in Method 5 
determinations. The only new component required is a condenser.
    6.1.1 Probe Nozzle. Borosilicate or quartz glass; constructed 
and calibrated according to Method 5, sections 6.1.1.1 and 10.1, and 
coupled to the probe liner using a Teflon union; a stainless steel 
nut is recommended for this union. When the stack temperature 
exceeds 210 [deg]C (410 [deg]F), a one-piece glass nozzle/liner 
assembly must be used.
    6.1.2 Probe Liner. Same as Method 5, section 6.1.1.2, except 
metal liners shall not be used. Water-cooling of the stainless steel 
sheath is recommended at temperatures exceeding 500 [deg]C (932 
[deg]F). Teflon may be used in limited applications where the 
minimum stack temperature exceeds 120 [deg]C (250 [deg]F) but never 
exceeds the temperature where Teflon is estimated to become unstable 
[approximately 210 [deg]C (410 [deg]F)].
    6.1.3 Pitot Tube, Differential Pressure Gauge, Filter Heating 
System, Metering System, Barometer, Gas Density Determination 
Equipment. Same as Method 5, sections 6.1.1.3, 6.1.1.4, 6.1.1.6, 
6.1.1.9, 6.1.2, and 6.1.3.
    6.1.4 Impinger Train. Glass impingers are connected in series 
with leak-free ground-glass joints following immediately after the 
heated probe. The first impinger shall be of the Greenburg-Smith 
design with the standard tip. The remaining five impingers shall be 
of the modified Greenburg-Smith design, modified by replacing the 
tip with a 1.3-cm (\1/2\-in.) I.D. glass tube extending about 1.3 cm 
(\1/2\ in.) from the bottom of the outer cylinder. A water-jacketed 
condenser is placed between the outlet of the first impinger and the 
inlet to the second impinger to reduce the evaporation of toluene 
from the first impinger.
    6.1.5 Moisture Measurement. For the purpose of calculating 
volumetric flow rate and isokinetic sampling, you must also collect 
either Method 4 in Appendix A-3 to this part or other moisture 
measurement methods approved by the Administrator concurrent with 
each Method 326 test run.
    6.2 Sample Recovery
    6.2.1 Probe and Nozzle Brushes; Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) 
bristle brushes with stainless steel wire or PTFE handles are 
required. The probe brush shall have extensions constructed of 
stainless steel, PTFE, or inert material at least as long as the 
probe. The brushes shall be properly sized and shaped to brush out 
the probe liner and the probe nozzle.
    6.2.2 Wash Bottles. Three. PTFE or glass wash bottles are 
recommended; polyethylene wash bottles must not be used because 
organic contaminants may be extracted by exposure to organic 
solvents used for sample recovery.
    6.2.3 Glass Sample Storage Containers. Chemically resistant, 
borosilicate amber glass bottles, 500-mL or 1,000-mL. Bottles should 
be tinted to prevent the action of light on the sample. Screw-cap 
liners shall be either PTFE or constructed to be leak-free and 
resistant to chemical attack by organic recovery solvents. Narrow-
mouth glass bottles have been found to leak less frequently.
    6.2.4 Graduated Cylinder. To measure impinger contents to the 
nearest 1 ml or 1 g. Graduated cylinders shall have subdivisions not 
>2 mL.
    6.2.5 Plastic Storage Containers. Screw-cap polypropylene or 
polyethylene containers to store silica gel and charcoal.
    6.2.6 Funnel and Rubber Policeman. To aid in transfer of silica 
gel or charcoal to container (not necessary if silica gel is weighed 
in field).
    6.2.7 Funnels. Glass, to aid in sample recovery.
    6.3 Sample Preparation and Analysis.
    The following items are required for sample analysis.
    6.3.1 Rotary Evaporator. Buchii Model EL-130 or equivalent.
    6.3.2 1000 ml Round Bottom Flask for use with a rotary 
evaporator.
    6.3.3 Separatory Funnel. 500-ml or larger, with PTFE stopcock.
    6.3.4 Glass Funnel. Short-stemmed or equivalent.
    6.3.5 Vials. 15-ml capacity with PTFE lined caps.
    6.3.6 Class A Volumetric Flasks. 10-ml for bringing samples to 
volume after concentration.
    6.3.7 Filter Paper. Qualitative grade or equivalent.
    6.3.8 Buchner Funnel. Porcelain with 100 mm ID or equivalent.
    6.3.9 Erlenmeyer Flask. 500-ml with side arm and vacuum source.
    6.3.10 HPLC with at least a binary pumping system capable of a 
programmed gradient.
    6.3.11 Column Systems Column systems used to measure isocyanates 
must be capable of achieving separation of the target compounds from 
the nearest eluting compound or interferents with no more than 10 
percent peak overlap.
    6.3.12 Detector. UV detector at 254 nm. A fluorescence detector 
(FD) with an excitation of 240 nm and an emission at 370 nm may be 
also used to allow the detection of low concentrations of 
isocyanates in samples.
    6.3.13 Data system for measuring peak areas and retention times.

7.0 Reagents and Standards

    7.1 Sample Collection Reagents.
    7.1.1 Charcoal. Activated, 6-16 mesh. Used to absorb toluene 
vapors and prevent them from entering the metering device. Use once 
with each train and discard.
    7.1.2 Silica Gel and Crushed Ice. Same as Method 5, sections 
7.1.2 and 7.1.4 respectively

[[Page 7709]]

    7.1.3 Impinger Solution. The impinger solution is prepared by 
mixing a known amount of 1-(2-pyridyl) piperazine (purity 99.5+%) in 
toluene (HPLC grade or equivalent). The actual concentration of 1,2-
PP should be approximately four times the amount needed to ensure 
that the capacity of the derivatizing solution is not exceeded. This 
amount shall be calculated from the stoichiometric relationship 
between 1,2-PP and the isocyanate of interest and preliminary 
information about the concentration of the isocyanate in the stack 
emissions. A concentration of 130 [micro]g/ml of 1,2-PP in toluene 
can be used as a reference point. This solution shall be prepared, 
stored in a refrigerated area away from light, and used within ten 
days of preparation.
    7.2 Sample Recovery Reagents.
    7.2.1 Toluene. HPLC grade is required for sample recovery and 
cleanup (see Note to 7.2.2 below).
    7.2.2 Acetonitrile. HPLC grade is required for sample recovery 
and cleanup. Note: Organic solvents stored in metal containers may 
have a high residue blank and should not be used. Sometimes 
suppliers transfer solvents from metal to glass bottles; thus blanks 
shall be run before field use and only solvents with a low blank 
value should be used.
    7.3 Analysis Reagents. Reagent grade chemicals should be used in 
all tests. All reagents shall conform to the specifications of the 
Committee on Analytical Reagents of the American Chemical Society, 
where such specifications are available.
    7.3.1 Toluene, C6H5CH3. HPLC 
Grade or equivalent.
    7.3.2 Acetonitrile, CH3CN (ACN). HPLC Grade or 
equivalent.
    7.3.3 Methylene Chloride, CH2Cl2. HPLC 
Grade or equivalent.
    7.3.4 Hexane, C6H14. HPLC Grade or 
equivalent.
    7.3.5 Water, H2O. HPLC Grade or equivalent.
    7.3.6 Ammonium Acetate, 
CH3CO2NH4.
    7.3.7 Acetic Acid (glacial), CH3CO2H.
    7.3.8 1-(2-Pyridyl)piperazine, (1,2-PP), >=99.5% or equivalent.
    7.3.9 Absorption Solution. Prepare a solution of 1-(2-
pyridyl)piperazine in toluene at a concentration of 40 mg/300 ml. 
This solution is used for method blanks and method spikes.
    7.3.10 Ammonium Acetate Buffer Solution (AAB). Prepare a 
solution of ammonium acetate in water at a concentration of 0.1 M by 
transferring 7.705 g of ammonium acetate to a 1,000 ml volumetric 
flask and diluting to volume with HPLC Grade water. Adjust pH to 6.2 
with glacial acetic acid.

8.0 Sample Collection, Storage and Transport

    Note:  Because of the complexity of this method, field personnel 
should be trained in and experienced with the test procedures in 
order to obtain reliable results.

    8.1 Sampling
    8.1.1 Preliminary Field Determinations. Same as Method 5, 
section 8.2.
    8.1.2 Preparation of Sampling Train. Follow the general 
procedure given in Method 5, section 8.3.1, except for the following 
variations: Place 300 ml of the impinger absorbing solution in the 
first impinger and 200 ml each in the second and third impingers. 
The fourth impinger shall remain empty. The fifth and sixth 
impingers shall have 400 g of charcoal and 200-300 g of silica gel, 
respectively. Alternatively, the charcoal and silica gel may be 
combined in the fifth impinger. Set-up the train as in Figure 326-1. 
During assembly, do not use any silicone grease on ground-glass 
joints.

    Note:  During preparation and assembly of the sampling train, 
keep all openings where contamination can occur covered with PTFE 
film or aluminum foil until just before assembly or until sampling 
is about to begin.

    8.1.3 Leak-Check Procedures. Follow the leak-check procedures 
given in Method 5, sections 8.4.2 (Pretest Leak-Check), 8.4.3 (Leak-
Checks During the Sample Run), and 8.4.4 (Post-Test Leak-Check), 
with the exception that the pre-test leak-check is mandatory
    8.1.4 Sampling Train Operation. Follow the general procedures 
given in Method 5, section 8.5. Turn on the condenser coil coolant 
recirculating pump and monitor the gas entry temperature. Ensure 
proper gas entry temperature before proceeding and again before any 
sampling is initiated. It is important that the gas entry 
temperature not exceed 50 [deg]C (122 [deg]F), thus reducing the 
loss of toluene from the first impinger. For each run, record the 
data required on a data sheet such as the one shown in Method 5, 
Figure 5-3.
    8.2 Sample Recovery. Allow the probe to cool. When the probe can 
be handled safely, wipe off all external particulate matter near the 
tip of the probe nozzle and place a cap over the tip to prevent 
losing or gaining particulate matter. Do not cap the probe tip 
tightly while the sampling train is cooling down because this will 
create a vacuum in the train. Before moving the sample train to the 
cleanup site, remove the probe from the sample train and cap the 
opening to the probe, being careful not to lose any condensate that 
might be present. Cap the impingers and transfer the probe and the 
impinger/condenser assembly to the cleanup area. This area should be 
clean and protected from the weather to reduce sample contamination 
or loss. Inspect the train prior to and during disassembly and 
record any abnormal conditions. It is not necessary to measure the 
volume of the impingers for the purpose of moisture determination as 
the method is not validated for moisture determination. Treat 
samples as follows:
    8.2.1 Container No. 1, Probe and Impinger Numbers 1 and 2. Rinse 
and brush the probe/nozzle first with toluene twice and then twice 
again with acetonitrile and place the wash into a glass container 
labeled with the test run identification and ``Container No. 1.'' 
When using these solvents ensure that proper ventilation is 
available. Quantitatively transfer the liquid from the first two 
impingers and the condenser into Container No. 1. Rinse the 
impingers and all connecting glassware twice with toluene and then 
twice again with acetonitrile and transfer the rinses into Container 
No. 1. After all components have been collected in the container, 
seal the container, and mark the liquid level on the bottle.
    8.2.2 Container No. 2, Impingers 3 and 4. Quantitatively 
transfer the liquid from each impinger into a glass container 
labeled with the test run identification and ``Container No. 2.'' 
Rinse each impinger and all connecting glassware twice with toluene 
and twice again with acetonitrile and transfer the rinses into 
Container No. 2. After all components have been collected in the 
container, seal the container, and mark the liquid level on the 
bottle.

    Note:  The contents of the fifth and sixth impinger (silica gel) 
can be discarded.

    8.2.3 Container No. 3, Reagent Blank. Save a portion of both 
washing solutions (toluene/acetonitrile) used for the cleanup as a 
blank. Transfer 200 ml of each solution directly from the wash 
bottle being used and combine in a glass sample container with the 
test identification and ``Container No. 3.'' Seal the container, and 
mark the liquid level on the bottle and add the proper label.
    8.2.4 Field Train Proof Blanks. To demonstrate the cleanliness 
of sampling train glassware, you must prepare a full sampling train 
to serve as a field train proof blank just as it would be prepared 
for sampling. At a minimum, one complete sampling train will be 
assembled in the field staging area, taken to the sampling area, and 
leak-checked. The probe of the blank train shall be heated during 
and the train will be recovered as if it were an actual test sample. 
No gaseous sample will be passed through the sampling train. Field 
blanks are recovered in the same manner as described in sections 
8.2.1 and 8.2.2 and must be submitted with the field samples 
collected at each sampling site.
    8.2.5 Field Train Spike. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the 
sampling train, field handling, and recovery procedures you must 
prepare a full sampling train to serve as a field train spike just 
as it would be prepared for sampling. The field spike is performed 
in the same manner as the field train proof blank with the 
additional step of adding the Field Spike Solution to the first 
impinger after the initial leak check. The train will be recovered 
as if it were an actual test sample. No gaseous sample will be 
passed through the sampling train. Field train spikes are recovered 
in the same manner as described in sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 and must 
be submitted with the samples collected for each test program.
    8.3 Sample Transport Procedures. Containers must remain in an 
upright position at all times during shipment. Samples must also be 
stored at <4 [deg]C between the time of sampling and concentration. 
Each sample should be extracted and concentrated within 30 days 
after collection and analyzed within 30 days after extraction. The 
extracted sample must be stored at 4 [deg]C.
    8.4 Sample Custody. Proper procedures and documentation for 
sample chain of custody are critical to ensuring data integrity. The 
chain of custody procedures in ASTM D4840-99 (Reapproved 2018) \e\ 
``Standard Guide for Sampling Chain-of-Custody Procedures'' 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) shall be followed for 
all samples (including field samples and blanks).

[[Page 7710]]

9.0 Quality Control

    9.1 Sampling. Sampling Operations. The sampling quality control 
procedures and acceptance criteria are listed in Table 326-2 below; 
see also section 9.0 of Method 5.
    9.2 Analysis. The analytical quality control procedures required 
for this method includes the analysis of the field train proof 
blank, field train spike, and reagent and method blanks. Analytical 
quality control procedures and acceptance criteria are listed in 
Table 326-3 below.
    9.2.1 Check for Breakthrough. Recover and determine the 
isocyanate(s) concentration of the last two impingers separately 
from the first two impingers.
    9.2.2 Field Train Proof Blank. Field blanks must be submitted 
with the samples collected at each sampling site.
    9.2.3 Reagent Blank and Field Train Spike. At least one reagent 
blank and a field train spike must be submitted with the samples 
collected for each test program.
    9.2.4 Determination of Method Detection Limit. Based on your 
instrument's sensitivity and linearity, determine the calibration 
concentrations or masses that make up a representative low level 
calibration range. The MDL must be determined at least annually for 
the analytical system using an MDL study such as that found in 
section 15.0 to Method 301 of appendix A to part 63 of this chapter.

                           Table 326-2--Sampling Quality Assurance and Quality Control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          QA/QC criteria                Acceptance criteria           Frequency          Consequence if not met
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sampling Equipment Leak Checks....  <=0.00057 m3/min (0.020     Prior to, during       Prior to: Repair and
                                     cfm) or 4% of sampling      (optional) and at      repeat calibration.
                                     rate, whichever is less.    the completion to      During/Completion: None,
                                                                 sampling.              testing should be
                                                                                        considered invalid.
Dry Gas Meter Calibration--Pre-     within 2% of    Pre-test.............  Repeat calibration point.
 Test (individual correction         average factor
 factor--Yi).                        (individual).
Dry Gas Meter Calibration--Pre-     1.00 1%.......  Pre-test.............  Adjust the dry gas meter
 Test (average correction factor--                                                      and recalibrate.
 Yc).
Dry Gas Meter Calibration--Post-    Average dry gas meter       Each Test............  Adjust sample volumes
 test.                               calibration factor agrees                          using the factor that
                                     with 5% Yc.                            gives the smallest
                                                                                        volume.
Temperature sensor calibration....  Absolute temperature        Prior to initial use   Recalibrate; sensor may
                                     measures by sensor within   and before each test   not be used until
                                     1.5% of a       thereafter.            specification is met.
                                     reference sensor.
Barometer calibration.............  Absolute pressure measured  Prior to initial use   Recalibrate; instrument
                                     by instrument within        and before each test   may not be used until
                                     10 mm Hg of     thereafter.            specification is met.
                                     reading with a mercury
                                     barometer or NIST
                                     traceable barometer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Table 326-3--Analytical Quality Assurance and Quality Control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          QA/QC criteria                Acceptance criteria           Frequency          Consequence if not met
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calibration--Method Blanks........  <5% level of expected       Each analytical        Locate source of
                                     analyte.                    method blank.          contamination;
                                                                                        reanalyze.
Calibration--Calibration Points...  At least six calibration    Each analytical batch  Incorporate additional
                                     point bracketing the                               calibration points to
                                     expected range of                                  meet criteria.
                                     analysis.
Calibration--Linearity............  Correlation coefficient     Each analytical batch  Verify integration,
                                     >0.995.                                            reintegrate. If
                                                                                        necessary, recalibrate.
Calibration--secondary standard     Within 10% of   After each             Repeat secondary standard
 verification.                       true value.                 calibration.           verification,
                                                                                        recalibrate if
                                                                                        necessary.
Calibration--continual calibration  Within 10% of   Daily and after every  Invalidate previous ten
 verification.                       true value.                 ten samples.           sample analysis,
                                                                                        recalibrate and repeat
                                                                                        calibration, reanalyze
                                                                                        samples until
                                                                                        successful.
Sample Analysis...................  Within the valid            Each sample..........  Invalidate the sample if
                                     calibration range.                                 greater than the
                                                                                        calibration range and
                                                                                        dilute the sample so
                                                                                        that it is within the
                                                                                        calibration range.
                                                                                        Appropriately flag any
                                                                                        value below the
                                                                                        calibration range.
Replicate Samples.................  Within 10% of   Each sample..........  Evaluate integrations and
                                     RPD.                                               repeat sample analysis
                                                                                        as necessary.
Field Train Proof Blank...........  <=10% level of expected     Each test program....  Evaluate source of
                                     analyte.                                           contamination.
Field Train Spike.................  Within 30% of   Each test program....  Evaluate performance of
                                     true value.                                        the method and consider
                                                                                        invalidating results.
Breakthrough......................  Final two impingers Mass    Each test run........  Invalidate test run.
                                     collected is >5% of the
                                     total mass or >20% of the
                                     total mass when the
                                     measured results are 20%
                                     of the applicable
                                     standard. Alternatively,
                                     there is no breakthrough
                                     requirement when the
                                     measured results are 10%
                                     of the applicable
                                     standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 7711]]

10.0 Calibration and Standardization

    Note: Maintain a laboratory log of all calibrations.

    10.1 Probe Nozzle, Pitot Tube Assembly, Dry Gas Metering System, 
Probe Heater, Temperature Sensors, Leak-Check of Metering System, 
and Barometer. Same as Method 5, sections 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 
10.5, 8.4.1, and 10.6, respectively.
    10.2 High Performance Liquid Chromatograph. Establish the 
retention times for the isocyanates of interest; retention times 
will depend on the chromatographic conditions. The retention times 
provided in Table 10-1 are provided as a guide to relative retention 
times when using a C18, 250 mm x 4.6 mm ID, 5[micro]m particle size 
column, a 2 ml/min flow rate of a 1:9 to 6:4 Acetonitrile/Ammonium 
Acetate Buffer, a 50 [micro]l sample loop, and a UV detector set at 
254 nm.

                  Table 326-4--Example Retention Times
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Retention times
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Retention time
                        Compound                             (minutes)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI......................................................            10.0
1,6-HDI.................................................            19.9
2,4-TDI.................................................            27.1
MDI.....................................................            27.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10.3 Preparation of Isocyanate Derivatives.
    10.3.1 HDI, TDI, MDI. Dissolve 500 mg of each isocyanate in 
individual 100 ml aliquots of methylene chloride (MeCl2), 
except MDI which requires 250 ml of MeCl2. Transfer a 5-
ml aliquot of 1,2-PP (see section 7.3.8) to each solution, stir and 
allow to stand overnight at room temperature. Transfer 150 ml 
aliquots of hexane to each solution to precipitate the isocyanate-
urea derivative. Using a Buchner funnel, vacuum filter the solid-
isocyanate-urea derivative and rinse with 50 ml of hexane. Dissolve 
the precipitate in a minimum aliquot of MeCl2. Repeat the 
hexane precipitation and filtration twice. After the third 
filtration, dry the crystals at 50 [deg]C and transfer to bottles 
for storage. The crystals are stable for at least 21 months when 
stored at room temperature in a closed container.
    10.3.2 MI. Prepare a 200 [mu]g/ml stock solution of methyl 
isocyanate-urea, transfer 60 mg of 1,2-PP to a 100-ml volumetric 
flask containing 50 ml of MeCl2. Carefully transfer 20 mg 
of methyl isocyanate to the volumetric flask and shake for 2 
minutes. Dilute the solution to volume with MeCl2 and 
transfer to a bottle for storage. Methyl isocyanate does not produce 
a solid derivative and standards must be prepared from this stock 
solution.
    10.4 Preparation of calibration standards. Prepare a 100 [mu]g/
ml stock solution of the isocyanates of interest from the individual 
isocyanate-urea derivative as prepared in sections 10.3.1 and 
10.3.2. This is accomplished by dissolving 1 mg of each isocyanate-
urea derivative in 10 ml of Acetonitrile. Calibration standards are 
prepared from this stock solution by making appropriate dilutions of 
aliquots of the stock into Acetonitrile.
    10.5 Preparation of Method Blanks. Prepare a method blank for 
each test program (up to twenty samples) by transferring 300 ml of 
the absorption solution to a 1,000-ml round bottom flask and 
concentrate as outlined in section 11.2.
    10.6 Preparation of Field Spike Solution. Prepare a field spike 
solution for every test program in the same manner as calibration 
standards (see Section 10.4). The mass of the target isocyanate in 
the volume of the spike solution for the field spike train shall be 
equivalent to that estimated to be captured from the source 
concentration for each compound; alternatively, you may also prepare 
a solution that represents half the applicable standard.
    10.7 HPLC Calibrations. See Section 11.1.

11.0 Analytical Procedure

    11.1 Analytical Calibration. Perform a multipoint calibration of 
the instrument at six or more upscale points over the desired 
quantitative range (multiple calibration ranges shall be calibrated, 
if necessary). The field samples analyzed must fall within at least 
one of the calibrated quantitative ranges and meet the performance 
criteria specified below. The lowest point in your calibration curve 
must be at least 5, and preferably 10, times the MDL. For each 
calibration curve, the value of the square of the linear correlation 
coefficient, i.e., r\2\, must be >=0.995, and the analyzer response 
must be within 10 percent of the reference value at each 
upscale calibration point. Calibrations must be performed on each 
day of the analysis, before analyzing any of the samples. Following 
calibration, a secondary standard shall be analyzed. A continual 
calibration verification (CCV) must also be performed prior to any 
sample and after every ten samples. The measured value of this 
independently prepared standard must be within 10 
percent of the expected value. Report the results for each 
calibration standard secondary standard, and CCV as well as the 
conditions of the HPLC. The reports should include at least the peak 
area, height, and retention time for each isocyanate compound 
measured as well as a chromatogram for each standard.
    11.2 Concentration of Samples. Transfer each sample to a 1,000-
ml round bottom flask. Attach the flask to a rotary evaporator and 
gently evaporate to dryness under vacuum in a 65 [deg]C water bath. 
Rinse the round bottom flask three times each with 2 ml of 
acetonitrile and transfer the rinse to a 10-ml volumetric flask. 
Dilute the sample to volume with acetonitrile and transfer to a 15-
ml vial and seal with a PTFE lined lid. Store the vial <=4 [deg]C 
until analysis.
    11.3 Analysis. Analyze replicative samples by HPLC, using the 
appropriate conditions established in section 10.2. The width of the 
retention time window used to make identifications should be based 
upon measurements of actual retention time variations of standards 
over the course of a day. Three times the standard deviation of a 
retention time for a compound can be used to calculate a suggested 
window size; however, the experience of the analyst should weigh 
heavily in the interpretation of the chromatograms. If the peak area 
exceeds the linear range of the calibration curve, the sample must 
be diluted with acetonitrile and reanalyzed. Average the replicate 
results for each run. For each sample you must report the same 
information required for analytical calibrations (Section 11.1). For 
non-detect or values below the detection limit of the method, you 
shall report the value as ``<'' numerical detection limit.

12.0 Data Analysis and Calculations

    Nomenclature and calculations, same as in Method 5, section 6, 
with the following additions below.
    12.1 Nomenclature.

AS = Response of the sample, area counts.
b = Y-intercept of the linear regression line, area counts.
BR = Percent Breakthrough
CA = Concentration of a specific isocyanate compound in 
the initial sample, [micro]g/ml.
CB = Concentration of a specific isocyanate compound in 
the replicate sample, [micro]g/ml.
CI = Concentration of a specific isocyanate compound in 
the sample, [micro]g/ml.
Crec = Concentration recovered from spike train, 
[micro]g/ml.
CS = Concentration of isocyanate compound in the stack 
gas, [micro]g/dscm
CT = Concentration of a specific isocyanate compound 
(Impingers 1-4), [micro]g/dscm
Cspike = Concentration spiked, [micro]g/ml.
C4 = Concentration of a specific isocyanate compound 
(Impingers 14), [micro]g/dscm
FIm = Mass of Free Isocyanate
FTSrec = Field Train Spike Recovery
Im = Mass of the Isocyanate
Imw = MW of the Isocyanate
IUm = Mass of Isocyanate-urea derivative
IUmw = MW of the isocyanate-urea
M = Slope of the linear regression line, area counts-ml/[micro]g.
mI = Mass of isocyanate in the total sample
MW = Molecular weight
RPD = Relative Percent Difference
VF = Final volume of concentrated sample, typically 10 ml.
Vmstd = Volume of gas sample measured by the dry-gas 
meter, corrected to standard conditions, dscm (dscf).

12.2 Conversion from Isocyanate to the Isocyanate-urea derivative. 
The equation for converting the amount of free isocyanate to the 

    corresponding amount of isocyanate-urea derivative is as follows:
12.2 Conversion from Isocyanate to the Isocyanate-urea derivative. 
The equation for converting the amount of free isocyante to the 
corresponding amount of isocyante-urea derivative is as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04MR19.001

The equation for converting the amount of IU derivative to the 
corresponding amount of FLm is as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04MR19.002

    12.3 Calculate the correlation coefficient, slope, and 
intercepts for the calibration data

[[Page 7712]]

using the least squares method for linear regression. Concentrations 
are expressed as the x-variable and response is expressed as the y-
variable.
    12.4 Calculate the concentration of isocyanate in the sample:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04MR19.003
    
    12.5 Calculate the total amount collected in the sample by 
multiplying the concentration ([mu]g/ml) times the final volume of 
acetonitrile (10 ml).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04MR19.004

    12.6 Calculate the concentration of isocyanate ([mu]g/dscm) in 
the stack gas.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04MR19.005

    12.7 Calculate Relative Percent Difference (RPD) for each 
replicative sample
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04MR19.006

    12.8 Calculate Field Train Spike Recovery
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04MR19.007
    
    12.9 Calculate Percent Breakthrough
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04MR19.008
    
Where:

K = 35.314 ft\3\/m\3\ if Vm(std) is expressed in English units. = 
1.00 m\3\/m\3\ if Vm(std) is expressed in metric units.

13.0 Method Performance

    Evaluation of sampling and analytical procedures for a selected 
series of compounds must meet the quality control criteria (See 
Section 9) for each associated analytical determination. The 
sampling and analytical procedures must be challenged by the test 
compounds spiked at appropriate levels and carried through the 
procedures.

14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved]

15.0 Waste Management [Reserved]

16.0 Alternative Procedures [Reserved]

17.0 References

1. Martin, R.M., Construction Details of Isokinetic Source-Sampling 
Equipment, Research Triangle Park, NC, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, April 1971, PB-203 060/BE, APTD-0581, 35 pp.
2. Rom, J.J., Maintenance, Calibration, and Operation of Isokinetic 
Source Sampling Equipment, Research Triangle Park, NC, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, March 1972, PB-209 022/BE, APTD-
0576, 39 pp.
3. Schlickenrieder, L.M., Adams, J.W., and Thrun, K.E., Modified 
Method 5 Train and Source Assessment Sampling System: Operator's 
Manual, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/8-85/003/
1985).
4. Shigehara, R.T., Adjustments in the EPA Nomograph for Different 
Pitot Tube Coefficients and Dry Molecular Weights, Stack Sampling 
News, 2:4-11 (October 1974).
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR part 60, Appendices 
A-1, A-2, and A-3, Methods 1-5.
6. Vollaro, R.F., A Survey of Commercially Available Instrumentation 
for the Measurement of Low-Range Gas Velocities, Research Triangle 
Park, NC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emissions 
Measurement Branch, November 1976 (unpublished paper).

18.0 Diagrams
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04MR19.009

[FR Doc. 2019-01902 Filed 3-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P