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 proposing
instead to add 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 current language
in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails
during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there
is no need to differentiate between normal operations and SSM events in
describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is
proposing for 40 CFR 63.4700(b) does not include that language from 40
CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to revise 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 proposing to revise 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.
    Finally, we are proposing to revise 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.
b. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to revise 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 proposing to remove the SSM exemptions.
Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard
during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events
will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve
compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer
necessary.

c. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
entries for 40 CFR 63.6(f) and (h) by re-designating these sections as
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) and including a ``no'' in column 3. The
current language in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) excludes sources from non-opacity
standards during periods of SSM, while the current language in 40 CFR
63.6(h)(1) excludes 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 proposing to revise standards in this rule to
apply at all times.
d. Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e) by re-designating 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 current
rule specifies that performance testing must be conducted when the
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
malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often not
representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is proposing to
add 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 regulatory
text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on that
requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the
information.
e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
by re-designating 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 QC program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
f. Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise 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 proposing 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 also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
4) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(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 proposing to revise 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 proposing 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 proposing to eliminate 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.
g. Reporting
    We are proposing to revise 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 proposing
to replace 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
proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an
applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning
such events in the semiannual report to be required under the proposed
rule. We are proposing 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 proposing this requirement to ensure
that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow
the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable
standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the
general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an
applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate 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 proposed 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, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to
meet an applicable standard, but did not follow the SSM plan. We will
no longer require owners and operators to report when actions taken
during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an
SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.

2. Alternative Compliance Calculations
    An alternative monitoring request was submitted to the EPA which
proposed utilizing a HAP emission factor to demonstrate compliance with
the emission rate without add-on controls compliance option instead of
the current emission factor in the rule which assumes that all HAP in
the coating is emitted to the atmosphere. As discussed below, we are
proposing to include this compliance calculation approach in this
rulemaking to allow any facility utilizing 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 proposed
amendment adds compliance flexibility, but does not alter the emission
standard.
    The coating process uses a liquid catalyst to initiate chemical and
physical change of the coating materials by the formation of a cross-
linked polymer, and involves spraying wood panels with a two-part
mixture consisting of a HAP-containing resin and a non-HAP catalyst.
The catalyst polymerizes the resin to form the applied coating within a
matter of seconds. The result is that the HAP in the resin is nearly
completely polymerized and, as a result, the air emissions of HAP are a
very small fraction of the total HAP applied.
    We are proposing to add a new equation to the existing compliance
demonstration calculations to more adequately represent the HAP amounts
emitted by this type of surface coating or any similar coating. The
existing equation assumes that all of the HAP in the coating is
emitted. Facilities wishing to apply this emission calculation method
could submit to the EPA an alternative monitoring request, however,
this would add a compliance burden. To reduce the burden, we are adding
alternative compliance demonstration equations, which do not assume 100
percent of the HAP in the coating is emitted. The proposed
demonstration equations would use a HAP emission factor based on
initial stack testing of the proposed coating process. This approach
quantifies emissions in a way that is representative of the actual
emissions from this coating operation.
2. Emissions Testing
    The EPA is proposing amendments to the Surface Coating of Wood
Building Products NESHAP that would provide an additional compliance
demonstration equation. Facilities using the proposed alternative
compliance demonstration equation (40 CFR 63.4751(i)) of the emission
rate without add-on controls option would be required to conduct an
initial performance test to demonstrate compliance. As explained in the
technical supporting memoranda accompanying this proposal,\18\
performance testing is needed to develop process specific emission
factors to demonstrate compliance for the new alternative equation. In
addition, requiring initial performance testing under the proposed
option would be equitable with respect to sources meeting the currently
promulgated compliance demonstration requirements, as facilities
demonstrating compliance through the currently promulgated emission
rate with add-on controls option (40 CFR 63.4691(c)) are already
required to conduct a similar initial air emissions performance test to
demonstrate compliance. This amendment is expected to impact one
facility, with a one-time cost of $22,000 for the initial performance
test.
    Additionally, the EPA is requesting comment on whether a periodic
emissions testing provision should be added to the rule for sources
using add-on controls. Currently, there are four existing facilities
that have operating permits indicating the use of add-on control
devices for wood building product surface coating operations. Only one
of those facilities is not conducting a performance test on at least a
5-year frequency due to state requirements. The repeat performance
testing provision on which the Agency is requesting comment would
impact this facility if the provisions were finalized, with an
estimated cost of $22,000 for each repeat performance test. The
periodic testing provision on which the Agency is requesting comment
would also require facilities utilizing the proposed alternative
compliance demonstration equations (40 CFR 63.4751(i)) of the emission
rate without add-on controls option to conduct a periodic air emissions
performance test to develop process specific emissions factors to
demonstrate continuing compliance. The periodic testing provision which
the EPA is requesting comment would require one performance test at
least every 5 years. The inclusion of a periodic repeat testing
requirement would help demonstrate that emissions control equipment is
continuing to operate as designed and that the facility remains in
compliance with the standard.
3. Electronic Reporting
    The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of facilities
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ submit electronic copies of
compliance reports, which include performance test reports, semiannual
reports, and notifications, through the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI). Specifically, we are proposing that owners and operators
create performance test reports using the Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT) and submit the performance test reports, as well as notifications
and semiannual reports through CEDRI. The EPA believes that the
electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability, will
further assist in the protection of public health and the environment,
and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community.
Under current requirements, paper reports are often stored in filing
cabinets or boxes, which make the reports more difficult to obtain and
use for data analysis and sharing. Electronic storage of such reports
makes data more accessible for review, analysis, and sharing.
Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes,
thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating
redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors and providing data
quickly and accurately to affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA,
and the public.
    In 2011, in response to Executive Order 13563, the EPA developed a
plan \21\ to periodically review its regulations to determine if they
should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed to make
regulations more effective and less burdensome. The plan includes
replacing outdated paper reporting with electronic reporting. In
keeping with this plan and the White House's Digital Government
Strategy,\22\ in 2013 the EPA issued an agency-wide policy specifying
that new regulations will require reports to be electronic to the
maximum extent possible.\23\ By requiring electronic submission of
specified reports in this proposed rule,

the EPA is taking steps to implement this policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Improving Our Regulations: Final Plan for Periodic
Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations, August 2011.
Available at: https://www.regulations.gov, Document ID No. EPA-HQ-
OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \22\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government-strategy.pdf
    \23\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA website that stores the submitted electronic data, WebFIRE,
is easily accessible to everyone and provides a user-friendly interface
that any stakeholder can access. By making data readily available,
electronic reporting increases the amount of data that can be used for
many purposes. One example is the development of emissions factors. An
emissions factor is a representative value that attempts to relate the
quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere with an activity
associated with the release of that pollutant (e.g., kilograms of
particulate emitted per megagram of coal burned). Such factors
facilitate the estimation of emissions from various sources of air
pollution and are an important tool in developing emissions
inventories, which in turn are the basis for numerous efforts,
including trends analysis, regional- and local-scale air quality
modeling, regulatory impact assessments, and human exposure modeling.
Emissions factors are also widely used in regulatory applicability
determinations and in permitting decisions.
    The EPA has received feedback from stakeholders asserting that many
of the EPA's emissions factors are outdated or not representative of a
particular industry emission source. While the EPA believes that the
emissions factors are suitable for their intended purpose, we recognize
that the quality of emissions factors varies based on the extent and
quality of underlying data. We also recognize that emissions profiles
on different pieces of equipment can change over time due to a number
of factors (fuel changes, equipment improvements, industry work
practices), and it is important for emissions factors to be updated to
keep up with these changes. The EPA is currently pursuing emissions
factor development improvements that include procedures to incorporate
the source test data that we are proposing be submitted electronically.
By requiring the electronic submission of the reports identified in
this proposed action, the EPA would be able to access and use the
submitted data to update emissions factors more quickly and
efficiently, creating factors that are characteristic of what is
currently representative of the relevant industry sector. Likewise, an
increase in the number of test reports used to develop the emissions
factors will provide more confidence that the factor is of higher
quality and representative of the whole industry sector.
    Additionally, by making the records, data, and reports addressed in
this proposed rulemaking readily available, the EPA, the regulated
community, and the public will benefit when the EPA conducts its CAA-
required technology and risk-based reviews. As a result of having
performance test reports and air emission data readily accessible, our
ability to carry out comprehensive reviews will be increased and
achieved within a shorter period of time. These data will provide
useful information on control efficiencies being achieved and
maintained in practice within a source category and across source
categories for regulated sources and pollutants. These reports can also
be used to inform the technology-review process by providing
information on improvements to add-on control technology and new
control technology.
    Under an electronic reporting system, the EPA's Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) would have air emissions and
performance test data in hand; OAQPS would not have to collect these
data from the EPA Regional offices or from delegated authorities or
industry sources in cases where these reports are not submitted to the
EPA Regional offices. Thus, we anticipate fewer or less substantial
information collection requests (ICRs) may be needed in conjunction
with prospective CAA-required technology and risk-based reviews. We
expect this to result in a decrease in time spent by industry to
respond to data collection requests. We also expect the ICRs to contain
less extensive stack testing provisions, as we will already have stack
test data electronically. Reduced testing requirements would be a cost
savings to industry. The EPA should also be able to conduct these
required reviews more quickly, as OAQPS will not have to include the
ICR collection time in the process or spend time collecting reports
from the EPA Regional offices. While the regulated community may
benefit from a reduced burden of ICRs, the general public benefits from
the Agency's ability to provide these required reviews more quickly,
resulting in increased public health and environmental protection.
    Electronic reporting minimizes submission of unnecessary or
duplicative reports in cases where facilities report to multiple
government agencies and the agencies opt to rely on the EPA's
electronic reporting system to view report submissions. Where delegated
authorities continue to require a paper copy of these reports and will
accept a hard copy of the electronic report, facilities will have the
option to print paper copies of the electronic reporting forms to
submit to the delegated authorities, and, thus, minimize the time spent
reporting to multiple agencies. Additionally, maintenance and storage
costs associated with retaining paper records could likewise be
minimized by replacing those records with electronic records of
electronically submitted data and reports.
    Delegated authorities could benefit from more streamlined and
automated review of the electronically submitted data. For example,
because performance test data would be readily-available in a standard
electronic format, delegated authorities would be able to review
reports and data electronically rather than having to conduct a review
of the reports and data manually. Having reports and associated data in
electronic format facilitates review through the use of software
``search'' options, as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in
spreadsheet format. Additionally, delegated authorities would benefit
from the reported data being accessible to them through the EPA's
electronic reporting system wherever and whenever they want or need
access, as long as they have access to the Internet. The ability to
access and review reports electronically assists delegated authorities
in determining compliance with applicable regulations more quickly and
accurately, potentially allowing a faster response to violations, which
could minimize harmful air emissions. This change benefits both
delegated authorities and the public.
    The proposed electronic reporting of data is consistent with
electronic data trends (e.g., electronic banking and income tax
filing). Electronic reporting of environmental data is already common
practice in many media offices at the EPA. The changes being proposed
in this rulemaking are needed to continue the EPA's transition to
electronic reporting.
    As noted above, we are proposing that 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ
performance test reports be submitted through the EPA's ERT. With the
exception of the method proposed in conjunction with this rulemaking,
all test methods listed under 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ are
currently supported by the ERT. The proposal would require that
performance test results collected using test methods that are not
supported by the ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of
the test be submitted to the Administrator at the appropriate address
listed in 40 CFR 63.13, unless the Administrator agrees to or specifies
an alternate reporting method.

    In addition to electronically reporting the results of performance
tests, we are proposing the requirement to electronically submit
notifications and the semiannual compliance report required in 40 CFR
63.4720. The proposal would require the owner or operator use the
appropriate spreadsheet template in CEDRI for the subpart. If the
reporting template specific to the subpart is not available at the time
that the report is due, the owner or operator would submit the report
to the Administrator at the appropriate addresses listed in the General
Provisions. The owner or operator would begin submitting reports
electronically with the next report that is due, once the electronic
template has been available for at least 1 year. The EPA is currently
working to develop the templates for 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ. We
are specifically taking comment on the content, layout, and overall
design of the spreadsheet templates, which are presented as an Excel
spreadsheet in the docket titled Electronic Reporting for Subpart QQQQ
Semiannual Reports.\24\ We plan to finalize a required reporting format
with the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Electronic Reporting for Subpart QQQQ Semiannual Reports;
see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in 40 CFR 63.4720(d)(2), the proposal also requires that
notifications be reported electronically though CEDRI. Currently, there
are no templates for notifications in CEDRI for this subpart.
Therefore, the owner or operator must submit these notifications in
portable document format (PDF).
    Additionally, we have identified two broad circumstances in which
electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances,
the decision to accept your claim of needing additional time to report
is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should
occur as soon as possible.
    In 40 CFR 63.4720(d)(3), we address the situation where an
extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI
which preclude you from accessing the system and submitting required
reports. If either the CDX or CEDRI is unavailable at any time
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due,
and the unavailability prevents the submission of a report by the
required date, the facility may assert a claim of EPA system outage. We
consider 5 business days prior to the reporting deadline to be an
appropriate timeframe because if the system is down prior to this time,
facilities will have 1 week to complete reporting once the system is
back online. However, if the CDX or CEDRI is down during the week a
report is due, we realize that this could greatly impact the ability to
submit a required report on time. We will notify facilities about known
outages as far in advance as possible by CHIEF Listserv notice, posting
on the CEDRI Web site and posting on the CDX Web site so that
facilities can plan accordingly and still meet the reporting deadline.
However, if a planned or unplanned outage occurs and a facility
believes that it will affect or it has affected compliance with an
electronic reporting requirement, we have provided a process to assert
such a claim.
    In 40 CFR 63.4720(d)(4), we address the situation where an
extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents compliance
with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by
this rule. Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of
the facility. If such an event occurs or is still occurring or if there
are still linger effects of the event in the 5 business days prior to a
submission deadline, we have provided a process to assert a claim of
force majeure.
    We are providing these potential extensions to protect facilities
from noncompliance in cases when a facility cannot successfully submit
a report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of its control
as described above. We are not providing an extension for other
instances. Facility representatives should register for CEDRI far in
advance of the initial compliance date in order to make sure that they
can complete the identity proofing process prior to the initial
compliance date. Additionally, we recommend developing reports early,
in case any questions arise during the reporting process.
4. New EPA Test Method 326
    We are proposing EPA Method 326 to address technical issues related
to VOHAP content measured in certain surface coatings containing
isocyanates. Because there is currently no EPA test method for
isocyanate emissions, as part of this action, we are proposing specific
isocyanate compound sample collection and analytical requirements as
Method 326 of 40 CFR part 63, Appendix A. Method 326 is based on ``A
Method for Measuring Isocyanates in Stationary Source Emissions'' which
was proposed on December 8, 1997 (62 FR 64532) as Method 207, but was
never promulgated. 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.
    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 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. Under the proposed 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), hex methylene 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.
5. Incorporation by Reference Under 1 CFR Part 51
    The EPA is proposing regulatory text that includes IBR. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the following voluntary consensus standards
(VCS) described in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:

     ANSI A135.4-2012, Basic Hardboard, IBR approved for 40
CFR 63.4781.
     ASTM D1475-90, Standard Test Method for Density of
Paint, Varnish Lacquer, and Related Products, IBR approved for 40
CFR 63.4741(b) and (c) and 63.4751(c).
     ASTM D1963-85 (1996), Standard Test Method for Specific
Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at
25/25[deg]C, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4741(a) and 63.4761(j).
     ASTM D2111-95 (2000), Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their
Admixtures, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4741(a) and 63.4761(j).

     ASTM D2369-01, Test Method for Volatile Content of
Coatings, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4741(a) and 63.4761(j).
     ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998), Standard Test Method
for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.4741(a) and (b) and 63.4761(j).
     ASTM D4840-99, Standard Guide for Sampling Chain-of-
Custody Procedures, IBR approved for Method 326 in appendix A to
part 63.
     ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), Standard Test Method
for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings
Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4741(a)
and (b) and 63.4761(j).
     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) and 63.4766(b).

    While the 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 are being cited in additional paragraphs in
the proposed rule, requiring a revision to their IBR. The ANSI method
and the other ASTM methods are being incorporated by reference for 40
CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ for the first time under this rulemaking.
6. Technical and Editorial Changes
    The following are additional proposed 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 terminology in the delegation of authority
section in 40 CFR 63.4780 to match the definitions in 40 CFR 63.90;
     Revised the references to several test method appendices;
and
     Revised the General Provisions applicability table (Table
4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ) to align with those sections of the
General Provisions that have been amended or reserved over time.

E. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    The EPA is proposing that existing affected sources must comply
with the amendments in this rulemaking no later than 180 days after the
effective date of the final rule. The EPA is also proposing that
affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after May
16, 2018 must comply with all requirements of the subpart, including
the amendments being proposed, no later than the effective date of the
final rule 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 expected to be a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the
final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section
112(d)(10). For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that
would impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart QQQQ. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing
to add a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and
the semiannual reports using the new template be submitted
electronically. We are also proposing to change 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 proposing to add a new
compliance demonstration equation that adds flexibility to 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, install necessary
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 proposing that existing
affected sources be in compliance with all of this regulation's revised
requirements within 180 days of the regulation's effective date. We
solicit comment on this proposed compliance period, and we specifically
request submission of information from sources in this source category
regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply
with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to make the
adjustments for compliance with any of the revised requirements. We
note that information provided may result in changes to the proposed
compliance date.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    There are currently 55 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, emissions of total HAP are
approximately 260 tpy. 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 14,311 tons annually.\25\ The proposed
amendments will require all 55 major sources with equipment subject to
the Wood Building Products Coating NESHAP to operate

without the SSM exemption. We were unable to quantify the specific
emissions reductions associated with eliminating the SSM exemption.
However, eliminating the SSM exemption will reduce emissions by
requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard during SSM
periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 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 proposed rule. The EPA
expects no secondary air emissions impacts or energy impacts from this
rulemaking.
    For further information, see the memorandum titled Cost Impacts of
the Subpart QQQQ Residual Risk and Technology Review, in the docket for
this action.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We estimate that each facility in the source category will
experience costs as a result of these proposed amendments that are
estimated as part of the 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 semi-annual 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
semi-annual compliance reports. The recordkeeping and reporting costs
are presented in section V.III.C of this preamble.
    The EPA estimates that one facility will be impacted from this
proposed regulatory action. This facility will conduct an initial
performance test to demonstrate compliance with the proposed
alternative compliance equation, as proposed in their request for an
alternative monitoring method. This initial performance test has a one-
time cost of $22,000. The total estimated labor costs for the rule are
summarized in the Supporting Statement for the ICR in the docket for
this action. The estimated labor cost includes an estimated labor cost
of $36,618 for all 55 affected facilities to become familiar with the
proposed 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.

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
proposed 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 proposed rule.
    For the one facility expected to conduct an initial performance
test and become familiar with the proposed rule requirements, the costs
associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ's proposed requirements
are less than 0.001 percent of annual sales revenues. For the remaining
54 facilities, the costs associated with becoming familiar with the
proposed rule requirements are also 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.

E. What are the benefits?

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

VI. Request for Comments

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

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR website at http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:

    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter
email address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations,
etc.).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation
to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678 (through the method described
in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or
multiple facilities, you need only submit one file for all
facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all
sources at that facility (or facilities). We request that all data
revision comments be submitted in the form of updated
Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are generated by the
Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are provided on the RTR
website at http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

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

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

    This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action

because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document
that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2034.07. 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 proposing 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 all compliance reports (including performance
test reports), and some notifications.
    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: 55.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending
on the burden item. Responses include initial notifications,
notification of compliance status, reports of periodic 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 19,600 labor hours per year. Burden
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,418,000 per year in labor costs and an
additional one-time cost of $22,000 for an initial performance test at
one facility. Included in the $1,418,000 per year in labor cost
estimate is a labor cost of $36,618 for all 55 facilities to become
familiar with the proposed rule requirements.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than June 15, 2018. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. 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 proposal, EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-
0678. For all the facilities affected by the proposal, including the
small businesses, the costs associated with the proposed rule
requirements are less than 0.001 percent of annual sales revenues. Our
conclusion is that there are no significant economic impacts on a
substantial number of small entities from these proposed amendments. 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 proposed rule imposes requirements on
owners and operators of wood building product surface coating
facilities and not tribal governments. The EPA 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.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III 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 March 2018 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, in the docket for this action.

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

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

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

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use
ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), ``Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy'' as an alternative to
using

Method 320 under certain conditions and incorporate this alternative
method by reference. Method 320 is proposed to be added for the
measurement of organic HAP emissions if formaldehyde is a major organic
HAP component of the surface coating exhaust stream. Also, instead of
the current ASTM D 6348-12e1 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 Fourier Transform
Infrared 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 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 also proposes to use ASTM D4840-99, ``Standard Guide for
Sampling Chain-of-Custody Procedures,'' in Method 326 for its chain of
custody procedures and incorporate this alternative method by
reference. The ASTM D4840-99 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 procedures is to provide accountability for
and documentation of sample integrity from the time samples are
collected until the time samples are disposed. Method 326 is proposed
to be added for the measurement of organic HAP emissions if isocyanate
is a major organic HAP component of the surface coating exhaust stream.
    The EPA proposes to use the following five VCS as alternatives to
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 D1963-85 (1996), ``Standard Test Method for Specific
Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at 25/
25[deg]C.'' This test method is used for the determination of the
specific gravity of drying oils, varnishes, alkyd resins, fatty acids,
and related materials.
     ASTM D2111-95 (2000), ``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 D2369-01, ``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 D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998), ``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 2003), ``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 proposed 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 import
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 proposed 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.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially
applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this
regulation.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.B 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.
    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. 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
Wood Building Product Surface Coating Facilities, available in the
docket for this action.
    The results of the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP
source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the
source category expose approximately 800 people to a cancer risk at or
above 1-in-1 million and no one exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI
greater than 1. The specific demographic results indicate that the
percentage of the population potentially impacted by emissions is
greater than its corresponding national percentage for the minority
population (84 percent for the source category compared to 38 percent
nationwide), the African American population (75 percent for the source
category compared to 12 percent nationwide) and for the population over
age 25 without a high school diploma (25 percent for the source
category compared to 14 percent nationwide). 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 HAP emissions from this source category are low
for all populations (e.g., inhalation cancer risks are less than 6-in-1
million for all populations and noncancer HIs are less than 1). We do
not expect this proposal to achieve significant reductions in HAP
emissions. We have concluded that this proposal will not have
unacceptable adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
or low-income populations. The proposal does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. However, this
proposal, if finalized, will provide additional benefits to these
demographic groups by improving the compliance, monitoring, and
implementation of the NESHAP.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Surface Coating of Wood
Building Products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 23, 2018.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 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 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (i) through (s) as (j) through (t);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (d) as (i);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (e) through (h) as (d) through (g);
0
d. Redesignating paragraph (c) as (h);
0
e. Adding new paragraph (c).;
0
f. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (g)(11);
0
g. Redesignating newly redesignated paragraphs (g)(60) through (g)(105)
as (g)(64) through (g)(109);
0
h. Redesignating newly redesignated paragraphs (g)(24) through (g)(59)
as (g)(27) through (g)(62);
0
i. Redesignating newly redesignated paragraphs (g)(20) through (g)(23)
as (g)(22) through (g)(25);
0
j. Redesignating newly redesignated paragraphs (g)(18) through (g)(19)
as (g)(19) through (g)(20);
0
k. Adding new paragraphs (g)(18), (21), (26) and (63); and
0
l. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (g)(29), (77), and (82).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (c) American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 W. 43rd
Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and
http://www.ansi.org.
    (1) ANSI A135.4-2012, Basic Hardboard, approved June 8, 2012, IBR
approved for Sec.  63.4781.
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (11) ASTM D1475-90, Standard Test Method for Density of Paint,
Varnish Lacquer, and Related Products, IBR approved for appendix A to
subpart II and Sec. Sec.  63.4741(b) and (c) and 63.4751(c).
* * * * *
    (18) ASTM D1963-85 (1996), Standard Test Method for Specific
Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at 25/
25 [deg]C, approved 1996, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.4741(a) and
63.4761(j).
* * * * *
    (21) ASTM D2111-95 (2000), Standard Test Methods for Specific
Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, approved
2000, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.4741(a) and 63.4761(j).
* * * * *
    (26) ASTM D2369-01, Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings,
approved 2001, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.4741(a) and 63.4761(j).
* * * * *
    (29) ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998), Standard Test Method for
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec.  63.3161(f), 63.3521(b), 63.3941(b), 63.4141(b),
63.4741(a) and (b), 63.4761(j), 63.4941(b), and 63.5160(c).
* * * * *
    (63) ASTM D4840-99, Standard Guide for Sampling Chain-of-Custody
Procedures, approved 1999, IBR approved for Method 326 in appendix A to
part 63.
* * * * *
    (77) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), Standard Test Method for
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.3161, 63.3521,
63.3941, 63.4141, 63.4741(a) and (b), 63.4761(j), 63.4941(b), and
63.5160(c).
* * * * *
    (82) 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), 63.4651(i), 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.
* * * * *

Subpart QQQQ--[Amended]

0
3. 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), (2) or (3) 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.  63.4683, 63.4700, 63.4710, 63.4720, 63.4730,
63.4741, 63.4751, 63.4761, 63.4763, 63.4764, 63.4766, 63.4781, Table 4
of this subpart QQQQ, and Appendix A of this subpart QQQQ published on
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] is [DATE
180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
    (2) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected
source occurs after May 28, 2003, the compliance date is the date of
initial startup of your affected source; except that if the initial
startup of your new or reconstructed affected source occurs after May
28, 2003, but on or before May 16, 2018, the compliance date for the
revised requirements promulgated at Sec. Sec.  63.4683, 63.4700,
63.4710, 63.4720, 63.4730, 63.4741, 63.4751, 63.4761, 63.4763, 63.4764,
63.4766, 63.4781,

Table 4 of this subpart QQQQ, and Appendix A of this subpart QQQQ
published on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] is [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (3) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected
source occurs after May 16, 2018, the compliance date is [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or the date of
startup, whichever is later.
    (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.  63.4683, 63.4700,
63.4710, 63.4720, 63.4730, 63.4741, 63.4751, 63.4761, 63.4763, 63.4764,
63.4766, 63.4781, Table 4 of this subpart QQQQ, and Appendix A of this
subpart QQQQ published on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER] is [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
0
4. Section 63.4700 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a)(2), 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) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 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). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], the coating operation(s) must be in compliance with
the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.4690 at all times.
    (ii) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], 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).
After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], the coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the
operating limits for emission capture systems and add-on control
devices required by Sec.  63.4692 at all times, except for solvent
recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances
according to Sec.  63.4761(j).
* * * * *
    (3) For new or reconstructed sources with initial startup after May
16, 2018, any coating operation(s) for which you use the emission rate
with add-on controls option, as specified in Sec.  63.4691(c), must be
in compliance with the applicable emission limitations and work
practice standards as specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii)
of this section.
    (i) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the
applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.4690 at all times.
    (ii) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the
operating limits for emission capture systems and add-on control
devices required by Sec.  63.4692 at all times, except for solvent
recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances
according to Sec.  63.4761(j).
    (iii) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the work
practice standards in Sec.  63.4693 at all times.
    (b) For existing sources as of May 16, 2018, prior to [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must
always operate and maintain your affected source, including all air
pollution control and monitoring equipment you use for purposes of
complying with this subpart, according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e)(1)(i). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for such existing sources and after [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for new or
reconstructed sources, you must always operate and maintain your
affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment
and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good
air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general
duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further
efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable
standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is
operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements
will be based on information available to the Administrator which may
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance
records, and inspection of the source.
* * * * *
    (d) For existing sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], if your affected
source uses an emission capture system and add-on control device, you
must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP)
according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3). The SSMP must address
startup, shutdown, and corrective actions in the event of a malfunction
of the emission capture system or the add-on control device. The SSMP
must also address any coating operation equipment that may cause
increased emissions or that would affect capture efficiency if the
process equipment malfunctions, such as conveyors that move parts among
enclosures.
0
5. Section 63.4710 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(8)(ii) to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.4710  What notifications must I submit?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (ii) For the emission rate without add-on controls option, provide
the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions for each
month; the calculation of the total volume of coating solids used each
month; and the calculation of the 12-month organic HAP emission rate,
using Equations 1 and 1A (or 1A-alt) through 1C, 2, and 3,
respectively, of Sec.  63.4751.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.4720 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(6)(ii) and the introductory text of paragraph
(a)(7);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (a)(7)(xiv) as paragraphs
(a)(7)(i)(A) through (a)(7)(i)(N);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (a)(7)(i) introductory text;
0
d. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(ii) and the introductory text of paragraph
(c); and
0
e. Adding paragraph (d).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.4720  What reports must I submit?

    (a) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) The calculations used to determine the 12-month organic HAP
emission rate for the compliance period in which the deviation
occurred. You must provide the calculations for Equations 1, 1A (or 1A-
alt) through 1C, 2, and 3 in Sec.  63.4751; and if applicable, the
calculation used to determine mass of organic HAP in waste materials
according to Sec.  63.4751(e)(4). You do not need to submit background
data supporting these calculations (e.g., information provided by
materials suppliers or manufacturers, or test reports).
* * * * *
    (7) Deviations: emission rate with add-on controls option. You must
be in compliance with the emission limitations in this subpart as
specified in paragraphs (7)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) For existing sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], if you used the
emission rate with add-on controls option and there was a deviation
from an emission limitation (including any periods when emissions
bypassed the add-on control device and were diverted to the
atmosphere), the semiannual compliance report must contain the
information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i)(A) through (N) of this section.
This includes periods of SSM during which deviations occurred.
* * * * *
    (ii) After [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] for new and reconstructed sources and after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for
existing sources, if you used the emission rate with add-on controls
option and there was a deviation from an emission limitation (including
any periods when emissions bypassed the add-on control device and were
diverted to the atmosphere), the semiannual compliance report must
contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(ii)(A) through (M) of this
section.
    (A) The beginning and ending dates of each compliance period during
which the 12-month organic HAP emission rate exceeded the applicable
emission limit in Sec.  63.4690.
    (B) The calculations used to determine the 12-month organic HAP
emission rate for each compliance period in which a deviation occurred.
You must provide the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP
emissions for the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used each
month, using Equations 1 and 1A through 1C of Sec.  63.4751; and, if
applicable, the calculation used to determine mass of organic HAP in
waste materials according to Sec.  63.4751(e)(4); the calculation of
the total volume of coating solids used each month, using Equation 2 of
Sec.  63.4751; the calculation of the mass of organic HAP emission
reduction each month by emission capture systems and add-on control
devices, using Equations 1 and 1A through 1D of Sec.  63.4761, and
Equations 2, 3, and 3A through 3C of Sec.  63.4761, as applicable; the
calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions each month,
using Equation 4 of Sec.  63.4761; and the calculation of the 12-month
organic HAP emission rate, using Equation 5 of Sec.  63.4761. You do
not need to submit the background data supporting these calculations
(e.g., information provided by materials suppliers or manufacturers, or
test reports).
    (C) A brief description of the CPMS.
    (D) The date of the latest CPMS certification or audit.
    (E) The date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (F) The date, time, and duration that each CPMS was out-of-control,
including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (G) The date and time period of each deviation from an operating
limit in Table 3 to this subpart, date and time period of any bypass of
the add-on control device.
    (H) A summary of the total duration of each deviation from an
operating limit in Table 3 to this subpart, each bypass of the add-on
control device during the semiannual reporting period, and the total
duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that
semiannual reporting period.
    (I) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from the
operating limits in Table 3 to this subpart and bypasses of the add-on
control device during the semiannual reporting period by identifying
deviations due to control equipment problems, process problems, other
known causes, and other unknown causes; a list of the affected source
or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions.
    (J) A summary of the total duration of CPMS downtime during the
semiannual reporting period and the total duration of CPMS downtime as
a percent of the total source operating time during that semiannual
reporting period.
    (K) A description of any changes in the CPMS, coating operation,
emission capture system, or add-on control device since the last
semiannual reporting period.
    (L) For each deviation from the work practice standards, a
description of the deviation, the date and time period of the
deviation, and the actions you took to correct the deviation.
    (M) A statement of the cause of each deviation.
* * * * *
    (c) SSM reports. For existing sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], if you used
the emission rate with add-on controls option and you had an SSM during
the semiannual reporting period, you must submit the reports specified
in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (d) Electronic reporting. (1) Within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test (as defined in Sec.  63.2) required by
this subpart, the owner or operator must submit the results of the
performance test following the procedure specified in either paragraph
(d)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, the owner or operator must
submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via CEDRI. (CEDRI
can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/).) Performance test data must be submitted in a file
format generated using the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file
format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema
listed on the EPA's ERT website. If the owner or operator claims that
some of the performance test information being submitted is
confidential business information (CBI), the owner or operator must
submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's ERT website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage
media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI
and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham,

NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph.
    (ii) For data collected using test methods that are not supported
by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the
test, the owner or operator must submit the results of the performance
test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.
63.13 unless the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternative
reporting method.
    (2) You must submit notifications and semiannual compliance reports
to the EPA via the CEDRI. (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX
(https://cdx.epa.gov/).) You must use the appropriate electronic report
in CEDRI for this subpart or an alternative electronic file format
consistent with the XML schema listed on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri). If the reporting form
specific to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the
report is due, you must submit the report to the Administrator at all
the appropriate addresses listed in Sec.  63.13. Once the reporting
template has been available in CEDRI for 1 year, you must begin
submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI. The reports must be
submitted by the deadlines specified in this subpart, regardless of the
method in which the reports are submitted.
    (3) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, and due to a planned or actual outage of either
the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time beginning 5
business days prior to the date that the submission is due, you will be
or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting a required
report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of EPA system
outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. You
must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as
possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence
should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in
reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying the date, time and length of the outage; a rationale for
attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to
the EPA system outage; describe the measures taken or to be taken to
minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you
propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement
at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In any
circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as
possible after the outage is resolved. The decision to accept the claim
of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline
is solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
    (4) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur,
occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an
event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the
date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of
force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from
complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within
the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature
(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism,
or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the
affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to
assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the
Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a
rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to
be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by
which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting
requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In
any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after
the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of
force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is
solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
0
7. Section 63.4730 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(3) and the introductory text of paragraph
(k);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(1) through (4) as paragraphs (k)(1)(i)
through (iv);
0
c. Adding new introductory text of paragraph (k)(1) and new paragraph
(k)(2);
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(5)(i) through (iii) as paragraphs
(k)(1)(v)(A) through (C);
0
e. Redesignating introductory text of paragraph (k)(5) as introductory
text of paragraph (k)(1)(v) and revising the newly redesignated
paragraph;
0
f. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(6)(i) and (ii) as paragraphs
(k)(1)(vi)(A) and (B);
0
g. Redesignating introductory text of paragraph (k)(6) as introductory
text of paragraph (k)(1)(vi) and revising the newly redesignated
paragraph; and
0
h. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(7) and (8) as paragraphs (k)(1)(vii)
and (viii).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.4730  What records must I keep?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) For the emission rate without add-on controls option, a record
of the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions for the
coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used each month, using
Equations 1, 1A (or 1A-alt) through 1C, and 2 of Sec.  63.4751; and, if
applicable, the calculation used to determine mass of organic HAP in
waste materials according to Sec.  63.4751(e)(4); the calculation of
the total volume of coating solids used each month, using Equation 2 of
Sec.  63.4751; and the calculation of each 12-month organic HAP
emission rate, using Equation 3 of Sec.  63.4751.
* * * * *
    (k) If you use the emission rate with add-on controls option, you
must keep the records specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (2) of
this section.
    (1) For existing sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]:
* * * * *
    (v) For each capture system that is not a PTE, the data and
documentation you used to determine capture efficiency according to the
requirements specified in Sec. Sec.  63.4764 and 63.4765(b) through
(e), including the records specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(v)(A) through
(C) of this section that apply to you.
* * * * *
    (vi) The records specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(vi)(A) and (B) of
this section for each add-on control device organic HAP destruction or
removal efficiency determination as specified in Sec.  63.4766.
* * * * *
    (2) After [DATE of PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL

REGISTER] for new and reconstructed sources and after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for
existing sources:
    (i) The records required to show continuous compliance with each
operating limit specified in Table 3 to this subpart that applies to
you.
    (ii) For each capture system that is a PTE, the data and
documentation you used to support a determination that the capture
system meets the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51
for a PTE and has a capture efficiency of 100 percent, as specified in
Sec.  63.4765(a).
    (iii) For each capture system that is not a PTE, the data and
documentation you used to determine capture efficiency according to the
requirements specified in Sec. Sec.  63.4764 and 63.4765(b) through
(e), including the records specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(iii)(A)
through (C) of this section that apply to you.
    (A) Records for a liquid-to-uncaptured-gas protocol using a
temporary total enclosure or building enclosure. Records of the mass of
total volatile hydrocarbon (TVH) as measured by Method 204A or F of
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for each material used in the coating
operation, and the total TVH for all materials used during each capture
efficiency test run, including a copy of the test report. Records of
the mass of TVH emissions not captured by the capture system that
exited the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during each
capture efficiency test run as measured by Method 204D or E of appendix
M to 40 CFR part 51, including a copy of the test report. Records
documenting that the enclosure used for the capture efficiency test met
the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for either a
temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure.
    (B) Records for a gas-to-gas protocol using a temporary total
enclosure or a building enclosure. Records of the mass of TVH emissions
captured by the emission capture system as measured by Method 204B or C
of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 at the inlet to the add-on control
device, including a copy of the test report. Records of the mass of TVH
emissions not captured by the capture system that exited the temporary
total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency
test run as measured by Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part
51, including a copy of the test report. Records documenting that the
enclosure used for the capture efficiency test met the criteria in
Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for either a temporary total
enclosure or a building enclosure.
    (C) Records for an alternative protocol. Records needed to document
a capture efficiency determination using an alternative method or
protocol as specified in Sec.  63.4765(e), if applicable.
    (iv) The records specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(iv)(A) and (B) of
this section for each add-on control device organic HAP destruction or
removal efficiency determination as specified in Sec.  63.4766.
    (A) Records of each add-on control device performance test
conducted according to Sec. Sec.  63.4764 and 63.4766.
    (B) Records of the coating operation conditions during the add-on
control device performance test showing that the performance test was
conducted under representative operating conditions.
    (v) Records of the data and calculations you used to establish the
emission capture and add-on control device operating limits as
specified in Sec.  63.4767 and to document compliance with the
operating limits as specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
    (vi) A record of the work practice plan required by Sec.  63.4693,
and documentation that you are implementing the plan on a continuous
basis.
0
8. Section 63.4741 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2), the defined
terms ``mvolatiles'' and ``Davg'' in Equation 1
in the introductory text of paragraph (b)(3), and paragraph (c) to read
as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) Method 24 (appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60). For coatings, you
may use Method 24 to determine the mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile
matter and use that value as a substitute for mass fraction of organic
HAP. (Note: Method 24 is not appropriate for those coatings with a
water content that would result in an effective detection limit greater
than the applicable emission limit.) One of the voluntary consensus
standards in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (v) may be used as an
alternative to using Method 24.
    (i) ASTM Method D1963-85 (1996), ``Standard Test Method for
Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related
Materials at 25/25[deg]C,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14);
    (ii) ASTM Method D2111-95 (2000), ``Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their
Admixtures,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14);
    (iii) ASTM Method D2369-01, ``Test Method for Volatile Content of
Coatings,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14);
    (iv) ASTM Method D2697-86 (1998), ``Standard Test Method for Volume
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  63.14); and
    (v) ASTM Method D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), ``Standard Test Method
for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings
Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14).
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    mvolatiles = Total volatile matter content of the
coating, including HAP, volatile organic compounds (VOC), water, and
exempt compounds, determined according to Method 24 in appendix A-7 of
40 CFR part 60, grams volatile matter per liter coating.
    Davg = Average density of volatile matter in the
coating, grams volatile matter per liter volatile matter, determined
from test results using ASTM Method D1475-90, ``Standard Test Method
for Density of Paint, Varnish Lacquer, and Related Products,''
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), information from the
supplier or manufacturer of the material, or reference sources
providing density or specific gravity data for pure materials. If there
is disagreement between ASTM Method D1475-90 test results and other
information sources, the test results will take precedence.
    (c) Determine the density of each coating. Determine the density of
each coating used during the compliance period from test results using
ASTM Method D1475-90, ``Standard Test Method for Density of Paint,
Varnish Lacquer, and Related Products,'' (incorporated by reference,
see Sec.  63.14), or information from the supplier or manufacturer of
the material. If there is disagreement between ASTM Method D1475-90
test results and the supplier's or manufacturer's information, the test
results will take precedence.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.4751 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and the defined
term ``A'' in Equation 1 in the introductory text of paragraph (e) and
adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (c) Determine the density of each material. Determine the density
of each

coating, thinner, and cleaning material used during each month from
test results using ASTM Method D1475-90, ``Standard Test Method for
Density of Paint, Varnish Lacquer, and Related Products,''
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), information from the
supplier or manufacturer of the material, or reference sources
providing density or specific gravity data for pure materials. If there
is disagreement between ASTM Method D1475-90 test results and such
other information sources, the test results will take precedence.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *

A = Total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used during the month,
grams, as calculated in Equation 1A (or 1A-alt) of this section.
* * * * *
    (i) Alternative compliance demonstration. As an alternative to
paragraph (h) of this section, you may demonstrate initial compliance
by conducting a performance test using Method 25A of appendix A-7 to 40
CFR part 60 or Method 320 or 326 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 for
formaldehyde or isocyanates respectively to obtain an organic HAP
emission factor (EF). The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6348-03
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) may be used as an
alternative to using Method 320 under the conditions specified in
paragraphs (i)(4)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (1) You must also calculate the mass of organic HAP emitted from
the coatings used during the month using Equation 1A-alt of this
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16MY18.000

Where:

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

    (2) Calculate the organic HAP emission rate for the 12-month
compliance period, grams organic HAP per liter coating solids used,
using Equation 3 of this section.
    (3) The organic HAP emission rate for the initial 12-month
compliance period, calculated using Equation 3 of this section, must be
less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.4690.
You must keep all records as required by Sec. Sec.  63.4730 and
63.4731. As part of the Notification of Compliance Status required by
Sec.  63.4710, you must identify the coating operation(s) for which you
used the emission rate without add-on controls option and submit a
statement that the coating operation(s) was (were) in compliance with
the emission limitations during the initial compliance period because
the organic HAP emission rate was less than or equal to the applicable
emission limit in Sec.  63.4690, determined according to this section.
    (4) If ASTM D6348-03 is used, the conditions specified in
paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (ii) must be met.
    (i) Test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM
D6348-03, sections A1 through A8 are mandatory.
    (ii) In ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the
percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5
of ASTM D6348-03). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a
compound, %R must be between 70 and 130 percent. If the %R value does
not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data are not
acceptable for that compound, and the test must be repeated for that
analyte following adjustment of the sampling and/or analytical
procedure before the retest. The %R value for each compound must be
reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be
corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound using the
following equation: Reported Result = (Measured Concentration in the
Stack x 100)/%R.
0
10. Section 63.4761 is amended by revising paragraph (j)(3) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.4761  How do I demonstrate initial compliance?

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (3) Determine the mass fraction of volatile organic matter for each
coating, thinner, and cleaning material used in the coating operation
controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, grams
volatile organic matter per gram coating. You may determine the
volatile organic matter mass fraction using Method 24 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-7, one of the voluntary consensus standards specified in
Sec.  63.4741(a)(2)(i) through (v) (incorporated by reference, see
Sec.  63.14), or an EPA approved alternative method, or you may use
information provided by the manufacturer or supplier of the coating. In
the event of any inconsistency between information provided by the
manufacturer or supplier and the results of Method 24 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-7, or an approved alternative method, the test method
results will take precedence unless after consultation, a regulated
source could demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency
that the formulation data were correct.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 63.4763 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as
follows:

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

    (h) For existing sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], consistent with
Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a
period of SSM of the emission capture system, add-on control device, or
coating operation that may affect emission capture or control device
efficiency are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's
satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with Sec.
63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will determine whether deviations that
occur during a period you identify as an SSM are violations, according
to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e).
0
12. Section 63.4764 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to
read as follows:

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

    (a) * * *
    (1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must
conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions
for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup,
shutdown, and nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions.
You may not

conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must
record the process information that is necessary to document operating
conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent
normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
    (2) Representative emission capture system and add-on control
device operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test when
the emission capture system and add-on control device are operating at
a representative flow rate, and the add-on control device is operating
at a representative inlet concentration. Representative conditions
exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct
performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record
information that is necessary to document emission capture system and
add-on control device operating conditions during the test and explain
why the conditions represent normal operation.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 63.4766 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) and (b);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (b)(4) and (5); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (d) and (f).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) Use Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 60, as
appropriate, to select sampling sites and velocity traverse points.
    (2) Use Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part
60, or Method 2G of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, to
measure gas volumetric flow rate.
    (3) Use Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60, as
appropriate, for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. You
may also use as an alternative to Method 3B, the manual method for
measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of
exhaust gas in ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus]'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  63.14).
    (4) Use Method 4 of appendix A-3 to 40 CFR part 60 to determine
stack gas moisture.
* * * * *
    (b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the
inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously, using
Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60, and Method 320 or
326 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (5) of this section. The voluntary consensus standard ASTM
D6348-03 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  63.14) may be used as an
alternative to using Method 320 if the conditions specified in Sec.
63.4751(i)(4)(A) and (B) are met. You must use the same method for both
the inlet and outlet measurements.
    (1) Use Method 25 of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on
control device is an oxidizer, and you expect the total gaseous organic
concentration as carbon to be more than 50 parts per million (ppm) at
the control device outlet.
    (2) Use Method 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on
control device is an oxidizer, and you expect the total gaseous organic
concentration as carbon to be 50 ppm or less at the control device
outlet.
    (3) Use Method 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on
control device is not an oxidizer.
    (4) If Method 25A is used, and if formaldehyde is a major organic
HAP component of the surface coating exhaust stream, use Method 320 of
appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 or ASTM D6348-03 (incorporated by
reference in Sec.  63.14) to determine formaldehyde concentration.
    (5) In addition to Method 25 or 25A, use Method 326 of appendix A
to 40 CFR part 63 if isocyanate is a major organic HAP component of the
surface coating exhaust stream.
* * * * *
    (d) For each test run, determine the total gaseous organic
emissions mass flow rates for the inlet and the outlet of the add-on
control device, using Equation 1 of this section. If there is more than
one inlet or outlet to the add-on control device, you must calculate
the total gaseous organic mass flow rate using Equation 1 of this
section for each inlet and each outlet and then total all of the inlet
emissions and total all of the outlet emissions. The mass emission
rates for formaldehyde and individual isocyanate must be determined
separately.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16MY18.001

Where:

Mf = Total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rate,
grams per hour (h).
MW = Molecular weight of analyte of interest (12 for Method 25 and
25A results).
Cc = Concentration of organic compounds in the vent gas
(as carbon if determined by Method 25 or Method 25A), parts per
million by volume (ppmv), dry basis.
Qsd = Volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting
the add-on control device, as determined by Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,
2F, or 2G, dry standard cubic meters/hour (dscm/h).
41.6 = Conversion factor for molar volume, gram-moles per cubic
meter (mol/m\3\) (@293 Kelvin (K) and 760 millimeters of mercury
(mmHg)).
* * * * *
    (f) Determine the emission destruction or removal efficiency of the
add-on control device as the average of the efficiencies determined in
the three test runs and calculated in Equation 2 of this section.
Destruction and removal efficiency must be determined independently for
formaldehyde and isocyanates.
0
14. Section 63.4781 is amended by revising paragraph (3) under the
definition of ``deviation'' and revising the definition of
``tileboard'' to read as follows:

Sec.  63.4781  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
* * * * *
    (3) For existing sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], if your affected
source fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or work
practice standard in this subpart during SSM, regardless of whether or
not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
* * * * *
    Tileboard means hardboard that meets the specifications for Class I
given by the standard ANSI A135.4-2012 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec.  63.14) as approved by the American National

Standards Institute. The standard specifies requirements and test
methods for water absorption, thickness swelling, modulus of rupture,
tensile strength, surface finish, dimensions, squareness, edge
straightness, and moisture content for five classes of hardboard.
Tileboard is also known as Class I hardboard or tempered hardboard.
0
15. Table 4 to subpart QQQQ is amended to read as follows:
    You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements
according to the following table:

       Table 4 to Subpart QQQQ of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart QQQQ of Part 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Citation                       Subject          Applicable to subpart QQQQ        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1)-(14)............  General Applicability..  Yes.......................
Sec.   63.1(b)(1)-(3).............  Initial Applicability    Yes.......................  Applicability to
                                     Determination.                                       subpart QQQQ is also
                                                                                specified in Sec.
                                                                                63.4681.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1).................  Applicability After      Yes.......................
                                     Standard Established.
Sec.   63.1(c)(2).................  Applicability of Permit  No........................  Area sources are not
                                     Program for Area                                     subject to subpart
                                     Sources.                                             QQQQ.
Sec.   63.1(c)(3).................  [Reserved].............  No........................
Sec.   63.1(c)(4)-(5).............  Extensions and           Yes.......................
                                     Notifications.
Sec.   63.1(d)....................  [Reserved].............  No........................
Sec.   63.1(e)....................  Applicability of Permit  Yes.......................
                                     Program Before
                                     Relevant Standard is
                                     Set.
Sec.   63.2.......................  Definitions............  Yes.......................  Additional definitions
                                                                                are specified in Sec.
                                                                                63.4781.
Sec.   63.3(a)-(c)................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes.......................
Sec.   63.4(a)(1)-(5).............  Prohibited Activities..  Yes.......................
Sec.   63.4(b)-(c)................  Circumvention/           Yes.......................
                                     Severability.
Sec.   63.5(a)....................  Construction/            Yes.......................
                                     Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(b)(1)-(6).............  Requirements for         Yes.......................
                                     Existing, Newly
                                     Constructed, and
                                     Reconstructed Sources.
Sec.   63.5(c)....................  [Reserved].............  No........................
Sec.   63.5(d)....................  Application for          Yes.......................
                                     Approval of
                                     Construction/
                                     Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(e)....................  Approval of              Yes.......................
                                     Construction/
                                     Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(f)....................  Approval of              Yes.......................
                                     Construction/
                                     Reconstruction Based
                                     on Prior State Review.
Sec.   63.6(a)....................  Compliance With          Yes.......................
                                     Standards and
                                     Maintenance
                                     Requirements--Applicab
                                     ility.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(7).............  Compliance Dates for     Yes.......................  Sec.   63.4683
                                     New and Reconstructed                                specifies compliance
                                     Sources.                                             dates.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(5).............  Compliance Dates for     Yes.......................  Sec.   63.4683
                                     Existing Sources.                                    specifies compliance
                                                                                dates.
Sec.   63.6(d)....................  [Reserved].............  No........................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)..............  General Duty to          No........................  See Sec.   63.4700(b)
                                     Minimize Emissions.                                  for general duty
                                                                                requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii).............  Requirement to Correct   No........................
                                     Malfunctions ASAP.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)............  Operation and            Yes.......................
                                     Maintenance
                                     Requirements
                                     Enforceable
                                     Independent of
                                     Emissions Limitations.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2).................  [Reserved].............  No........................
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).................  SSMP...................  No........................
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).................  Compliance Except        No........................
                                     During SSM.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3).............  Methods for Determining  Yes.......................
                                     Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3).............  Use of an Alternative    Yes.......................
                                     Standard.
Sec.   63.6(h)....................  Compliance with Opacity/ No........................  Subpart QQQQ does not
                                     Visible Emissions                                    establish opacity
                                     Standards.                                           standards and does not
                                                                                require continuous
                                                                                opacity monitoring
                                                                                systems (COMS).
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(16)............  Extension of Compliance  Yes.......................
Sec.   63.6(j)....................  Presidential Compliance  Yes.......................
                                     Exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1).................  Performance Test         Yes.......................  Applies to all affected
                                     Requirements--Applicab                               sources. Additional
                                     ility.                                               requirements for
                                                                                performance testing
                                                                                are specified in Sec.
                                                                                Sec.   63.4764,
                                                                                63.4765, and 63.4766.
Sec.   63.7(a)(2).................  Performance Test         Yes.......................  Applies only to
                                     Requirements--Dates.                                 performance tests for
                                                                                capture system and
                                                                                control device
                                                                                efficiency at sources
                                                                                using these to comply
                                                                                with the standard.
                                                                                Sec.   63.4760
                                                                                specifies the schedule
                                                                                for performance test
                                                                                requirements that are
                                                                                earlier than those
                                                                                specified in Sec.
                                                                                63.7(a)(2).
Sec.   63.7(a)(3).................  Performance Tests        Yes.......................
                                     Required By the
                                     Administrator.
Sec.   63.7(a)(4).................  Notification of Delay    Yes.......................
                                     in Performance Testing
                                     Due to Force Majeure.
Sec.   63.7(b)-(e)................  Performance Test         Yes.......................  Applies only to
                                     Requirements--Notifica                               performance tests for
                                     tion, Quality                                        capture system and add-
                                     Assurance, Facilities                                on control device
                                     Necessary for Safe                                   efficiency at sources
                                     Testing, Conditions                                  using these to comply
                                     During Test.                                         with the standard.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).................  Performance Testing....  Yes.......................
Sec.   63.7(f)....................  Performance Test         Yes.......................  Applies to all test
                                     Requirements--Use of                                 methods except those
                                     Alternative Test                                     used to determine
                                     Method.                                              capture system
                                                                                efficiency.

Sec.   63.7(g)-(h)................  Performance Test         Yes.......................  Applies only to
                                     Requirements--Data                                   performance tests for
                                     Analysis,                                            capture system and add-
                                     Recordkeeping,                                       on control device
                                     Reporting, Waiver of                                 efficiency at sources
                                     Test.                                                using these to comply
                                                                                with the standard.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(2).............  Monitoring               Yes.......................  Applies only to
                                     Requirements--Applicab                               monitoring of capture
                                     ility.                                               system and add-on
                                                                                control device
                                                                                efficiency at sources
                                                                                using these to comply
                                                                                with the standard.
                                                                                Additional
                                                                                requirements for
                                                                                monitoring are
                                                                                specified in Sec.
                                                                                63.4768.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3).................  [Reserved].............  No........................
Sec.   63.8(a)(4).................  Additional Monitoring    No........................  Subpart QQQQ does not
                                     Requirements.                                        have monitoring
                                                                                requirements for
                                                                                flares.
Sec.   63.8(b)....................  Conduct of Monitoring..  Yes.......................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1).................  Continuous Monitoring    Yes.......................  Applies only to
                                     System (CMS) Operation                               monitoring of capture
                                     and Maintenance.                                     system and add-on
                                                                                control device
                                                                                efficiency at sources
                                                                                using these to comply
                                                                                with the standard.
                                                                                Additional
                                                                                requirements for CMS
                                                                                operations and
                                                                                maintenance are
                                                                                specified in Sec.
                                                                                63.4768.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)..............  General Duty to          No........................
                                     Minimize Emissions and
                                     CMS Operation.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii).............  Operation and            Yes.......................
                                     Maintenance of CMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)............  Requirement to Develop   No........................
                                     SSM Plan for CMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3).............  Monitoring System        Yes.......................
                                     Installation.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4).................  CMSs...................  No........................  Sec.   63.4768
                                                                                specifies the
                                                                                requirements for the
                                                                                operation of CMS for
                                                                                capture systems and
                                                                                add-on control devices
                                                                                at sources using these
                                                                                to comply.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5).................  COMS...................  No........................  Subpart QQQQ does not
                                                                                have opacity for
                                                                                visible emission
                                                                                standards.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6).................  CMS Requirements.......  Yes.......................  Sec.   63.4768