----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................     317,746,049           2,745               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...........................................................              62              90               0
Minority........................................................              38              10               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American................................................              12               3               0
Native American.................................................             0.8             0.4               0
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................              18               2               0
Other and Multiracial...........................................               7               4               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............................................              14              13               0
Above Poverty Level.............................................              86              87               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.......................              14               9               0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma..........................              86              91               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.........................................               6               2               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category
demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category
expose approximately 2,700 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1
million and no people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1.
Regarding cancer risk, the specific demographic results indicate that
the percentage of the population potentially impacted by engine test
cells/stands emissions is greater than its corresponding nationwide
percentage for the following demographics: Above Poverty Level (87
percent for the source category compared to 86 percent nationwide), and
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma (91 percent for the source
category compared to 86 percent nationwide). The remaining demographic
group percentages are the same or less than the corresponding
nationwide percentages.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Engine Test Cells/
Stands Source Category Operations, available in the docket for this
action.

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

1. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section III of this preamble, the EPA sets standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting
approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable
risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately
1-in-10 thousand'' (see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). In this
proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable
emissions from engine test cells/stands located at major sources of
HAP, and we considered these in determining acceptability.
    The estimated inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed
to actual or allowable emissions from the source category is 70-in-1
million. The estimated incidence of cancer due to inhalation exposures
is 0.02 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 50
years. Approximately 190,000 people face an increased cancer risk at or
above 1-in-1 million due to inhalation exposure to actual or allowable
HAP emissions from this source category. The estimated maximum chronic
noncancer TOSHI from inhalation exposure for this source category is
0.5. The screening assessment of worst-case inhalation impacts
indicates a worst-case maximum acute HQ of 9 for acrolein based on the
1-hour REL and concentrations that are only 30 percent of the 1-hour
AEGL-1 and ERPG-1.
    Potential multipathway human health risks were estimated using a 3-
tier screening assessment of the PB-HAP emitted by facilities in this
source category. The only pollutant with elevated Tier 1 and Tier 2
screening values was arsenic, which is a carcinogen. The Tier 2
screening value for arsenic was 2. For noncancer, the Tier 2 screening
values for all pollutants were less than 1.
    In determining whether risks are acceptable for this source
category, the EPA considered all available health information and risk
estimation uncertainty as described above. The risk results indicate
that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the
individual most exposed are well below 100-in-1 million, which is the
presumptive limit of acceptability. In addition, the highest chronic
noncancer TOSHI is well below 1, indicating low likelihood of adverse
noncancer effects from inhalation exposures. The maximum acute HQ for
all pollutants is 9 based on the REL for acrolein. As discussed in
section III.C.3.c of this preamble, exceeding the REL does not
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. Because of the
conservative nature of the acute inhalation screening assessment
(concurrent maximum emissions from all emission points, worst-case
meteorology, and an exposed person at the location of highest
concentration for a full hour), there is low probability that the
maximum HQ of 9 is associated with adverse health effects. Further, the
highest 1-hour acrolein concentration is only 30 percent of the 1-hour
AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. There are also low risks associated with ingestion
via multipathway exposure, with the highest cancer risk being 2-in-1
million and the highest noncancer HI being less than 1, based on a Tier
2 multipathway assessment.
    Considering all the health risk information and factors discussed
above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III of this
preamble, the EPA proposes that the risks are acceptable for this
source category.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to
determine whether the current emissions standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of
safety analysis, the EPA considers all health factors evaluated in the
risk assessment and evaluates the cost and feasibility of available
control technologies and other measures (including the controls,
measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be
applied to this source category to further reduce the risks (or
potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk
assessment. In this analysis, we considered the results of the
technology review, risk assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule
review to determine whether there are any emission reduction measures
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety with respect to the
risks associated with these emissions.
    Our risk analysis indicated the risks from the source category are
low for both cancer and noncancer health effects, and, therefore, any
risk reductions from further available control options would result in
minimal health benefits. Moreover, as noted in our discussion of the
technology review in section IV.C of this preamble, no additional cost-
effective measures were identified for reducing HAP emissions from
affected sources in the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category. Thus,
we are proposing that the current Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP
provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
    Based on the results of our environmental risk screening
assessment, we conclude that there is not an adverse environmental
effect from the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category. We are
proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to
prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other
relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.

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

1. How did we evaluate technological developments?
    Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires a review of ``developments in
practices, processes and control technologies'' in each source category
as part of the technology review process. For this technology review,
the ``developments'' we consider include:
     Add-on control technology that was not identified during
the current NESHAP development;
     Improvement to an existing add-on control technology
resulting in significant additional HAP emissions reductions;
     Work practice or operational procedure that was not
previously identified during the current NESHAP development; or
     Process change or pollution prevention alternative that
was not identified and considered during the current NESHAP
development.
    Developments in practices, processes, and control technologies were
investigated through discussions with industry representatives, reviews
of available construction and operating permits, searches of the EPA's
RBLC, site visits, and literature searches. We also included questions
on developments in practices, processes, and control technology in this
source category in the 2016 questionnaire that was completed by 10
companies. The questionnaire, along with the responses received, are
included in the docket.
2. What was our analysis and what are our conclusions regarding
technological developments?
    Our review of the practices, processes, and control technology for
the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category did

not reveal any development that would result in revisions to the
emission standards. In the original NESHAP, the technology basis for
the MACT standard was the use of add-on capture systems and control
devices (i.e., thermal oxidizers or catalytic oxidizers). Our review
did not identify any new or improved add-on control technology, any new
work practices, operational procedures, process changes, or new
pollution prevention approaches that reduce emissions in the category
that have been implemented at engine testing operations since
promulgation of the current NESHAP. Consequently, we propose that no
revisions to the NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6). For a detailed discussion of the findings, refer to the
Technology Review for the Engine Test Cells/Stands Source Category
memorandum in the docket.

D. What other actions are we proposing?

    In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing
revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure
that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that
exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM.
We also are proposing to require electronic submittal of notifications,
semiannual reports, and compliance reports (which include performance
test reports). Our analyses and proposed changes related to these
issues are discussed below.
1. SSM
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the
CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply
continuously.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule,
which appears at 40 CFR 63.9305, 40 CFR 63.9340, and in Table 7 to
subpart PPPPP of 40 CFR part 63. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we
are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are
also proposing several revisions to Table 7 (the General Provisions
Applicability Table) as is explained in more detail below. For example,
we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General
Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We also
are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and
reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further
described below.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so. The EPA believes the removal
of the SSM exemption creates no additional burden to facilities
regulated under the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP. Deviations
currently addressed by a facility's SSM plan are required to be
reported in the Semiannual Compliance Report, a requirement that
remains under the proposal (40 CFR 63.9350). Facilities will no longer
need to develop an SSM plan or keep it current (Table 7, 40 CFR part
63, subpart PPPPP). We are specifically seeking comment on whether we
have successfully removed the SSM exemption.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, is not proposing alternate standards for those periods. For add-
on control systems, the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP requires the
measurement of thermal oxidizer operating temperature or catalytic
oxidizer average temperature across the catalyst bed as well as the
measurement of the emission capture system volumetric flow rate or
facial velocity. Operating limits apply at all times (40 CFR 63.9302),
including during periods of startup and shutdown. The Engine Test
Cells/Stands NESHAP requires thermal oxidizer or catalytic oxidizer
operating temperature and other add-on control device operating
parameters to be recorded at least once every 15 minutes. The Engine
Test Cells/Stands NESHAP specifies in 40 CFR 63.9340(b) that if an
operating parameter is out of the allowed range, this is a deviation
from the operating limit and must be reported as specified in 40 CFR
63.9350(d). Review of permits of facilities using add-on controls
indicated that they were required by permit to operate the add-on
controls at all times the engine test cells are being operated.
    In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has
not proposed alternate standards for those periods. Startups and
shutdowns are part of normal operations for the Engine Test Cells/
Stands source category. As currently specified in 40 CFR 63.9302(a),
any new or reconstructed affected source for which you use add-on
control option must meet operating limits ``at all times.'' This means
that during startup and shutdown periods, in order for a facility using
add-on controls to meet the emission and operating standards, the
control device for an engine test cell/stand facility needs to be
turned on and operating at specified levels before the facility begins
engine testing operations, and the control equipment needs to continue
to be operated until after the facility ceases engine testing
operations.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2,
definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA,
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions
standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level
``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for existing
sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission
limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of sources in
the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the
Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved''
by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the
Court has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing
about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.''
National Association of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115,
1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in
setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the
Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is
not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of
variation in performance

that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a
failure of the source to perform in ``normal or usual manner'' and no
statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting
CAA section 112 standards.
    As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp., accounting for
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of
circumstances.'') As such, the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, for example,
Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999). ``The EPA
typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of data gathering
necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's
decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information,
rather than to `invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.''
See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978),
``In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even
any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a
certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by
`uncontrollable acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage,
operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other
eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of
case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance
by regulation.'' In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can
be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source
operation. For example, if an air pollution control device with 99-
percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as might
happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the
emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut
down, the source would go from 99-percent control to zero control until
the control device was repaired. The source's emissions during the
malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As
such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the
annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this
example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to
standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent
than) levels that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning
source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a
result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA
section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in
releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events
because information was available to determine that such work practices
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers (80
FR 75178, 75211-14; December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether
circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of
malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard
for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such
information.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corporation v. EPA (830 F.3d 579, 606-610; D.C.
Cir. 2016).
a. General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 7)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)-(2) by redesignating it as 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in
light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead
to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.9305 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 63.9305 does not include that language from 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to revise Table 7 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 63.9305.
    We are also proposing to revise Table 7 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 Table 7 to remove an entry for
40 CFR 63.6(e)(2) because this paragraph is reserved and is not
applicable to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP.
b. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to revise Table 7 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 Table 7 entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The current language of
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during
periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club 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 Table 7 entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1)
describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead
proposing to revise the performance testing requirement at 40 CFR
63.9321 to remove the language ``according to the requirements in Sec.
63.7(e)(1)'' because 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) restated the SSM exemption. 40
CFR 63.9321(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 a representative flow rate, and the add-on
control device is operating at a representative inlet concentration.
Section 63.9321(a) also specifies that the performance test be
conducted under representative operating conditions for the engine test
cell/stand. Operations during periods of SSM, and during periods of
nonoperation do not constitute representative 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 operation. 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 in the current rule already makes
explicit the requirement to record the information.
e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise Table 7 entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i)
and 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(iii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a
``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM plan
requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary considering other
requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control
practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a
quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
f. Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the Table 7 entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section
63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup
and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary
because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting
applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In
the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown,
such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain
additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
    We are proposing to revise the Table 7 entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.''
Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during
a malfunction. A similar record is already required in 40 CFR
63.9350(c). The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.9350(c) differs from the
General Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation
and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.9350(c) applies to any failure to meet an
applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date,
time, and duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' The
EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.9350(c) a requirement that
sources keep records that include a list of the affected source or
equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for
which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would
include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations,
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known
process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep
records of this information to ensure that there is adequate
information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure
to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the
source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has
failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise the Table 7 by adding an entry for 40
CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) 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. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record
corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.9355(a).
    We are proposing to revise Table 7 by adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(v) and including a ``no'' in column 3. When applicable, the
provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to
show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The
requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer
be required.
    We are proposing to revise Table 7 entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(1)-
(6), (9)-(15) by re-designating it as 40 CFR 63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-(14)
and 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
apply. 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 Table 7 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,
the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.9350.
The replacement language differs from the General Provisions

requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone
report. We are proposing language that requires sources that fail to
meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information
concerning such events in the semi-annual compliance report already
required under this rule. We are proposing that the report must also
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 product-loss calculations,
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.
Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable
standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We 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. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that owners and
operators of engine test cells/stands submit electronic copies of
required performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and
semiannual compliance reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI). A description of the electronic data submission process is
provided in the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753. The proposed rule requires that performance test
results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \28\ at
the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the
use of the ERT and that other performance test results be submitted in
portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT.
Similarly, performance evaluation results of continuous monitoring
systems (CMS) measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants
that are supported by the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted
in the format generated through the use of the ERT and other
performance evaluation results be submitted in PDF using the attachment
module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the semiannual compliance reports the proposed rule requires
that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to
submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed template
for these reports is included in the docket for this rulemaking.\29\
The EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and
overall design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See
Engine_Test_Cells_Semiannual_Spreadsheet_Template_Draft, available
at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance
in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the
reporting deadline for reasons beyond their control. The situation
where an extension may be warranted due to outages of either the EPA's
CDX or CEDRI which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the
system and submitting required reports is addressed in proposed 40 CFR
63.9350(i). 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 an owner or operator from complying with the
requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule
is addressed in proposed 40 CFR 63.9350(j). Examples of such events are
acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or
safety hazards beyond the control of the facility.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking, when finalized, will increase the usefulness of the data
contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data
availability and transparency, will further assist in the protection of
public health and the environment, will improve compliance by
facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate
compliance with requirements and by facilitating the ability of
delegated state, local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the
EPA to assess and determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce
burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA.
Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes,
thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating
redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data
quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the
EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with
the EPA's plan \30\ to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in
keeping with the EPA's Agency-wide policy \31\ developed in response to
the White House's Digital Government Strategy.\32\ For more information
on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic
Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \31\ 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.
    \32\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Technical and Editorial Changes
    The following are additional proposed changes that address
technical and editorial correction:
     Revising the monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 63.9307 to
add THC as a continuous emission monitoring option and to add
Performance Specification 8A and EPA Method 25A;
     Revising the initial compliance requirements in 40 CFR
63.9320 to include a provision for the performance test to be used to
demonstrate compliance;
     Revising Tables 3 and 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP,
to add alternative compliance option; and
     Revising section 40 CFR 63.9350 to address the reporting
of performance tests and performance evaluations.

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
8, 2019 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 PPPPP, 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), therefore, the effective date of
the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA
section 112(d)(10). For existing affected sources, we are proposing two
changes that would impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR
part 63, subpart PPPPP. 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. Our experience with similar industries that
have been 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 59 engine test cells/stands facilities
operating in the United States that conduct engine testing operations
and are subject to the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP. The 40 CFR part
63, subpart PPPPP, affected source is the collection of all equipment
and activities associated with engine test cells/stands used for
testing uninstalled stationary or uninstalled mobile engines located at
a major source of HAP emissions. A new or reconstructed affected source
is a completely new engine testing source that commenced construction
after May 14, 2002, or meets the definition of reconstruction and
commenced reconstruction after May 14, 2002.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    At the current level of control, emissions of total HAP are
estimated to be approximately 163 tpy. This represents a reduction in
HAP emissions of about 80 tpy due to the current (2003) Engine Test
Cells/Stands NESHAP. The proposed amendments will require all affected
sources subject to the emission standards in the Engine Test Cells/
Stands NESHAP to operate without the SSM exemption. We do not expect
that eliminating the SSM exemption will result in reduced emissions
since the NESHAP requires that the operating limits established during
the performance test for demonstrating continuous compliance must be
met at all times.
    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.

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 VIII.C of this preamble.

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 associated with the
proposed requirements 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.
    Based on the costs associated with the elimination of the SSM
exemption and the costs associated with the requirement to
electronically submit compliance reports presented in section VIII.C of
this preamble, there are no significant economic impacts from these
proposed amendments

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 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.
    We specifically solicit comment on an additional issue under
consideration that could reduce regulatory burden for owners or
operators of certain engine test cells/stands facilities. Currently, if
an affected source owner or operator elects to comply with the percent
reduction emission limitation, an initial performance test must be
conducted to determine the capture and control efficiencies of the
equipment and to establish the operating limits to be achieved on a
continuous basis. Performance tests are to be conducted under
representative operating conditions and the source is required to
document the operating conditions during the test and explain why the
conditions represent normal operation. Industry stakeholders have
raised the issue that, for facilities with multiple test cells/stands,
it is difficult to define ``normal'' operation due to the several types
of engine tests conducted, the varying operation conditions for the
engine tests, the number of cells/stands, different kinds of test
fuels, and the complex emission capture system. Thus, affected sources
have felt the need to request approval on the testing protocol prior to
conducting the performance tests to limit tests to representative
cells. We are requesting comment on whether this process of requesting
prior approval for determining what is considered ``normal'' operation
for a specific affected facility is reasonable and appropriate for the
one-time required performance test.

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 https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP
emissions release point for the facilities in the source 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).
    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-2018-0753 (through the method described in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
provided on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2066.08. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    We are proposing changes to the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for the Engine Test Cells/Stands 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). Any information submitted to the Agency for which a
claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the
Agency policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B--
Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR part 2; 41 FR
36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43
FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).
    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents are owners and operators
of engine test cells/stands facilities subject to the Engine Test
Cells/Standards NESHAP.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPPPP).
    Estimated number of respondents: On average over the next 3 years,
approximately 12 existing major sources will be subject to these
standards, of which seven are subject to emission limits, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. It is also estimated that
one additional respondent will become subject to the emission standards
over the 3-year period and two additional respondents will be subject
only to the notification requirements.
    Frequency of response: The average number of respondents over the
3-year period of this ICR is eight.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to industry over
the next 3 years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is
estimated to be 1,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The total capital/startup costs for this ICR
are $500. The total operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for this ICR
are $2,400. The average annual cost for capital/startup and O&M costs
to industry over the next 3 years of the ICR is estimated to be $2,900.
These are the recordkeeping costs.
    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_ADDRESS>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 7,
2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final
rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. During the original
rulemaking, an ICR was sent to over 100 companies representing over 300
individual facilities. Using that information, along with discussion
with industry stakeholders, it was determined that there were no major
sources that were also small businesses. Thus, this action will not
impose any requirements on small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate 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. The action
affects private industry and does not impose economic costs on state or
local governments.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The EPA does not know of any engine test cell/
stand facilities owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. 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 Engine Test Cells/Stands
Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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, Risk and Technology Review
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Engine Test
Cells/Stands Source Category Operations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Engine test cells/
stands, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 25, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is proposed
to be amended as follows:

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

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

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

Subpart PPPPP--[Amended]

0
 2. Section 63.9295 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)
and adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.9295  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) Affected sources. (1) If you start up your new or reconstructed
affected source before May 27, 2003, you must comply with the emission
limitations in this subpart no later than May 27, 2003;

except that the compliance date for the revised requirements
promulgated at Sec. Sec.  63.9295, 63.9305, 63.9340, 63.9350, 63.9355,
63.9375, and Table 7 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP, 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 you start up your new or reconstructed affected source on or
after May 27, 2003, you must comply with the emission limitations in
this subpart upon startup; except that if the initial startup of your
new or reconstructed affected source occurs after May 27, 2003, but on
or before May 8, 2019, the compliance date for the revised requirements
promulgated at Sec. Sec.  63.9295, 63.9305, 63.9340, 63.9350, 63.9355,
63.9375, and Table 7 of this subpart 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 8, 2019, the compliance date is [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] or the date of
startup, whichever is later.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 63.9305 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.9305  What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

    (a) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], You must be in compliance with the emission
limitation that applies to you at all times, except during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of your control device or
associated monitoring equipment. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must be in compliance with
the applicable emission limitation at all times.
    (b) If you must comply with the emission limitation, you must
operate and maintain your engine test cell/stand, air pollution control
equipment, and monitoring equipment in a manner consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at
all times. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the
owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieve.
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information
available to the Administrator that may include, but is not limited to,
monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures,
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the
affected source.
    (c) For affected sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], You must develop a
written SSM plan (SSMP) for emission control devices and associated
monitoring equipment according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3).
The plan will apply only to emission control devices, and not to engine
test cells/stands.
0
 4. Section 63.9307 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and
(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.9307  What are my continuous emissions monitoring system
installation, operation, and maintenance requirements?

* * * * *
    (c) To comply with either emission limitations, the CEMS must be
installed and operated according to the requirements described in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) You must install, operate, and maintain each CEMS according to
the applicable Performance Specification (PS) of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B (PS- 3, PS-4A, or PS-8).
    (2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS
according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8 and according to PS-3 of
40 CFR part 60, appendix B, using Reference Method 3A or 3B for the
O2 CEMS, and according to PS-4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
B, using Reference Method 10 or 10B for the CO CEMS, and according to
PS-8 of CFR part 60, Appendix B, using Reference Method 25A for the THC
CEMS. If the fuel used in the engines being tested is natural gas, you
may use ASTM D 6522-00, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide and Oxygen Concentrations in Emissions
from Natural Gas Fired Reciprocating Engines, Combustion Turbines,
Boilers, and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  63.14). As an alternative to Method 3B, you may
use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10,
Instruments and Apparatus],'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14).
* * * * *
    (4) All CEMS data must be reduced as specified in Sec.  63.8(g)(2)
and recorded as CO or THC as carbon concentration in parts per million
by volume, dry basis (ppmvd), corrected to 15 percent O2
content.
* * * * *
0
 5. Section 63.9320 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.9320   What procedures must I use?

* * * * *
    (b) You must conduct an initial performance evaluation of each
capture and control system according to Sec. Sec.  63.9321, 63.9322,
63.9323 and 63.9324, and each CEMS according to the requirements in 40
CFR 63.8 and according to the applicable Performance Specification of
40 CFR part 60, appendix B (PS- 3, PS-4A, or PS-8).
    (c) The initial demonstration of compliance with the carbon
monoxide (CO) or total hydrocarbon (THC) concentration limitation
consists of either the first 4-hour rolling average CO or THC
concentration recorded after completion of the CEMS performance
evaluation if CEMS are installed or the average of the test run
averages during the initial performance test. You must correct the CO
or THC concentration at the outlet of the engine test cell/stand or the
emission control device to a dry basis and to 15 percent O2
content according to Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY19.005

Where:

Cc = concentration of CO or THC, corrected to 15 percent
oxygen, ppmvd
Cunc = total uncorrected concentration of CO or THC,
ppmvd
%O2d = concentration of oxygen measured in gas stream,
dry basis, percent by volume
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.9330 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.9330  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitation?

    (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitation that applies to you according to Table 4 to this subpart.
* * * * *
0
 7. Section 63.9340 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.9340  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (c) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. (1) For affected sources
until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
Federal Register], consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1),
deviations that occur during a period of

SSM of control devices and associated monitoring equipment are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating in accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)(1).
    (2) The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur
during a period you identify as an SSM of control devices and
associated monitoring equipment are violations, according to the
provisions in Sec.  63.6(e).
0
8. Section 63.9350 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(6) and;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(7);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
d. Adding paragraphs (c)(5);
0
e. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text;
0
f. Adding paragraph (d)(11);
0
g. Revising paragraph (e);
0
h. Adding paragraphs (f) through (i).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.9350  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) * * *
    (6) For affected sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN Federal Register], if you had an SSM of a
control device or associated monitoring equipment during the reporting
period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the compliance
report must include the information in paragraphs Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i).
    (7) Beginning on [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN Federal Register], submit all semiannual compliance reports
following the procedure specified in paragraph (g) of this section.
* * * * *
    (c) For each deviation from an emission limit, the semiannual
compliance report must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section and the information included in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (4) of this section, except that after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN Federal Register] the
semiannual compliance report must also include the information included
in paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
* * * * *
    (5) 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.
* * * * *
    (d) For each CEMS or CPMS deviation, the semiannual compliance
report must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of
this section and the information included in paragraphs (d)(1) through
(10) of this section, except that after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN Federal Register] the semiannual
compliance report must also include the information included in
paragraph (d)(11) of this section.
* * * * *
    (11) The total operating time of each new or reconstructed engine
test cell/stand during the reporting period.
* * * * *
    (e) Until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], if you had an SSM of a control device or
associated monitoring equipment during the semiannual reporting period
that was not consistent with your SSMP, you must submit an immediate
SSM report according to the requirements in Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(ii).
    (f) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test or performance evaluation required by this subpart, you must
submit the results of the performance test following the procedures
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected or performance evaluations of CMS measuring
relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants 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.
Submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation to
the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you
may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup
language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected or performance evaluations of CMS measuring
relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants 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 results of the performance test or
performance evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or
an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative
file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (f) of this section is CBI,
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
    (g) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure
specified in this paragraph, you must submit reports to the EPA via
CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic
report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The report must be submitted by the
deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which
the report is submitted. If you claim some of the information required
to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI),
submit a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to
the EPA. The report must be generated using the appropriate form on the
CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph.
    (h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section.

    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (i) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
9. Section 63.9355 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and paragraph (a)(3) and adding paragraphs (a)(6) through (8) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.9355   What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the records as described in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (5) of this section. After [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN Federal Register], you must also keep the records as described in
paragraphs (a)(6) through (8) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
the air pollution control equipment, if applicable, as required in
Sec.  63.9355.
* * * * *
    (6) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure record the
date, time and duration of each failure.
    (7) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and
retain a list of the affected sources 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.
    (8) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec.  63.9305, and any corrective actions taken to return the affected
unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
0
 10. Section 63.9360 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows;

Sec.  63.9360  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

* * * * *
    (d) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
 11. Section 63.9375 is amended by revising paragraph (3) under the
definition for ``Deviation'' to read as follows:

Sec.  63.9375  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Deviation * * *
* * * * *
    (3) Until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
Federal Register], fails to meet any emission limitation or operating
limit in this subpart during malfunction, regardless or whether or not
such failure is permitted by this subpart.
* * * * *
0
12. Table 3 to subpart PPPPP is amended by revising the entry for ``1.
The CO or THC outlet concentration emission limitation'' to read as
follows:

Table 3 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Requirements for Initial
Compliance Demonstrations

    As stated in Sec.  63.9321, you must demonstrate initial compliance
with each emission limitation that applies to you according to the
following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                According to the
    For each new or reconstructed           You must . . .            Using . . .         following requirements
 affected source complying with . . .                                                             . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The CO or THC outlet concentration  a. Demonstrate CO or     i. EPA Methods 3A and    You must demonstrate
 emission limitation.                   THC emissions are 20     10 of appendix A to 40   that the outlet
                                        ppmvd or less.           CFR part 60 for CO       concentration of CO or
                                                                 measurement or EPA       THC emissions from the
                                                                 Method 25A of appendix   test cell/stand or
                                                                 A to 40 CFR part 60      emission control
                                                                 for THC measurement;     device is 20 ppmvd or
                                                                 or.                      less, corrected to 15
                                                                                percent O2 content,
                                                                                using the average of
                                                                                the test runs in the
                                                                                performance test.
                                                                ii. A CEMS for CO or     This demonstration is
                                                                 THC and O2 at the        conducted immediately
                                                                 outlet of the engine     following a successful
                                                                 test cell/stand or       performance evaluation
                                                                 emission control         of the CEMS as
                                                                 device.                  required in Sec.
                                                                                63.9320(b). The
                                                                                demonstration consists
                                                                                of the first 4-hour
                                                                                rolling average of
                                                                                measurements. The CO
                                                                                or THC concentration
                                                                                must be corrected to
                                                                                15 percent O2 content,
                                                                                dry basis using
                                                                                Equation 1 in Sec.
                                                                                63.9320.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
13. Table 4 of subpart PPPPP is revised to read as follows:

Table 4 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limitations

    As stated in Sec.  63.9330, you must demonstrate initial compliance
with each emission limitation that applies to you according to the
following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        You have demonstrated initial
           For the . . .                     compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CO or THC concentration          The first 4-hour rolling average CO
 emission limitation.                or THC concentration is 20 ppmvd or
                                     less, corrected to 15 percent O2
                                     content if CEMS are installed or
                                     the average of the test run
                                     averages during the performance
                                     test is 20 ppmvd or less, corrected
                                     to 15 percent O2 content.
2. CO or THC percent reduction      The first 4-hour rolling average
 emission limitation.                reduction in CO or THC is 96
                                     percent or more, dry basis,
                                     corrected to 15 percent O2 content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
14. Table 5 of subpart PPPPP is revised to read as follows:

Table 5 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With
Emission Limitations

    As stated in Sec.  63.9340, you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with each emission limitation that applies to you according
to the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          For the . . .             You must . . .         By . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CO or THC concentration        a. Demonstrate CO   i. Collecting the
 emission limitation.              or THC emissions    CPMS data
                                   are 20 ppmvd or     according to Sec.
                                   less over each 4-     63.9306(a),
                                   hour rolling        reducing the
                                   averaging period.   measurements to 1-
                                                       hour averages
                                                       used to calculate
                                                       the 3-hr block
                                                       average; or
                                                      ii. Collecting the
                                                       CEMS data
                                                       according to Sec.
                                                         63.9307(a),
                                                       reducing the
                                                       measurements to 1-
                                                       hour averages,
                                                       correcting them
                                                       to 15 percent O2
                                                       content, dry
                                                       basis, according
                                                       to Sec.
                                                       63.9320.
2. CO or THC percent reduction    a. Demonstrate a    i. Collecting the
 emission limitation.              reduction in CO     CPMS data
                                   or THC of 96        according to Sec.
                                   percent or more       63.9306(a),
                                   over each 4-hour    reducing the
                                   rolling averaging   measurements to 1-
                                   period.             hour averages; or
                                                      ii. Collecting the
                                                       CEMS data
                                                       according to Sec.
                                                         63.9307(b),
                                                       reducing the
                                                       measurements to 1-
                                                       hour averages,
                                                       correcting them
                                                       to 15 percent O2
                                                       content, dry
                                                       basis,
                                                       calculating the
                                                       CO or THC percent
                                                       reduction
                                                       according to Sec.
                                                         63.9320.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
15. Table 7 of subpart PPPPP is revised to read as follows:

Table 7 to Subpart PPPPP of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart PPPPP

    As stated in 63.9365, you must comply with the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.15 that apply to you according to the
following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Applicable to
       Citation            Subject       subpart PPPPP     Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1)-     General          Yes.             ...............
 (12).                  Applicability.
Sec.   63.1(b)(1)-(3)  Initial          Yes............  Applicability
                        Applicability                     to subpart
                        Determination.                    PPPPP is also
                                                          specified in
                                                          Sec.
                                                          63.9285.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1)....  Applicability    Yes.             ...............
                        After Standard
                        Established.
Sec.   63.1(c)(2)....  Applicability    No.............  Area sources
                        of Permit                         are not
                        Program for                       subject to
                        Area Sources.                     subpart PPPPP.
Sec.   63.1(c)(5)....  Notifications..  Yes.             ...............
Sec.   63.1(d).......  [Reserved].....
Sec.   63.1(e).......  Applicability    Yes.             ...............
                        of Permit
                        Program Before
                        Relevant
                        Standard is
                        Set.
Sec.   63.2..........  Definitions....  Yes............  Additional
                                                          definitions
                                                          are specified
                                                          in Sec.
                                                          63.9375.
Sec.   63.3..........  Units and        Yes.             ...............
                        Abbreviations.
Sec.   63.4..........  Prohibited       Yes.             ...............
                        Activities and
                        Circumvention.
Sec.   63.5(a).......  Construction/    Yes.             ...............
                        Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(b).......  Requirements     Yes.             ...............
                        for Existing,
                        Newly
                        Constructed,
                        and
                        Reconstruction
                        Sources.
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--
                        Applicability.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(7)  Compliance       Yes............  Sec.   63.9295
                        Dates for New                     specifies the
                        and                               compliance
                        Reconstructed                     dates.
                        Sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)  Compliance       No.............  Subpart PPPPP
                        Dates for                         does not
                        Existing                          establish
                        Sources.                          standards for
                                                          existing
                                                          sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)....  Compliance       Yes............  Sec.
                        Dates for                         63.9295(b)
                        Existing                          specifies the
                        Sources.                          compliance
                                                          date if a new
                                                          or
                                                          reconstructed
                                                          area source
                                                          becomes a
                                                          major source.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i).  Operation and    No.............  See Sec.
                        Maintenance.                      63.9305 for
                                                          general duty
                                                          requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)  Operation and    No.              ...............
                        Maintenance.
Sec.                   Operation and    Yes.             ...............
 63.6(e)(1)(iii).       Maintenance.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)....  SSM Plan.......  No.              ...............
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)....  Compliance       No.              ...............
                        Except During
                        Startup,
                        Shutdown, and
                        Malfunction.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)  Methods for      Yes.             ...............
                        Determining
                        Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3)  Use of           Yes.             ...............
                        Alternative
                        Standards.
Sec.   63.6(h).......  Compliance With  No.............  Subpart PPPPP
                        Opacity/                          does not
                        Visible                           establish
                        Emission                          opacity
                        Standards.                        standards and
                                                          does require
                                                          continuous
                                                          opacity
                                                          monitoring
                                                          systems
                                                          (COMS).
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-     Extension of     No.............  Compliance
 (16).                  Compliance.                       extension
                                                          provisions
                                                          apply to
                                                          existing
                                                          sources which
                                                          do not have
                                                          emission
                                                          limitations in
                                                          subpart PPPPP.
Sec.   63.6(j).......  Presidential     Yes.             ...............
                        Compliance
                        Exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2)  Performance      Yes.             ...............
                        Test Dates.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)....  Performance      Yes.             ...............
                        Test Required
                        By the
                        Administrator.
Sec.   63.7(b)-(d)...  Performance      Yes.             ...............
                        Test
                        Requirements-
                        Notification,
                        Quality
                        Assurance,
                        Facilities
                        Necessary for
                        Safe Testing,
                        Conditions
                        During Testing.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)....  Conditions for   No.              ...............
                        Conducting
                        Performance
                        Tests.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(4)  Conduct of       Yes.             ...............
                        Performance
                        Tests.
Sec.   63.7(f).......  Alternative      Yes.             ...............
                        Test Methods.
Sec.   63.7(g)-(h)...  Performance      Yes.             ...............
                        Testing
                        Requirements--
                        Data Analysis,
                        Recordkeeping,
                        Reporting,
                        Waiver of Test.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(2)  Monitoring       Yes............  Subpart PPPPP
                        Requirements--                    contains
                        Applicability.                    specific
                                                          requirement
                                                          for monitoring
                                                          at Sec.
                                                          63.9325.
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)....  Additional       No.............  Subpart PPPPP
                        Monitoring                        does not have
                        Requirements.                     monitoring
                                                          requirement
                                                          for flares.
Sec.   63.8(b).......  Conduct of       Yes.             ...............
                        Monitoring.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)....  Continuous       Yes.             ...............
                        Monitoring
                        System (CMS)
                        Operation and
                        Maintenance.
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.                   Requirement to   No.              ...............
 63.8(c)(1)(iii).       Develop SSM
                        Plan for CMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)  Monitoring       Yes.             ...............
                        System
                        Installation.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)....  CMS............  No.............  Sec.
                                                          63.9335(a) and
                                                          (b) specifies
                                                          the
                                                          requirements
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)....  COMS...........  No.............  Subpart PPPPP
                                                          does not have
                                                          opacity or VE
                                                          standards.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)-(8)  CMS              Yes............  Except that
                        Requirements.                     subpart PPPPP
                                                          does not
                                                          require COMS.
Sec.   63.8(d)-(e)...  CMS Quality      Yes............  Except for Sec.
                        Control and
                        CMS                               63.8(e)(5)(ii)
                        Performance.                      which applies
                                                          to COMS.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)  Alternative      Yes.             ...............
                        Monitoring
                        Method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)....  Alternative to   Yes.             ...............
                        Relative
                        Accuracy Test.
Sec.   63.8(g).......  Data Reduction.  No.............  Sec.  Sec.
                                                          63.9335 and
                                                          63.9340
                                                          specify
                                                          monitoring
                                                          data
                                                          reduction.
Sec.   63.9(a)-(b)...  Notification     Yes.             ...............
                        Requirements.
Sec.   63.9(c).......  Request for      No.............  Compliance
                        Compliance                        extension to
                        Extension.                        not apply to
                                                          new or
                                                          reconstructed
                                                          sources.
Sec.   63.9(d).......  Notification of  Yes.             ...............
                        Special
                        Compliance
                        Requirements
                        for New
                        Sources.
Sec.   63.9(e).......  Notification of  No.............  Subpart PPPPP
                        Performance                       does not
                        Test.                             require
                                                          performance
                                                          testing.
Sec.   63.9(f).......  Notification of  No.............  Subpart PPPPP
                        Opacity/VE                        does not have
                        Test.                             opacity/VE
                                                          standards.

Sec.   63.9(g)(1)....  Additional       Yes.             ...............
                        Notifications
                        When Using CMS.
Sec.   63.9(g)(2)....  Additional       No.............  Subpart PPPPP
                        Notifications                     does not have
                        When Using CMS.                   opacity/VE
                                                          standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(3)....  Additional       Yes.             ...............
                        Notifications
                        When Using CMS.
Sec.   63.9(h).......  Notification of  Yes.             ...............
                        Compliance
                        Status.
Sec.   63.9(i).......  Adjustment of    Yes.             ...............
                        Submittal
                        Deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j).......  Change in        Yes.             ...............
                        Previous
                        Information.
Sec.   63.10(a)......  Recordkeeping/   Yes.             ...............
                        Reporting.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)...  General          Yes.             ...............
                        Recordkeeping
                        Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)  Recordkeeping    No.              ...............
                        of Occurrence
                        and Duration
                        of Startups
                        and Shutdowns.
Sec.                   Recordkeeping    No.............  See Sec.
 63.10(b)(2)(ii).       of Occurrence                     63.9355 for
                        and Duration                      recordkeeping
                        of                                of (1) date,
                        Malfunctions.                     time and
                                                          duration; (2)
                                                          listing of
                                                          affected
                                                          source or
                                                          equipment, and
                                                          an estimate of
                                                          the quantity
                                                          of each
                                                          regulated
                                                          pollutant
                                                          emitted over
                                                          the standard;
                                                          and (3)
                                                          actions to
                                                          minimize
                                                          emissions and
                                                          correct the
                                                          failure.
Sec.                   Recordkeeping    Yes.             ...............
 63.10(b)(2)(iii).      of Maintenance
                        on Controls
                        and Monitoring
                        Equipment.
Sec.                   Actions Taken    No.              ...............
 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v).   to Minimize
                        Emissions
                        During SSM.
Sec.                   CMS Records....  Yes.             ...............
 63.10(b)(2)((vi)-(xi
 ).
Sec.                   Records........  Yes.             ...............
 63.10(b)(2)(xii).
Sec.                   Records........  Yes.             ...............
 63.10(b)(2)(xiii).
Sec.                   Records........  Yes.             ...............
 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)...  Recordkeeping    Yes.             ...............
                        for
                        Applicability
                        Determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-    Additional       Yes.             ...............
 (6), (9)-(14).         Recordkeeping
                        for CMS.
Sec.   63.10(c)(7)-    Records of       No.............  Specific
 (8).                   Excess                            language is
                        Emissions and                     located at
                        Parameter                         Sec.   63.9355
                        Monitoring                        of subpart
                        Exceedances                       PPPPP.
                        for CMS.
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)..  Records          No.              ...............
                        Regarding the
                        SSM Plan.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)...  General          Yes.             ...............
                        Reporting
                        Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)...  Report of        Yes.             ...............
                        Performance
                        Test Results.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)...  Reporting of     No.............  Subpart PPPPP
                        Opacity or VE                     does not have
                        Observations.                     opacity/VE
                                                          standards.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)...  Progress         No.............  Compliance
                        Reports for                       extensions do
                        Sources with                      not apply to
                        Compliance                        new or
                        Extensions.                       reconstructed
                                                          sources.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)...  SSM Reports....  No. See Sec.     ...............
                                         63.9350 for
                                         malfunction
                                         reporting
                                         requirements.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)     Additional CMS   Yes.             ...............
 and (2)(i).            Reports.
Sec.                   Additional CMS   No.............  Subpart PPPPP
 63.10(e)(2)(ii).       Reports.                          does not
                                                          require COMS.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)...  Excess           No.............  Specific
                        Emissions/CMS                     language is
                        Performance                       located in
                        Reports.                          Sec.   63.9350
                                                          of subpart
                                                          PPPPP.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4)...  COMS Data        No.............  Subpart PPPPP
                        Reports.                          does not
                                                          require COMS.
Sec.   63.10(f)......  Waiver for       Yes.             ...............
                        Recordkeeping/
                        Reporting.
Sec.   63.11.........  Control Device   No.............  Subpart PPPPP
                        Requirements/                     does not
                        Flares.                           specify use of
                                                          flares for
                                                          compliance.
Sec.   63.12.........  State Authority  Yes.             ...............
                        and
                        Delegations.
Sec.   63.13.........  Addresses......  Yes.             ...............
Sec.   63.14.........  Incorporation    Yes............  ASTM D 6522-00
                        by Reference.                     and ANSI/ASME
                                                          PTC 19.10-1981
                                                          (incorporated
                                                          by reference-
                                                          See Sec.
                                                          63.14).
Sec.   63.15.........  Availability of  Yes.             ...............
                        Information/
                        Confidentialit
                        y.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-09119 Filed 5-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P