[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 42 (Monday, March 4, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7682-7712]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01902]

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

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

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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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:

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

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

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

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.

                                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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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.

    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

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

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<PHONE_NUMBER>, 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

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.