19 - 1345 - 00 - e (Contoh RIA) USA Wood Building Product PDF

7682 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No.
42 / Monday, March 4, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION form. Publicly available docket ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
AGENCY materials are available either EST Eastern Standard Time
electronically through https:// FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared
40 CFR Part 63 HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at
HDI hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0678; FRL–9988–71– the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West HI hazard index
OAR] Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 HQ hazard quotient
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. IBR incorporation by reference
RIN 2060–AT71 The Public Reading Room hours of ICR information collection request
National Emission Standards for operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday km kilometers
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface MACT maximum achievable control
Coating of Wood Building Products through Friday. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is (202) technology
Residual Risk and Technology Review MDI methylene diphenyl diisocyanate
566–1744, and the telephone number for
MI methyl isocyanate
AGENCY: Environmental Protection the Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. MIR maximum individual risk
Agency (EPA). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For NAICS North American Industry
ACTION: Final rule. questions about this final action, contact Classification System
Mr. John Bradfield, Sector Policies and NCASI National Council for Air and Stream
SUMMARY: This action finalizes the Improvement, Inc.
Programs Division (E143–03), Office of
residual risk and technology review NEI National Emissions Inventory
Air Quality Planning and Standards,
(RTR) conducted for the Surface Coating NESHAP National Emission Standards for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
of Wood Building Products source Hazardous Air Pollutants
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
category regulated under national No. number
27711; telephone number: (919) 541– NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
emission standards for hazardous air
3062; fax number: (919) 541–0516; and NTTAA National Technology Transfer and
pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we
email address: bradfield.john@epa.gov. Advancement Act
are taking final action addressing
periods of startup, shutdown, and For specific information regarding the OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and
malfunction (SSM). We are finalizing risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. Standards
James Hirtz, Health and Environmental OMB Office of Management and Budget
our proposed determination that the PDF portable document format
risks are acceptable and that the current Impacts Division (C539–02), Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, POM polycyclic organic matter
NESHAP provides an ample margin of PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
safety to protect public health. We U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, QA quality assurance
identified no new cost-effective controls Research Triangle Park, North Carolina QC quality control
under the technology review to achieve 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– REL reference exposure level
further emissions reductions. These 0881; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
final amendments include provisions email address: hirtz.james@epa.gov. For RIN Regulatory Information Number
regarding electronic reporting, adding information about the applicability of RTR risk and technology review
the NESHAP to a particular entity, SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
an alternative compliance equation TDI 2,4-toluene diisocyanate
under the current standards, and contact Mr. John Cox, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
technical and editorial changes. This tpy tons per year
action also finalizes a new EPA test Assurance, U.S. Environmental UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
method to measure isocyanate Protection Agency, EPA WJC South U.S. United States
compounds in certain surface coatings. Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, U.S.C. United States Code
These amendments are being made Mail Code 2221A, Washington, DC UV ultraviolet
under the authority of the Clean Air Act 20460; telephone number: (202) 564– VCS voluntary consensus standards
(CAA) and will improve the 1395; and email address: cox.john@ WebFIRE Web Factor Information Retrieval
epa.gov. System
effectiveness of the rule. The
amendments are environmentally SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble Background information. On May 16,
neutral. acronyms and abbreviations. We use 2018, the EPA proposed revisions to the
multiple acronyms and terms in this Surface Coating of Wood Building
DATES: This final rule is effective on
preamble. While this list may not be Products NESHAP based on our RTR. In
March 4, 2019. The incorporation by this action, we are finalizing decisions
reference of certain publications listed exhaustive, to ease the reading of this
preamble and for reference purposes, and revisions for the rule. We
in the rule is approved by the Director summarize some of the more significant
of the Federal Register as of March 4, the EPA defines the following terms and
acronyms here: comments we timely received regarding
2019. the proposed rule and provide our
ANSI American National Standards
ADDRESSES: The Environmental responses in this preamble. A summary
Institute
Protection Agency (EPA) has established ASTM American Society for Testing and of all other public comments on the
a docket for this action under Docket ID Materials proposal and the EPA’s responses to
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0678. All ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and those comments are available in
documents in the docket are listed on Disease Registry Response to Public Comments on May
the https://www.regulations.gov CAA Clean Air Act 16, 2018 Proposal, December 2018,
website. Although listed, some CDX Central Data Exchange Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–
information is not publicly available, CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data 0678. A ‘‘track changes’’ version of the
Reporting Interface
e.g., confidential business information regulatory language that incorporates
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
or other information whose disclosure is CORE Central Operations and Resources the changes in this action is available in
restricted by statute. Certain other CRA Congressional Review Act the docket.
material, such as copyrighted material, EJ environmental justice Organization of this document. The
is not placed on the internet and will be E.O. Executive Order information in this preamble is
publicly available only in hard copy EPA Environmental Protection Agency organized as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Mar 01, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04MRR2.SGM 04MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 42 / Monday, March 4, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 7683
I. General Information G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

A. Does this action apply to me? and Coordination With Indian Tribal This information includes an overview
B. Where can I get a copy of this document Governments of the RTR program, links to project
and other related information? H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health websites for the RTR source categories,
C. Judicial Review and Administrative
Reconsideration Risks and Safety Risks and detailed emissions and other data
II. Background I. Executive Order 13211: Actions we used as inputs to the risk
A. What is the statutory authority for this Concerning Regulations That assessments.
action? Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use C. Judicial Review and Administrative
B. What is the Surface Coating of Wood
J. National Technology Transfer and Reconsideration
Building Products source category and
how does the NESHAP regulate HAP Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial
Part 51
emissions from the source category? review of this final action is available
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
C. What changes did we propose for the only by filing a petition for review in
To Address Environmental Justice in
Surface Coating of Wood Building the United States Court of Appeals for
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Products source category in our May 16, the District of Columbia Circuit (the
Populations
2018, proposal? L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) Court) by May 3, 2019. Under CAA
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments
section 307(b)(2), the requirements
I. General Information
based on the risk review for the Surface established by this final rule may not be
Coating of Wood Building Products A. Does this action apply to me? challenged separately in any civil or
source category? Regulated entities. Categories and criminal proceedings brought by the
B. What are the final rule amendments entities potentially regulated by this EPA to enforce the requirements.
based on the technology review for the action are shown in Table 1 of this Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA
Surface Coating of Wood Building further provides that only an objection
preamble.
Products source category? to a rule or procedure which was raised
C. What are the final rule amendments with reasonable specificity during the
addressing emissions during periods of TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL
SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY period for public comment (including
startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
any public hearing) may be raised
D. What other changes have been made to THIS FINAL ACTION during judicial review. This section also
the NESHAP?
E. What are the effective and compliance NESHAP and provides a mechanism for the EPA to
NAICS 1 code
dates of the standards? source category reconsider the rule if the person raising
IV. What is the rationale for our final Surface Coating of Wood 321211, 321212,
an objection can demonstrate to the
decisions and amendments for the Building Products. 321218, 321219, Administrator that it was impracticable
Surface Coating of Wood Building 321911, 321999. to raise such objection within the period
Products source category? 1 North for public comment or if the grounds for
American Industry Classification System.
A. Residual Risk Review for the Surface such objection arose after the period for
Coating of Wood Building Products Table 1 of this preamble is not public comment (but within the time
Source Category intended to be exhaustive, but rather to specified for judicial review) and if such
B. Technology Review for the Surface provide a guide for readers regarding
Coating of Wood Building Products objection is of central relevance to the
entities likely to be affected by the final outcome of the rule. Any person seeking
Source Category action for the source category listed. To
C. SSM to make such a demonstration should
determine whether your facility is submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
D. Alternative Compliance Equation
E. Emissions Testing
affected, you should examine the the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
F. Electronic Reporting applicability criteria in the appropriate EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South
G. EPA Test Method 326 NESHAP. If you have any questions Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
H. IBR Under 1 CFR Part 51 regarding the applicability of any aspect Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to
I. Technical and Editorial Changes of this NESHAP, please contact the both the person(s) listed in the
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Economic Impacts and Additional preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Analyses Conducted CONTACT section, and the Associate
CONTACT section of this preamble.
A. What are the affected facilities? General Counsel for the Air and
B. What are the air quality impacts? B. Where can I get a copy of this Radiation Law Office, Office of General
C. What are the cost impacts? document and other related Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA,
D. What are the economic impacts? information? 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
E. What are the benefits? Washington, DC 20460.
F. What analysis of environmental justice
In addition to being available in the
did we conduct? docket, an electronic copy of this final II. Background
G. What analysis of children’s action will also be available on the
internet. Following signature by the A. What is the statutory authority for
environmental health did we conduct?
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a this action?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory copy of this final action at: https:// Section 112 of the CAA establishes a
Planning and Review and Executive www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air- two-stage regulatory process to address
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and pollution/surface-coating-wood- emissions of hazardous air pollutants
Regulatory Review building-products-national-emission- (HAP) from stationary sources. In the
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing standard-1. Following publication in first stage, we must identify categories
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
the Federal Register, the EPA will post of sources emitting one or more of the
Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) the Federal Register version and key HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) technical documents at this same then promulgate technology-based
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act website. NESHAP for those sources. ‘‘Major
(UMRA) Additional information is sources’’ are those that emit, or have the
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism available on the RTR website at https:// potential to emit, any single HAP at a
7684 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 42 / Monday, March 4, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, the risk to public health remaining after the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in
or 25 tpy or more of any combination of application of the technology-based order to ensure that they are consistent
HAP. For major sources, these standards standards and revise the standards, if with the Court decision in Sierra Club
are commonly referred to as maximum necessary, to provide an ample margin v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
achievable control technology (MACT) of safety to protect public health or to which vacated two provisions that
standards and must reflect the prevent, taking into consideration costs, exempted sources from the requirement
maximum degree of emission reductions energy, safety, and other relevant to comply with otherwise applicable
of HAP achievable (after considering factors, an adverse environmental effect. CAA section 112(d) emission standards
cost, energy requirements, and non-air The residual risk review is required during periods of SSM. We also
quality health and environmental within 8 years after promulgation of the proposed various other changes,
impacts). In developing MACT technology-based standards, pursuant to including an alternative compliance
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs CAA section 112(f). In conducting the calculation, electronic submittal of
the EPA to consider the application of residual risk review, if the EPA notifications, compliance reports, and
measures, processes, methods, systems, determines that the current standards performance test reports, a new EPA test
or techniques, including but not limited provide an ample margin of safety to method, IBR of several test methods,
to those that reduce the volume of or protect public health, it is not necessary and various technical and editorial
eliminate HAP emissions through to revise the MACT standards pursuant changes. Additionally, we requested
process changes, substitution of to CAA section 112(f).1 For more comment on repeat emissions testing
materials, or other modifications; information on the statutory authority requirements for facilities that
enclose systems or processes to for this rule, see 83 FR 2274. demonstrate compliance with the
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or standards using add-on control devices
B. What is the Surface Coating of Wood
treat HAP when released from a process, and for any facilities using the
Building Products source category and alternative compliance equation under
stack, storage, or fugitive emissions
point; are design, equipment, work how does the NESHAP regulate HAP the emission rate without add-on
practice, or operational standards; or emissions from the source category? controls option.
any combination of the above. The EPA promulgated the Surface
For these MACT standards, the statute Coating of Wood Building Products III. What is included in this final rule?
specifies certain minimum stringency NESHAP on May 28, 2003 (See 68 FR This action finalizes the EPA’s
requirements, which are referred to as 31746). The standards are codified at 40 determinations pursuant to the RTR
MACT floor requirements, and which CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ. The Wood provisions of CAA section 112 for the
may not be based on cost Building Products Surface Coating Surface Coating of Wood Building
considerations. See CAA section industry consists of facilities that are Products source category. This action
112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT engaged in the surface coating of wood also finalizes other changes to the
floor cannot be less stringent than the building products, which means the NESHAP, including an alternative
emission control achieved in practice by application of coatings using, for compliance calculation equation that
the best-controlled similar source. The example, roll coaters or curtain coaters relies on periodic emissions testing;
MACT standards for existing sources in the finishing or laminating of any electronic submittal of notifications of
can be less stringent than floors for new wood building product that contains compliance status, semiannual
sources, but they cannot be less more than 50 percent by weight wood compliance reports, and performance
stringent than the average emission or wood fiber, excluding the weight of test reports; a new EPA test method for
limitation achieved by the best- any glass components, and is used in isocyanates, EPA Method 326; IBR of
performing 12 percent of existing the construction, either interior or several test methods (listed in section IV
sources in the category or subcategory exterior, of a residential, commercial, or below); and various technical and
(or the best-performing five sources for institutional building. Regulated editorial changes.
categories or subcategories with fewer operations include all processes and A. What are the final rule amendments
than 30 sources). In developing MACT process units incorporating wood based on the risk review for the Surface
standards, we must also consider building products surface coating Coating of Wood Building Products
control options that are more stringent operations. The source category covered source category?
than the floor under CAA section by this MACT standard currently
112(d)(2). We may establish standards The EPA proposed no changes to the
includes 57 facilities.
more stringent than the floor, based on 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ NESHAP
the consideration of the cost of C. What changes did we propose for the based on the risk review conducted
achieving the emissions reductions, any Surface Coating of Wood Building pursuant to CAA section 112(f). We are
non-air quality health and Products source category in our May 16, finalizing our proposed determination
environmental impacts, and energy 2018, proposal? that risks from the source category are
requirements. On May 16, 2018, the EPA published acceptable, considering all of the health
In the second stage of the regulatory a proposed rule in the Federal Register information and factors evaluated, and
process, the CAA requires the EPA to for the Surface Coating of Wood also considering risk estimation
undertake two different analyses, which Building Products NESHAP, 40 CFR uncertainty. We are also finalizing our
we refer to as the technology review and part 63, subpart QQQQ, that took into proposed determination that revisions
the residual risk review. Under the consideration the RTR analyses. In the to the current standards are not
technology review, we must review the proposed rule, we proposed revisions to necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable
technology-based standards and revise level, to provide an ample margin of
them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account 1 The Court has affirmed this approach of safety to protect public health, or to
developments in practices, processes, implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. prevent an adverse environmental
and control technologies)’’ no less EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘‘If EPA effect. The EPA received no new data or
determines that the existing technology-based
frequently than every 8 years, pursuant standards provide an ‘ample margin of safety,’ then
other information during the public
to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the the Agency is free to readopt those standards during comment period that affected our
residual risk review, we must evaluate the residual risk rulemaking.’’). determinations. Therefore, we are not
requiring additional controls and, thus, the ‘‘emission rate without add-on reconstruction after March 4, 2019 must
are not making any revisions to the controls’’ compliance option under the comply with all requirements of the
existing standards under CAA section current standards. The alternative is subpart, including the amendments
112(f). discussed further in section IV.D of this being finalized, no later than March 4,
preamble. 2019 or upon startup, whichever is later.
B. What are the final rule amendments 2. Emissions testing. In response to
based on the technology review for the All affected existing facilities would
comments and emissions tests discussed have to continue to meet the current
Surface Coating of Wood Building at proposal, we have amended the
Products source category? requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
allowable compliance tests in the rule. QQQQ, until the applicable compliance
We determined that there are no Emissions testing is discussed further in date of the amended rule. The final
developments in practices, processes, section IV.E of this preamble. action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined
and control technologies that warrant 3. Electronic reporting. As discussed by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date
revisions to the MACT standards for this at proposal, we are finalizing of the final rule is the promulgation date
source category. The EPA received no amendments to the reporting as specified in CAA sections 112(d)(10)
new data or other information during requirements in the rule to require and 112(f)(3). For existing sources, we
the public comment period that affected electronic reporting for notifications of are finalizing two changes that would
our determinations. Therefore, we are compliance status, compliance test impact ongoing compliance
not finalizing revisions to the MACT reports, and semiannual reports. requirements for 40 CFR part 63,
standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). Electronic reporting is discussed further
subpart QQQQ. As discussed elsewhere
in section IV.F of this preamble.
C. What are the final rule amendments in this preamble, we are adding a
4. EPA Test Method 326. As discussed
addressing emissions during periods of at proposal, we are finalizing a new test requirement that the notification of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction? method for isocyanate emissions. EPA compliance status, performance test
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. Test Method 326 is discussed further in results, and the semiannual reports
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the section IV.G and is included in using the new template be submitted
Court vacated portions of two appendix A to part 63 of this preamble. electronically. We are also changing the
provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 5. IBR under 1 CFR part 51. We are requirements for SSM by removing the
112 ‘‘General Provisions’’ regulations incorporating several test methods by exemption from the requirements to
governing the emissions of HAP during reference, as discussed further in meet the standard during SSM periods
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court section IV.H of this preamble. and by removing the requirement to
vacated the SSM exemption contained 6. Technical and editorial changes. develop and implement an SSM plan.
in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR We are finalizing technical and editorial Additionally, we are adding an optional
63.6(h)(1), holding that under section changes, as discussed further in section new compliance demonstration
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards IV.I of this preamble. equation that adds flexibility for
or limitations must be continuous in meeting the standard, but this change
E. What are the effective and does not affect ongoing compliance. Our
nature and that the SSM exemption compliance dates of the standards?
violates the CAA’s requirement that experience with similar industries that
some CAA section 112 standards apply The revisions to the MACT standards are required to convert reporting
continuously. being promulgated in this action are mechanisms, install necessary hardware
We have eliminated the SSM effective on March 4, 2019. The and software, become familiar with the
exemption in this rule. Consistent with compliance date for existing affected process of submitting performance test
Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has sources to comply with the revised results electronically through the EPA’s
established standards in this rule that requirements is no later than 180 days CEDRI, test these new electronic
apply at all times. We have also revised after March 4, 2019. Affected sources submission capabilities, reliably employ
Table 4 to Subpart QQQQ of Part 63 (the that commenced construction or electronic reporting, and convert
General Provisions applicability table) reconstruction after May 16, 2018, are logistics of reporting processes to
in several respects, as is explained in new sources. New sources must comply different time-reporting parameters,
more detail below in section IV.C. For with the all of the standards shows that a time period of a minimum
example, we have eliminated the immediately upon the effective date of of 90 days, and more typically, 180
incorporation of the General Provisions’ the standard, March 4, 2019], or upon days, is generally necessary to
requirement that the source develop an startup, whichever is later. In section successfully complete these changes.
SSM plan. We have also eliminated and IV.F of this preamble on Electronic Our experience with similar industries
revised certain recordkeeping and Reporting, we discuss a semiannual further shows that this sort of regulated
reporting that is related to the SSM reporting template that will become the facility generally requires a time period
exemption as described in detail in the required form for those reports 1 year of 180 days to read and understand the
proposal and summarized below in after it is posted in the EPA’s amended rule requirements; evaluate
section IV.C. Compliance and Emissions Data their operations to ensure that they can
Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The EPA meet the standards during periods of
D. What other changes have been made expects to post the form on March 4, startup and shutdown as defined in the
to the NESHAP? 2019. Consequently, 1 year or more after rule and make any necessary
Other changes to the NESHAP that do March 4, 2019, facilities subject to this adjustments; adjust parameter
not fall into the categories in the standard will need to begin using this monitoring and recording systems to
previous section include: form for semiannual reports. accommodate revisions; and update
1. Alternative compliance equation. The EPA is finalizing that existing their operations to reflect the revised
As proposed in response to a request for affected sources must comply with the requirements. The EPA recognizes the
an alternative method of demonstrating amendments in this rulemaking no later confusion that multiple different
compliance, we have amended the rule than 180 days after March 4, 2019. The compliance dates for individual
to add an alternative equation within EPA is also finalizing that affected requirements would create and the
the requirements for facilities meeting sources that commence construction or additional burden such an assortment of
dates would impose. From our there was little potential concern for emissions as being equal to actual HAP
assessment of the timeframe needed for chronic or acute noncancer health emissions due to the nature of
compliance with the entirety of the impacts. The multipathway risk compliance choices made by facilities in
revised requirements, the EPA considers assessment indicated no significant the category. In response to comments,
a period of 180 days to be the most potential for exposure from persistent we reviewed this approach and decided
expeditious compliance period bio-accumulative HAP (PB–HAP) to estimate allowable emissions using a
practicable, and, thus, is finalizing that emissions from the source category. 1.6 multiple of actual emissions. The
existing affected sources be in Considering all of the health risk multiplier was derived from source
compliance with all of this regulation’s information, the EPA proposed that the category capacity usage information in
revised requirements within 180 days of risks from the Surface Coating of Wood the U.S. Census of Manufacturers. In
the regulation’s effective date. Building Products source category were response to comments, we also decided
acceptable. Although we proposed to use the more conservative multiplier
IV. What is the rationale for our final acceptable risk, risk estimates for
decisions and amendments for the of 10 times actual emissions to model
approximately 800 people in the
Surface Coating of Wood Building acute health impacts. See the
exposed population were above 1-in-1
Products source category? million, caused by formaldehyde Addendum to Preparation of the
emissions from one facility. The Residual Risk Modeling Input File for
For each issue, this section provides Subpart QQQQ, in the docket for this
a description of what we proposed and maximum acute risk at proposal was an
HQ of 1, also associated with rule, EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0678, for
what we are finalizing for the issue, the
formaldehyde from the same facility more details regarding these changes. In
EPA’s rationale for the final decisions
with the highest chronic risk. As a response to comments received, we also
and amendments, and a summary of key
comments and responses. For all result, we further considered whether considered whether a refined risk
comments not discussed in this the MACT standards for this source modeling analysis would better inform
preamble, comment summaries and the category provide an ample margin of the EPA about the impact on
EPA’s responses can be found in the safety to protect public health. Our disadvantaged communities from HAP
comment summary and response technology review did not identify any emissions from the source category. The
document available in the docket, new practices, controls, or process changes in the facility list, HAP
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016– options that were being used in this inventory, allowable and acute emission
0678. industry, or in other industries, that estimates, and environmental justice
would be cost effective and result in (EJ) concerns led the EPA to prepare and
A. Residual Risk Review for the Surface further reduction of formaldehyde run a new modeling file and prepare a
Coating of Wood Building Products emissions. Because no new controls, revised risk assessment, Residual Risk
Source Category technologies, processes, or work Assessment for the Surface Coating of
1. What did we propose pursuant to practices were identified to reduce Wood Building Products Source
CAA section 112(f) for the Surface formaldehyde emissions and the risk Category in Support of the 2018 Risk
Coating of Wood Building Products assessment determined that the health and Technology Review Final Rule,
source category? risks associated with HAP emissions which is available in the docket for the
remaining after implementation of the rule.
For the 40 CFR part 63, subpart Surface Coating of Wood Building
QQQQ category risk assessment Products MACT were acceptable, we The revised risk assessment for the
conducted at proposal, the EPA proposed that the current standards source category indicated that human
estimated risks based on actual and protect public health with an ample health impacts for both chronic and
allowable emissions from wood margin of safety. acute risks were lower than stated at
building products surface coating proposal. The results of the risk
sources. Allowable emissions at 2. How did the risk review change for
assessment showed that risks based on
proposal were estimated to be equal to the Surface Coating of Wood Building
actual emissions did not exceed a
actual emissions. The estimated Products source category?
maximum individual risk (MIR) of 1-in-
inhalation cancer risk to the individual In response to comments on the 1 million for cancer and resulted in an
most exposed to emissions from the proposed 40 CFR part 63, subpart HI of 0.02 for noncancer. The results of
source category was 6-in-1 million at QQQQ, RTR, we reviewed our facility the final risk assessment also showed
proposal, at one facility. The assessment list and made adjustments, adding five lower risks based upon allowable
showed that approximately 800 people facilities and removing four facilities. emissions with a cancer MIR of 1-in-1
faced an increased cancer risk greater The five facilities added had responded million and a noncancer HI of 0.03. The
than 1-in-1 million due to inhalation to a separate EPA survey, indicating that revised risk assessment also showed
exposure to HAP emissions from this 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ applied lower acute risks than stated at proposal
source category. The risk analysis at to their facilities. The HAP emissions with a maximum acute noncancer HQ of
proposal indicated very low cancer inventory for the source category was 0.6.
incidence (0.0006 excess cancer cases revised to reflect these changes to the
per year, or one excess case every 1,667 facility list. Further, we found that 40 Table 2 of this preamble provides an
years), as well as low potential for CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ did not overall summary of the results of the
adverse chronic noncancer health apply to four facilities. As such, we inhalation risk assessment, as discussed
effects with a hazard index (HI) of 0.05 removed these four facilities from the in this section of this preamble. See the
for both actual and allowable emissions. facility list. In response to comments Addendum to Preparation of the
The acute screening assessment received, we also reviewed our HAP Residual Risk Modeling Input File for
indicated two facilities with a maximum data and added polycyclic organic Subpart QQQQ, in the docket for this
hazard quotient (HQ) equal to 1 based matter (POM) to the HAP emission rule, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
upon a reference exposure level (REL) inventory for the source category. At 2016–0678, for more details regarding
for formaldehyde. Therefore, we found proposal, we set allowable HAP preparation of the modeling file.
TABLE 2—SURFACE COATING OF WOOD BUILDING PRODUCTS INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS 1
Estimated Estimated Maximum
Maximum population at annual cancer Maximum screening
Number of individual chronic
Risk assessment increased risk incidence acute
facilities 2 cancer risk of cancer (cases per noncancer noncancer
(in 1 million) 3 ≥1-in-1 million year) TOSHI 4 HQ 5
Baseline Actual Emissions:

Source Category ............................... 50 <1 0 0.0004 0.02 0.6
Baseline Allowable Emissions:
Source Category ............................... 50 1 700 0.0007 0.03 ........................
1 Based on actual and allowable emissions for facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ. See Residual Risk Assessment for the Sur-
face Coating of Wood Building Products Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, in the docket for this
rule, EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0678, for more details.
2 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk assessment. Seven facilities in the category reported no HAP emissions from coatings subject to 40
CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ. Facilities that did not emit any HAP subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ were only modeled for whole-facility
HAP emissions. Two facilities in the source category reported zero HAP emissions facility-wide and were not modeled.
3 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category facilities. The risk driver for the source cat-
egory is naphthalene.
4 Maximum target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the source category is the respiratory sys-
tem. The risk drivers for the source category are triethylamine and naphthalene.
5 The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ val-
ues. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which, in most cases, is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1 in the acute
risk screening assessment, we conduct further analysis to determine the highest off-site impact. The maximum acute noncancer risk driver is
formaldehyde.
The inhalation risk modeling suggested that the Integrated Risk policies, and activities on minority
performed to estimate risks based on Information System (IRIS) dose response populations and low income
actual and allowable emissions relied factors for formaldehyde, the principle populations in the U.S. Consistent with
primarily on emissions data from the risk driver in the category, were overly Executive Order 12898 and the
National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The conservative and should be re- Presidential Memorandum 3 that
results of the inhalation cancer risk evaluated. Another stakeholder accompanies it, the EPA’s EJ policies
assessment, as shown in Table 2 of this disagreed with our assessment, promote justice by focusing attention
preamble, indicate that the MIR could characterizing it as arbitrary because (1) and EPA efforts on addressing the types
be up to 1-in-1 million for allowable it exceeded the 1-in-1 million CAA of EJ harms and risks that are prevalent
emissions under the current standard, presumption of acceptability from CAA among minority, low-income, and
with naphthalene emissions from section 112(f)(2), and (2) the health indigenous populations. Executive
solvent evaporation associated with impacts of the risk above 1-in-1 million Order 12898 and the EPA’s EJ policies
spray paint operations as the major were concentrated in minority and do not mandate particular outcomes
contributor to the MIR. The total lower income neighborhoods, and, thus, from an action, but they require that
estimated cancer incidence from wood creating what the commenter decisions involving the action be
building product coating sources based considered an environmental justice informed by a consideration of EJ issues.
on actual emission levels is 0.0004 issue. With respect to this rule, the EPA found
excess cancer cases per year or one case As stated in our response to that the original NESHAP meets the
every 2,500 years, with emissions of comments,2 we found the risk from HAP CAA section 112(f)(2) standard for
naphthalene and ethylbenzene exposure from emission sources in this providing an ample margin of safety for
contributing to the cancer incidence. In category to be acceptable. The cancer all populations in close proximity to
addition, we estimate that dose-response value used in the risk these sources, including minority and
approximately 700 people have cancer assessment for formaldehyde is the low-income populations.
risks at 1-in-1 million based on current peer reviewed IRIS value. The
chronic noncancer dose-response value 4. What is the rationale for our final
allowable emissions.
used for formaldehyde is from the approach and final decisions for the risk
The maximum modeled chronic
Agency for Toxic Substances and review?
noncancer HI (TOSHI) value for the
source category based on actual Disease Registry (ATSDR). At the time As noted in our proposal, the EPA
emissions is estimated to be 0.02, with this analysis was performed, these sets standards under CAA section
emissions of triethylamine and values were deemed to represent the 112(f)(2) using ‘‘a two-step standard-
naphthalene contributing to the TOSHI. best science. setting approach, with an analytical first
Regarding the comments to risk on step to determine an ‘acceptable risk’
The target organ affected is the
disadvantaged communities, under that considers all health information,
respiratory system. No people are
Executive Order 12898, the EPA is including risk estimation uncertainty,
estimated to have a noncancer HI above
directed to the greatest extent and includes a presumptive limit on
1 as a result of emissions from this
practicable and permitted by law, to MIR of ‘‘approximately 1-in-10
source category.
make EJ part of its mission by thousand’’ (see 54 FR 38045, September
3. What key comments did we receive identifying and addressing, as 14, 1989). We weigh all health risk
on the risk review, and what are our appropriate, disproportionately high factors in our risk acceptability
responses? and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs, 3 Memorandum for the Heads of All Departments
We received two comments on our
and Agencies from William Clinton, February 11,
proposed risk assessment. One 2 See Response to Public Comments on May 16, 1994. Executive Order on Federal Actions to
stakeholder supported our risk 2018 Proposal, December 2018, Docket ID No. EPA– Address Environmental Justice in Minority
assessment proposal and further HQ–OAR–2016–0678. Populations and Low-Income Populations.
determination, including the cancer As noted, we consider the risks from organic compounds and low-HAP
MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum this source category to be acceptable. coatings, such as waterborne or
cancer TOSHI, the maximum acute However, risk estimates for ultraviolet (UV)-cured coatings. That
noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer approximately 700 people in the continues to be the prevalent
risks, the distribution of cancer and exposed population are at 1-in-1 compliance approach, with less than 10
noncancer risks in the exposed million, based on allowable percent of source category facilities
population, and the risk estimation naphthalene emissions from one using add-on control to reduce HAP
uncertainties. facility. As a result, we further emissions. Because our review did not
Our final risk assessment was revised considered whether the MACT identify any developments in practices,
based on comments we received at standards for this source category processes, or controls to further reduce
proposal. It included updated facility provide an ample margin of safety to emissions in the category beyond the
information, HAP emissions, and protect public health. level required by the current NESHAP,
production information (see section At proposal, our ample margin of we proposed that no revisions to the
IV.A.2 of this preamble). The total safety review was informed by the NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA
emissions of HAP for the source results of our technology review which section 112(d)(6).
category are approximately 270 tpy. The did not identify any developments in 2. How did the technology review
results of the chronic inhalation cancer practices, controls, or process options change for the Surface Coating of Wood
risk assessment based on actual that are being used in this industry, or Building Products source category?
emissions, the total estimated cancer in other industries, that would be cost
incidence from allowable emissions in effective and result in further emissions The technology review did not change
this source category, and the acute HQ reductions. Similarly, our review of the from proposal. Therefore, we are
are discussed in section IV.A.2 and in operating permits for major sources finalizing our proposed determination
Table 2 of this preamble. In evaluating subject to the Surface Coating of Wood that no revisions to the NESHAP are
Building Products MACT did not reveal necessary pursuant to CAA section
the potential for multipathway effects
any facilities with limits set below the 112(d)(6).
from PB–HAP, including carcinogenic
emissions of arsenic and POM and non- current new or existing source limits 3. What key comments did we receive
carcinogenic emissions of cadmium, (Tables 1 and 2 to Subpart QQQQ of on the technology review, and what are
lead, and mercury from the source Part 63). Limits set below the current our responses?
category, the risk assessment indicates standards would have been an We received no comments that
no significant potential for indication that improved controls or identified improved control technology,
multipathway effects. lower emission-compliant coatings were work practices, operational procedures,
We concluded, based on all the health available. Additionally, our review of process changes, or pollution
risk information and factors discussed at the Reasonably Available Control prevention approaches to reduce
proposal, that the risks from the Surface Technology/Best Available Control emissions in the category since
Coating of Wood Building Products Technology/Lowest Achievable promulgation of the current NESHAP.
source category were acceptable. As Emission Rate Clearinghouse identified We received two comments on our
noted above, the information in the final three sources that are potentially proposed technology review. One
risk assessment shows lower risk covered under 40 CFR part 63, subpart stakeholder supported our review, while
indicators than indicated at proposal. QQQQ, but none contained new control another stakeholder disagreed with our
Consequently, the EPA is finalizing an methods. Because no developments in assessment, holding that the new
acceptable risk determination for the controls, technologies, processes, or coating application which led to the
category. We conducted an analysis to work practices were identified to reduce proposal of an alternative compliance
determine if the current emissions naphthalene emissions and the risk equation constituted a change that
standards provide an ample margin of assessment determined that the health should have been adopted across the
safety to protect public health. Under risks associated with HAP emissions category (see Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
the ample margin of safety analysis,4 the remaining after implementation of the OAR–2016–0678).
EPA considers all health factors Surface Coating of Wood Building As stated in our comment response
evaluated in the risk assessment and Products MACT were acceptable, we are (see Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
evaluates the cost and feasibility of finalizing our risk review determination 2016–0678), we are finalizing the
available control technologies and other that the current standards protect public conclusion that there have been no
measures (including the controls, health with an ample margin of safety. advances in practices, processes, or
measures, and costs reviewed under the B. Technology Review for the Surface controls since promulgation in 2003 that
technology review) that could be Coating of Wood Building Products justify changes to the stringency of the
applied to this source category to further Source Category standards for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
reduce the risks (or potential risks) due QQQQ sources.
to emissions of HAP identified in our 1. What did we propose pursuant to At proposal, we explained how the
risk assessment. In this analysis, we CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Surface coating planned for use by the facility
considered the results of the technology Coating of Wood Building Products submitting the alternative monitoring
review, risk assessment, and other source category? request is similar to other low-HAP
aspects of our MACT rule review to Our review of the developments in coatings in that it uses a liquid catalyst
determine whether there are any cost- technology for the Surface Coating of to affect the same type of chemical and
effective controls or other measures that Wood Building Products source physical changes as UV light in the UV-
would reduce emissions further to category did not reveal any changes in curable coatings, which are low-HAP
provide an ample margin of safety with practices, processes, and controls. In the coatings that predate and were
respect to the risks associated with these original NESHAP, we noted that the considered during development of the
emissions. most prevalent form of emission control original 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ
for surface coating of wood building NESHAP. Regardless of this
4 See CAA section 112(f)(2). products is the use of low-volatile explanation, we see how the commenter
may have misconstrued some of the 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards is out of the allowed range, this is a
discussion in the proposal’s supporting or limitations must be continuous in deviation from the operating limit and
memorandum regarding the coating nature and that the SSM exemption must be reported as specified in 40 CFR
technology and the new compliance violates the CAA’s requirement that 63.4710(c)(6) and 63.4720(a)(7).
equation. The updated memorandum, some CAA section 112 standards apply Our permit review of the facilities
Technology Review for the Surface continuously. using add-on control as a compliance
Coating of Wood Building Products We are finalizing the elimination of approach indicated that all were
Source Category—Final Rule, available the SSM exemption in this rule. The required, by permit, to have their
in the docket for this rule, EPA–HQ– SSM provisions appear at 40 CFR control system in operation during all
OAR–2016–0678, clarifies the 63.4700, 40 CFR 63.4720, and in Table time periods when coating processes
information used for the technology 4 to Subpart QQQQ of Part 63. were operational. The 2003 rule requires
review. The technology basis of the Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we compliance based on a 12-month rolling
coating technology for which the new are finalizing that the standards in this average emissions calculation. Periods
compliance equation we finalize here is rule apply at all times. We are also of startup and shutdown were included,
not broadly applicable. It is simply one finalizing several revisions to Table 4 but, because of operational requirements
of many technology approaches that can (the General Provisions Applicability in the category, are a very small
be used to meet the standard. Table), as explained in more detail component of the emissions calculation
Consequently, we did not propose the below. For example, we are eliminating and have little, if any, impact on the 12-
alternate compliance equation as a incorporation of the General Provisions’ month rolling average. Therefore, we are
‘‘development’’ under CAA section requirement that the source develop an not finalizing separate standards for
112(d)(6), nor are we finalizing it as SSM plan. We also are eliminating and startup and/or shutdown periods.
such. Even if the EPA were to consider revising certain recordkeeping and Periods of malfunction. Periods of
the new coating to be a development reporting requirements related to the startup, normal operations, and
within the meaning of CAA section SSM exemption, as further described shutdown are all predictable and
112(d)(6), the EPA has discretion to below. routine aspects of a source’s operations.
determine when it is ‘‘necessary’’ to The EPA has attempted to ensure that Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither
revise emission standards under the the provisions we are eliminating are predictable nor routine. Instead, they
statute. In this case, it would not be inappropriate, unnecessary, or are, by definition, sudden, infrequent,
necessary to revise the numeric redundant in the absence of the SSM and not reasonably preventable failures
emission standards in Tables 1 or 2 to exemption. The EPA believes the of emissions control, process, or
Subpart QQQQ of Part 63, in order to removal of the SSM exemption creates monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2,
accommodate the alternative monitoring no additional burden to facilities definition of malfunction). The EPA
request from one facility that fits within regulated under the Surface Coating of interprets CAA section 112 as not
the overarching compliance options Wood Building Products NESHAP. requiring emissions that occur during
included in the rule (i.e., the ‘‘emission Deviations addressed in current SSM periods of malfunction to be factored
rate without add-on controls’’ option). plans are now required to be reported in into development of CAA section 112
the semiannual compliance report (40 standards and this reading has been
4. What is the rationale for our final CFR 63.4720). Facilities no longer need upheld as reasonable by the Court in
approach for the technology review? to develop an SSM plan or keep it U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579,
Our technology review did not current (Table 4 to Subpart QQQQ of 606–610 (2016). Under CAA section
identify any changes in practices, Part 63). Facilities also no longer have 112, emissions standards for new
processes, or control technologies that to file SSM reports for deviations not sources must be no less stringent than
would reduce emissions in this described in the their SSM plan (40 CFR the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best
category. We did not identify any 63.4720(c)(2)). controlled similar source and for
control equipment not previously Periods of startup and shutdown. In existing sources generally must be no
identified; improvements to existing finalizing the standards in this rule, the less stringent than the average emission
controls; work practices, process EPA has taken into account startup and limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best
changes, or operational procedures not shutdown periods and, for the reasons performing 12 percent of sources in the
previously considered; or any new explained below, is not finalizing category. There is nothing in CAA
pollution prevention alternatives for alternate standards for those periods. section 112 that directs the Agency to
this same category. We also did not find For add-on control systems, the consider malfunctions in determining
any changes in the cost of applying Surface Coating of Wood Building the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best
controls previously considered in this Products NESHAP requires the performing sources when setting
same category. Consequently, we have measurement of thermal oxidizer emission standards. As the Court has
determined that no revisions to the operating temperature or catalytic recognized, the phrase ‘‘average
NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA oxidizer average temperature across the emissions limitation achieved by the
section 112(d)(6). catalyst bed as well as other types of best performing 12 percent of’’ sources
parameter monitoring. Parameter limits ‘‘says nothing about how the
C. SSM now apply at all times, including during performance of the best units is to be
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. periods of startup and shutdown. The calculated.’’ National Association of
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Surface Coating of Wood Building Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d
Court vacated portions of two Products NESHAP requires thermal 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the
provisions in the EPA’s CAA section oxidizer or catalytic oxidizer operating EPA accounts for variability in setting
112 General Provisions regulations temperature and operating parameters emissions standards, nothing in CAA
governing the emissions of HAP during for other add-on control devices to be section 112 requires the Agency to
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court recorded at least once every 15 minutes. consider malfunctions as part of that
vacated the SSM exemption contained The Surface Coating of Wood Building analysis. The EPA is not required to
in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR Products NESHAP specifies in 40 CFR treat a malfunction in the same manner
63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 63.4763(c) that if an operating parameter as the type of variation in performance
that occurs during routine operations of emissions over a 4-day malfunction whether administrative penalties are
a source. A malfunction is a failure of period would exceed the annual appropriate.
the source to perform in ‘‘normal or emissions of the source during normal In summary, the EPA’s interpretation
usual manner,’’ and no statutory operations. As this example illustrates, of the CAA and, in particular, CAA
language compels the EPA to consider accounting for malfunctions could lead section 112 is reasonable and
such events in setting CAA section 112 to standards that are not reflective of encourages practices that will avoid
standards. (and significantly less stringent than) malfunctions. Administrative and
As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar levels that are achieved by a well- judicial procedures for addressing
Corporation, accounting for performing non-malfunctioning source. exceedances of the standards fully
malfunctions in setting standards would It is reasonable to interpret CAA section recognize that violations may occur
be difficult, if not impossible, given the 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s despite good faith efforts to comply and
myriad different types of malfunctions approach to malfunctions is consistent can accommodate those situations. U.S.
that can occur across all sources in the with CAA section 112 and is a Sugar Corporation v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579,
category and given the difficulties reasonable interpretation of the statute. 606–610 (2016).
associated with predicting or accounting Although no statutory language
1. General Duty
for the frequency, degree, and duration compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the We are finalizing revisions to the
of various malfunctions that might General Provisions table (Table 4) entry
occur. Id. at 608 (‘‘the EPA would have discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1) and (2) by
to conceive of a standard that could redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i)
Sector RTR, the EPA established a work
apply equally to the wide range of and changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to
practice standard for unique types of
possible boiler malfunctions, ranging a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes
malfunction that result in releases from
from an explosion to minor mechanical the general duty to minimize emissions.
pressure relief devices or emergency
defects. Any possible standard is likely Some of the language in that section is
flaring events because information
to be hopelessly generic to govern such no longer necessary or appropriate
regarding petroleum refinery sources
a wide array of circumstances.’’). As considering the elimination of the SSM
was available to determine that such
such, the performance of units that are exemption. We are instead adding
work practices reflected the level of
malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR
control that applies to the best
foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. performing sources in that source 63.4700(b) that reflects the general duty
EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) category. See 80 FR 75178, 75211–75214 to minimize emissions while
(‘‘The EPA typically has wide latitude (December 1, 2015). The EPA eliminating the reference to periods
in determining the extent of data- considered whether circumstances covered by an SSM exemption. The
gathering necessary to solve a problem. warrant setting work practice standards previous language in 40 CFR
We generally defer to an agency’s for a particular type of malfunction and, 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterized what the
decision to proceed on the basis of if so, whether the EPA has sufficient general duty entails during periods of
imperfect scientific information, rather information to identify the relevant best SSM. With the elimination of the SSM
than to ‘invest the resources to conduct performing sources and establish a exemption, there is no need to
the perfect study.’ ’’). See also, standard for such malfunctions. differentiate between normal operations
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, In the event that a source fails to and SSM events in describing the
1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of comply with the applicable CAA section general duty. Therefore, the language
things, no general limit, individual 112 standards as a result of a the EPA is finalizing for 40 CFR
permit, or even any upset provision can malfunction event, the EPA would 63.4700(b) does not include that
anticipate all upset situations. After a determine an appropriate response language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
certain point, the transgression of based on, among other things, the good We are also revising the General
regulatory limits caused by faith efforts of the source to minimize Provisions table (Table 4) to add an
‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ emissions during malfunction periods, entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and
such as strikes, sabotage, operator including preventative and corrective include a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. Section
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of actions, as well as root cause analyses 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that
other eventualities, must be a matter for to ascertain and rectify excess are not necessary with the elimination
the administrative exercise of case-by- emissions. The EPA would also of the SSM exemption or are redundant
case enforcement discretion, not for consider whether the source’s failure to with the general duty requirement being
specification in advance by comply with the CAA section 112 added at 40 CFR 63.4700(b). We are also
regulation.’’). In addition, emissions standard was, in fact, sudden, finalizing revisions to the General
during a malfunction event can be infrequent, not reasonably preventable, Provisions table (Table 4) to add an
significantly higher than emissions at and was not instead caused, in part, by entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(iii) and
any other time of source operation. For poor maintenance or careless operation. include a ‘‘yes’’ in column 3, which
example, if an air pollution control 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). became necessary with the elimination
device with 99-percent removal goes off- If the EPA determines in a particular of the SSM. Finally, we are finalizing
line as a result of a malfunction (as case that an enforcement action against revisions to the General Provisions table
might happen if, for example, the bags a source for violation of an emission (Table 4) to add an entry for 40 CFR
in a baghouse catch fire) and the standard is warranted, the source can 63.6(e)(2) and include a ‘‘no’’ in column
emission unit is a steady state type unit raise any and all defenses in that 3. This paragraph is reserved and is not
that would take days to shut down, the enforcement action and the federal applicable to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
source would go from 99-percent district court will determine what, if QQQQ.
control to zero control until the control any, relief is appropriate. The same is
device was repaired. The source’s true for citizen enforcement actions. 2. SSM Plan
emissions during the malfunction Similarly, the presiding officer in an We are finalizing revisions to the
would be 100 times higher than during administrative proceeding can consider General Provisions table (Table 4) to add
normal operations. As such, the any defense raised and determine an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and
include a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. Generally, Administrator such records ‘‘as may be of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR
these paragraphs require development necessary to determine the condition of 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements
of an SSM plan and specify SSM the performance test’’ available to the of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The
recordkeeping and reporting Administrator upon request, but does EPA is finalizing elimination of this
requirements related to the SSM plan. not specifically require the information requirement because SSM plans would
As noted, the EPA is finalizing removal to be recorded. The added regulatory no longer be required, and, therefore, 40
of the SSM exemptions. Therefore, text to this provision that the EPA is CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any
affected units will be subject to an finalizing builds on that requirement useful purpose for affected units.
emission standard during such events. and makes explicit the requirement to
7. Reporting
The applicability of a standard during record the information.
such events will ensure that sources We are finalizing revisions to the
5. Monitoring General Provisions table (Table 4) entry
have ample incentive to plan for and
achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM We are finalizing revisions to the for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the
plan requirements are no longer General Provisions table (Table 4) by ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section
necessary. redesignating 40 CFR 63.8(c) as 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting
63.8(c)(1), adding entries for 40 CFR requirements for startups, shutdowns,
3. Compliance With Standards 63.8(c)(1)(i) through (iii), and including and malfunctions. To replace the
We are finalizing revisions to the ‘‘no’’ in column 3 for paragraphs (i) and General Provisions reporting
General Provisions table (Table 4) (iii). The cross-references to the general requirement for malfunctions, the EPA
entries for 40 CFR 63.6(f) by duty and SSM plan requirements in is finalizing replacing the SSM report
redesignating this section as 40 CFR those subparagraphs are not necessary under 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) with the
63.6(f)(1) and including a ‘‘no’’ in considering other requirements of 40 existing reporting requirements under
column 3. The previous language in 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution 40 CFR 63.4720(a). The replacement
CFR 63.6(f)(1) excluded sources from control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and language differs from the General
non-opacity standards during periods of that set out the requirements of a quality Provisions requirement in that it
SSM, while the previous language in 40 control (QC) program for monitoring eliminates periodic SSM reports as a
CFR 63.6(h)(1) excluded sources from equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). stand-alone report. We are finalizing
opacity standards during periods of language that requires sources that fail
6. Recordkeeping
SSM. As discussed above, the Court in to meet an applicable standard at any
Sierra Club vacated the exemptions We are finalizing revisions to the time to report the information
contained in this provision and held General Provisions table (Table 4) by concerning such events in the
that the CAA requires that some CAA adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) semiannual report to be required under
section 112 standards apply and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. the final rule. We are finalizing that the
continuously. Consistent with Sierra Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the report must contain the number, date,
Club, the EPA is finalizing the revised recordkeeping requirements during time, duration, and the cause of such
standards in this rule to apply at all startup and shutdown. These recording events (including unknown cause, if
times. provisions are no longer necessary applicable), a list of the affected source
because the EPA is finalizing that or equipment, an estimate of the
4. Performance Testing recordkeeping and reporting applicable quantity of each regulated pollutant
We are finalizing revisions to the to normal operations will apply to emitted over any emission limit, and a
General Provisions table (Table 4) entry startup and shutdown. Special description of the method used to
for 40 CFR 63.7(e) by redesignating it as provisions applicable to startup and estimate the emissions. Examples of
40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and including a ‘‘yes’’ shutdown, such as a startup and such methods would include mass
in column 3. Section 63.7(e)(1) shutdown plan, have been removed balance calculations, measurements
describes performance testing from the rule (with exceptions when available, or engineering
requirements. Section 63.4764(a) of the discussed below), thereby reducing the judgment based on known process
rule specifies that performance testing need for additional recordkeeping for parameters. The EPA is finalizing this
must be conducted when the coating startup and shutdown periods. requirement to ensure that there is
operation, emission capture system, and We are finalizing revisions to the adequate information to determine
add-on control device are operating at General Provisions table (Table 4) by compliance, to allow the EPA to
representative conditions. You must adding an entry for 40 CFR determine the severity of the failure to
document why the conditions represent 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) and including a meet an applicable standard, and to
normal operation. As in 40 CFR ‘‘no’’ in column 3. When applicable, the provide data that may document how
63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted provision requires sources to record the source met the general duty to
under this subpart should not be actions taken during SSM events when minimize emissions during a failure to
conducted during periods of startup, actions were inconsistent with their meet an applicable standard.
shutdown, or malfunction because SSM plan. The requirement is no longer We will no longer require owners or
conditions during malfunctions are appropriate because SSM plans will no operators to determine whether actions
often not representative of normal longer be required. taken to correct a malfunction are
operating conditions. The EPA is We are also finalizing revisions to the consistent with an SSM plan, because
finalizing added language that requires General Provisions table (Table 4) by plans would no longer be required. The
the owner or operator to record the adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) final amendments, therefore, eliminate
process information that is necessary to and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. The the cross-reference to 40 CFR
document operating conditions during EPA is finalizing that 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the
the test and include in such record an 63.10(c)(15) no longer applies. When description of the previously required
explanation to support that such applicable, the provision allows an SSM report format and submittal
conditions represent normal operations. owner or operator to use the affected schedule from this section. These
Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner source’s SSM plan or records kept to specifications are no longer necessary
or operator make available to the satisfy the recordkeeping requirements because the events will be reported in
otherwise required reports with similar notification of compliance status, the quality of emission inventories and
format and submittal requirements. performance test results, and air quality regulations.
The final amendments also eliminate semiannual compliance status reports For a more thorough discussion of
the cross-reference to 40 CFR through the EPA’s Central Data electronic reporting, see the discussion
63.10(d)(5)(ii). Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) Exchange (CDX) using CEDRI. The final in the preamble of the proposal, at 83
describes an immediate report for rule requires that performance test FR 22754, and the memorandum titled
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions reports be submitted to CEDRI using the Electronic Reporting Requirements for
when a source failed to meet an Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). The New Source Performance Standards
applicable standard, but did not follow final rule requires owners and operators (NSPS) and National Emission
the SSM plan. We no longer require to submit any future notification of Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
owners and operators to report when compliance status (e.g., for a new (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID
actions taken during a startup, coating process) in portable document No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0678.
shutdown, or malfunction were not format (PDF) to CEDRI. For semiannual G. EPA Test Method 326
consistent with an SSM plan because compliance status reports, in
plans would no longer be required. conjunction with the final rule, owners We are finalizing EPA Method 326 to
and operators are provided a improve test methodology related to
D. Alternative Compliance Equation volatile organic HAP content measured
spreadsheet template to submit
The EPA proposed the option of using information to CEDRI. The template is in certain surface coatings containing
a HAP emission factor based on site- expected to facilitate reporting and isocyanates. Because there was no EPA
specific measurement of HAP emissions improve reporting consistency. test method for isocyanate emissions, as
to demonstrate compliance with the Facilities will be required to use the part of this action, we are finalizing
emission rate without add-on controls specific isocyanate compound sample
template to file their semiannual reports
compliance option, instead of assuming collection and analytical requirements
1 year after the reporting template
that all HAP in the coating is emitted to as EPA Method 326 of 40 CFR part 63,
becomes available in CEDRI. The EPA
the atmosphere. As discussed below, we appendix A. EPA Method 326 is based
expects to post the reporting template in
are finalizing a new compliance on ‘‘A Method for Measuring
conjunction with the final rule, so
calculation approach in this rulemaking Isocyanates in Stationary Source
facilities can expect the requirement to
to allow any facility using a similar Emissions,’’ which was proposed on
begin for the semiannual reporting using
process to use the approach without December 8, 1997 (see 62 FR 64532) as
the template by March 4, 2020.
requiring the submittal of an alternative EPA Method 207, but was never
The electronic submittal of the reports promulgated. EPA Method 326 does not
monitoring request to the EPA under the addressed in this rulemaking will
provisions of 40 CFR 63.8(f). The final significantly modify the sampling and
increase the usefulness of the data analytical techniques of the previously
amendment adds compliance flexibility, contained in these reports; is in keeping
but does not alter the originally proposed method, but includes
with current trends in data availability, additional QC procedures and
promulgated emission standards in accountability, and transparency; will
Tables 1 and 2 to Subpart QQQQ of Part associated performance criteria to
further assist in the protection of public ensure the overall quality of the
63. health and the environment; will
We are finalizing a new equation measurement.
improve compliance by facilitating the EPA Method 326 is based on the EPA
within the existing compliance
ability of regulated facilities to Method 5 sampling train employing a
demonstration calculations to more
demonstrate compliance with the derivatizing reagent (1-(2-pyridyl)
adequately represent the HAP amounts
requirements and by facilitating the piperazine in toluene) in the impingers
emitted by this type of surface coating
ability of delegated state, local, tribal, to immediately stabilize the isocyanate
or any similar coating.
and territorial air agencies and the EPA compounds upon collection. Collected
E. Emissions Testing to assess and determine compliance; samples are analyzed using high
The EPA is finalizing amendments to and will ultimately reduce burden on performance liquid chromatography and
the Surface Coating of Wood Building regulated facilities, delegated air an appropriate detector under laboratory
Products NESHAP that provide an agencies, and the EPA. Electronic conditions sufficient to separate and
additional compliance demonstration reporting eliminates paper-based, quantify the isocyanate compounds.
equation. Facilities using the alternative manual processes, thereby saving time The sampling and analytical
compliance demonstration equation (40 and resources; simplifying data entry; techniques were validated at three
CFR 63.4751(i)) of the emission rate eliminating redundancies; minimizing sources according to EPA Method 301
without add-on controls option are data reporting errors; and providing data (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) and the
required to conduct an initial quickly and accurately to the affected report of this validation, titled
performance test to demonstrate facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the Laboratory Development and Field
compliance. Those same facilities are public. A more streamlined and Evaluation of a Generic Method for
also required to conduct repeat accurate review of performance test data Sampling and Analysis of Isocyanates,
performance testing every 5 years to will become available to the public can be found in the docket, Docket ID
update/verify the process-specific through the EPA’s Web Factor No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0678. Under
emission factor used to demonstrate Information Retrieval System the final rule, this validated technique
continuing compliance for the new (WebFIRE). would be used to reliably collect and
alternative equation (see 40 CFR In summary, in addition to supporting analyze gaseous isocyanate emissions
63.4752(e)). regulation development, control strategy from surface coatings of wood building
development, and other air pollution products for methylene diphenyl
F. Electronic Reporting control activities, having an electronic diisocyanate (MDI), methyl isocyanate
The EPA is requiring owners and database populated with performance (MI), hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate
operators of wood building product test data will save industry, state, local, (HDI), and 2,4 toluene diisocyanate
surface coating facilities to submit tribal agencies, and the EPA significant (TDI). This method will also provide a
electronic copies of the required time, money, and effort while improving tool for state and local governments,
industry, and the EPA to reliably incorporated by reference when 40 CFR are approximately 270 tpy.5 Compared
measure emissions of MDI, MI, HDI, part 63, subpart QQQQ, was originally to pre-MACT levels, this represents a
and/or TDI from other types of promulgated (68 FR 31760), the significant reduction of HAP for the
stationary sources, such as pressed methods have been updated and category. Prior to the development of
board, flexible foam, and spray booths. reapproved and are also being cited in the Surface Coating of Wood Building
additional paragraphs in the final rule, Products NESHAP, the EPA estimated
H. IBR Under 1 CFR Part 51 requiring a revision to their IBR. NCASI HAP emissions to be 14,300 tons
The EPA is finalizing regulatory text Method ISS/FP A105.01 was annually.6 The final amendments will
that includes IBR. In accordance with incorporated by reference when 40 CFR require all 57 major sources with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is part 63, subpart DDDD, Table 4 was equipment subject to the Wood Building
incorporating by reference National amended in 2006. The American Products Coating NESHAP to operate
Council of the Paper Industry for Air National Standards Institute (ANSI) without the SSM exemption. We are
and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) method (published by the Composite unable to quantify the specific
Method ISS/FP A105.01 and the Panel Association) and the other ASTM emissions reductions associated with
following voluntary consensus methods are being incorporated by eliminating the SSM exemption, but
standards (VCS) described in the reference for 40 CFR part 63, subpart eliminating the SSM exemption will
amendments to 40 CFR 63.14: QQQQ, for the first time under this reduce emissions by requiring facilities
• ANSI A135.4–2012, Basic rulemaking. to meet the applicable standard during
Hardboard, approved June 8, 2012, IBR SSM periods.
I. Technical and Editorial Changes
approved for 40 CFR 63.4781. Indirect or secondary air emissions
• ASTM D1475–13, Standard Test The following are additional final impacts are impacts that would result
Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, changes that address technical and from the increased electricity usage
Inks, and Related Products, approved editorial corrections: associated with the operation of control
November 1, 2013, IBR approved for 40 • Revised the monitoring devices (i.e., increased secondary
CFR 63.4741(b)(3) and (c) and requirements section in 40 CFR 63.4764 emissions of criteria pollutants from
63.4751(c). to clarify ongoing compliance power plants). Energy impacts consist of
• ASTM D2111–10 (Reapproved provisions to address startup and
the electricity and steam needed to
2015), Standard Test Methods for shutdown periods when certain
operate control devices and other
Specific Gravity and Density of parameters cannot be met;
• Revised the recordkeeping equipment that would be required
Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their under this rule. The EPA expects no
Admixtures, approved June 1, 2015, IBR requirements section in 40 CFR 63.4730
to include the requirement to record secondary air emissions impacts or
approved for 40 CFR 63.4741(a)(2)(i). energy impacts from this rulemaking
• ASTM D2369–10 (Reapproved information on failures to meet the
because this action does not amend the
2015) e, Standard Test Method for applicable standard;
• Revised the references to several numeric emission limit.
Volatile Content of Coatings, approved For further information, see the
June 1, 2015, IBR approved for 40 CFR test method appendices;
• Revised the General Provisions memoranda titled Cost Impacts of the
63.4741(a)(2)(ii). Subpart QQQQ Residual Risk and
• ASTM D2697–03 (Reapproved applicability table (Table 4 to Subpart
QQQQ of Part 63) to align with sections Technology Review and Economic
2014), Standard Test Method for Impact and Small Business Screening
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or of the General Provisions that have been
amended or reserved over time; and Assessments for Final Amendments to
Pigmented Coatings, approved July 1,
2014, IBR approved for 40 CFR • Revised 40 CFR 63.4681 to update the National Emission Standards for
reference to 40 CFR part 63, subpart Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface
63.4741(a)(2)(iii) and (b). Coating of Wood Building Products, in
• ASTM D4840–99 (Reapproved DDDD.
the docket for this action, Docket ID No.
2018) e, Standard Guide for Sampling V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0678.
Chain-of-Custody Procedures, approved and Economic Impacts and Additional
August 15, 2018, IBR approved for EPA Analyses Conducted C. What are the cost impacts?
Method 326 in appendix A to part 63. We estimate that, as a result of these
• ASTM D6093–97 (Reapproved A. What are the affected facilities?
final amendments, each facility in the
2016), Standard Test Method for Percent There are currently 57 wood building source category will experience
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or product manufacturing facilities reporting and recordkeeping costs. Each
Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas operating in the United States that facility will experience costs to read and
Pycnometer, Approved December 1, conduct surface coating operations and understand the rule amendments. Costs
2016, IBR approved for 40 CFR are subject to the Surface Coating of associated with the elimination of the
63.4741(a)(2)(iv) and (b)(1). Wood Building Products NESHAP. The SSM exemption were estimated as part
• ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ, affected of the reporting and recordkeeping costs
2010), Standard Test Method for source is the collection of all the items and include time for re-evaluating
Determination of Gaseous Compounds listed in 40 CFR 63.4682(b)(1) through previously developed SSM record
by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier (4) that are used for surface coating of systems. Costs associated with the
Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, wood building products. A new affected requirement to electronically submit
including Annexes A1 through A8, source is a completely new wood
Approved October 1, 2010, IBR building products surface coating source 5 For more information, see the memorandum in
approved for 40 CFR 63.4751(i) where previously no wood building the docket titled, Addendum to Preparation of the
introductory paragraph and (i)(4), products surface coating source had Residual Risk Modeling Input File for Subpart
63.4752(e), and 63.4766(b) introductory existed. QQQQ; Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0678.
6 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
paragraph and (b)(4).
While the American Society for B. What are the air quality impacts? Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Wood Building
Products (Surface Coating) Industry—Background
Testing and Materials (ASTM) methods At the current level of control, the Information for Proposed Standards; EPA–453/R–
D2697–86 and D6093–97 were EPA estimates emissions of total HAP 00–003; May 2001.
notifications and semiannual D. What are the economic impacts? amendments are not considered
compliance reports using CEDRI were Economic impact analyses focus on economically significant, as defined by
estimated as part of the reporting and changes in market prices and output Executive Order 12866, and because no
recordkeeping costs and include time levels. If changes in market prices and emission reductions were estimated, we
for becoming familiar with CEDRI and output levels in the primary markets are did not estimate any benefits from
the reporting template for semiannual significant enough, impacts on other reducing emissions.
compliance reports. The reporting and markets may also be examined. Both the F. What analysis of environmental
recordkeeping costs are presented in magnitude of costs needed to comply justice did we conduct?
this section of the preamble. A thorough with a final rule and the distribution of
these costs among affected facilities can Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
discussion of the facility-by-facility
have a role in determining how the February 16, 1994) establishes federal
costs is contained in the supporting
market will change in response to a final executive policy on EJ. Its main
statement for the 40 CFR part 63,
rule. provision directs federal agencies, to the
subpart QQQQ amendments, greatest extent practicable and
Supporting Statement, NESHAP for the For the one facility expected to
conduct an initial performance test and permitted by law, to make EJ part of
Wood Building Products Surface their mission by identifying and
Coating Industry (40 CFR part 63, become familiar with the final rule
requirements, the costs associated with addressing, as appropriate,
subpart QQQQ) (Final Amendments); disproportionately high and adverse
40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ’s final
December 2018, which can be found in human health or environmental effects
requirements are approximately 0.002
the docket for this rule, Docket ID No. of their programs, policies, and
percent of annual sales revenues. For
EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0678. activities on minority populations and
the remaining 56 facilities, the costs
The EPA estimates that one facility associated with becoming familiar with low-income populations in the United
will be impacted by this final regulatory the final rule requirements are less than States.
action. This facility will conduct an 0.001 percent of annual sales revenues. To examine the potential for any EJ
initial performance test to demonstrate These costs are not expected to result in issues that might be associated with the
compliance with the alternative a significant market impact, regardless source category, we performed a
compliance equation, as related to their of whether they are passed on to the demographic analysis, which is an
request for an alternative monitoring purchaser or absorbed by the firms. For assessment of risks to individual
method. This initial performance test further information, see the demographic groups of the populations
has a cost of $22,000, and the repeat memorandum titled Economic Impact living within 5 kilometers (km) and
testing will cost $22,000 every 5 years. and Small Business Screening within 50 km of the facilities. In the
Assessments for Final Amendments to analysis, we evaluated the distribution
The total estimated labor costs for the of HAP-related cancer and noncancer
the National Emission Standards for
rule are summarized in the Supporting risks from the Surface Coating of Wood
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface
Statement for the information collection Building Products source category
Coating of Wood Building Products, in
request (ICR) in the docket for this across different demographic groups
the docket for this action, Docket ID No.
action. The estimated labor cost is EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0678. within the populations living near
$38,000 for all 57 affected facilities to facilities.7
become familiar with the final rule E. What are the benefits? The results of the demographic
requirements. For further information, The EPA did not change any of the analysis are summarized in Table 3
see the memorandum titled Cost emission limit requirements and below. These results for various
Impacts of the Subpart QQQQ Residual estimates the final changes to SSM, demographic groups are based on the
Risk and Technology Review, in the recordkeeping, reporting, and estimated risks from actual emissions
docket for this action, Docket ID No. monitoring are not economically levels for the population living within
EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0678. significant. Because these final 50 km of the facilities.
TABLE 3—SURFACE COATING OF WOOD BUILDING PRODUCTS SOURCE CATEGORY DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS
RESULTS
Population with cancer Population with chronic
risk at or above 1-in-1 HI above 1 due to wood
Nationwide million due to wood building products
building products surface coating
surface coating 1
Total Population ........................................................................................... 317,746,049 0 0
Race by Percent
White ............................................................................................................ 62 0 0
All Other Races ........................................................................................... 38 0 0
Race by Percent
White ............................................................................................................ 62 0 0
African American ......................................................................................... 12 0 0
Native American .......................................................................................... 0.8 0 0
7 Demographic groups included in the analysis children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 64 the poverty level, people living two times the
are: White, African American, Native American, years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults poverty level, and linguistically isolated people.
other races, and multiracial, Hispanic or Latino, without a high school diploma, people living below
TABLE 3—SURFACE COATING OF WOOD BUILDING PRODUCTS SOURCE CATEGORY DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS
RESULTS—Continued
Population with cancer Population with chronic
risk at or above 1-in-1 HI above 1 due to wood
Nationwide million due to wood building products
building products surface coating
surface coating 1
Other and Multiracial ................................................................................... 7 0 0
Ethnicity by Percent
Hispanic ....................................................................................................... 18 0 0
Non-Hispanic ............................................................................................... 82 0 0
Income by Percent
Below Poverty Level .................................................................................... 14 0 0

Above Poverty Level .................................................................................... 86 0 0
Education by Percent
Over 25 and without High School Diploma ................................................. 14 0 0

Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ................................................... 86 0 0
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
Linguistically Isolated ................................................................................... 6% 0% 0%

1 Based on actual emissions in the category.
The results of the Surface Coating of Building Products Source Category B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Wood Building Products source Operations, available in the docket for Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
category demographic analysis indicate this action, EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0678. Costs
that emissions from the source category
do not expose people to a cancer risk at G. What analysis of children’s This action is not an Executive Order
or above 1-in-1 million based on actual environmental health did we conduct? 13771 regulatory action because this
emissions. Also, no people are exposed action is not significant under Executive
This action is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater Order 13045 because it is not
than 1. The percentages of the at-risk economically significant as defined in C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
population are demographically similar Executive Order 12866, and because the
to their respective nationwide The information collection activities
EPA does not believe the environmental in this final rule have been submitted
percentages for all demographic groups.
health or safety risks addressed by this for approval to OMB under the PRA.
The EPA received a comment on our action present a disproportionate risk to The ICR document that the EPA
proposed rule stating that we ignored children. This action’s health and risk prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
unacceptably disproportionate effects assessments are contained in Residual number 2034.08. You can find a copy of
on EJ communities. As noted above, we Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating the ICR in the docket for this rule
re-evaluated our risk impacts from the of Wood Building Products Source (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–
category with a revised risk assessment. Category in Support of the 2018 Risk 0678), and it is briefly summarized here.
One aspect of this assessment was that and Technology Review Final Rule,
it generated a risk report based on a We are finalizing changes to the
available in the docket for this action, paperwork requirements for the Surface
more refined risk assessment model.
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016– Coating of Wood Building Products
Those risk model results did show
0678. NESHAP in the form of eliminating the
lower risk in the EJ communities where
larger impacts were noted at proposal. VI. Statutory and Executive Order SSM reporting and SSM plan
The EPA considered this comment and Reviews requirements, and requiring electronic
has reaffirmed its determination that submittal of semiannual compliance
this final rule will not have Additional information about these reports and any future notifications of
disproportionately high and adverse statutes and Executive Orders can be compliance status or performance test
human health or environmental effects found at https://www.epa.gov/laws- reports.
on minority, low income, or indigenous regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. Respondents/affected entities:
populations because it increases the Respondents include wood building
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory product manufacturing facilities with
level of environmental protection for all Planning and Review and Executive
affected populations. surface coating operations subject to the
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Surface Coating of Wood Building
The methodology and the results of Regulatory Review
the demographic analysis are presented Products NESHAP.
in a technical report, Risk and This action is not a significant Respondent’s obligation to respond:
Technology Review—Analysis of regulatory action and was, therefore, not Mandatory (authorized by section 114 of
Demographic Factors for Populations submitted to the Office of Management the CAA).
Living Near Surface Coating of Wood and Budget (OMB) for review. Estimated number of respondents: 57.
Frequency of response: The frequency E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act this action is provided in sections III
of responses varies depending on the (UMRA) and IV of this preamble and further
burden item. Responses include This action does not contain an documented in the risk report titled
notifications, reports of performance unfunded mandate of $100 million or Residual Risk Assessment for the
tests, and semiannual compliance more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. Surface Coating of Wood Building
reports. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or Products Source Category in Support of
Total estimated burden: The annual uniquely affect small governments. The the 2018 Risk and Technology Review
recordkeeping and reporting burden for action imposes no enforceable duty on Final Rule, in the docket for this action,
this information collection, averaged any state, local, or tribal governments or Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–
over the first 3 years of this ICR, is the private sector. 0678.
estimated to total 20,208 labor hours per I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Concerning Regulations That
1320.3(b). This action does not have federalism Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Total estimated cost: $1,465,000 per implications. It will not have substantial Distribution, or Use
year in labor costs, including $38,000 in direct effects on the states, on the
This action is not subject to Executive
labor cost for all 57 facilities to become relationship between the national
Order 13211 because it is not a
familiar with the final rule government and the states, or on the
significant regulatory action under
requirements. An additional cost of distribution of power and
Executive Order 12866.
$22,000 is estimated for an initial responsibilities among the various
performance test at one facility during levels of government. J. National Technology Transfer and
the 3-year ICR period. These estimated Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation Part 51
costs represent the full ongoing
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
information collection burden for 40 This action involves technical
Governments
CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ, as revised standards. The EPA is finalizing the use
by the final amendments being This action does not have tribal of NCASI Method ISS/FP A105.01,
promulgated. implications as specified in Executive ‘‘Impinger Source Sampling Method for
An agency may not conduct or Order 13175. It will not have substantial Selected Aldehydes, Ketones, and Polar
sponsor, and a person is not required to direct effects on tribal governments, on Compounds,’’ December 2005, Methods
respond to, a collection of information the relationship between the federal Manual, and ASTM D6348–03
unless it displays a currently valid OMB government and Indian Tribes, or on the (Reapproved 2010), ‘‘Standard Test
control number. The OMB control distribution of power and Method for Determination of Gaseous
numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 responsibilities between the federal Compounds by Extractive Direct
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. In government and Indian Tribes, as Interface Fourier Transform Infrared
addition, the EPA is amending the table specified in Executive Order 13175. (FTIR) Spectroscopy’’ as alternatives to
in 40 CFR part 9 to list the regulatory This final rule imposes requirements on using EPA Method 320 under certain
citations for the information collection owners and operators of wood building conditions, and is incorporating these
activities contained in this final rule. product surface coating facilities and alternative methods by reference. EPA
not tribal governments. The EPA Method 320 is added for the
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) discussed the proposed action at a measurement of organic HAP emissions
I certify that this action will not have meeting of the National Tribal Air if formaldehyde is a major organic HAP
a significant economic impact on a Association,8 and has not been informed component of the surface coating
substantial number of small entities and does not know of any wood exhaust stream. EPA Method 320 can
under the RFA. In making this building product surface coating also be used for other HAP that may be
determination, the impact of concern is facilities owned or operated by Indian found in wood building products
any significant adverse economic tribal governments. However, if there coatings. NCASI Method ISS/FP
impact on small entities. An agency may are any, the effect of this rule on A105.01 is an impinger source sampling
certify that a rule will not have a communities of tribal governments method for the collection and analysis
significant economic impact on a would not be unique or of a wider range of aldehydes, ketones,
substantial number of small entities if disproportionate to the effect on other and polar organics, has previously been
the rule relieves regulatory burden, has communities. Thus, Executive Order incorporated by reference at 40 CFR
no net burden, or otherwise has a 13175 does not apply to this action. 63.14, and is reasonably available from
positive economic effect on the small H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of National Council of the Paper Industry
entities subject to the rule. We Children From Environmental Health for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
conducted an economic impact analysis Risks and Safety Risks (NCASI), P.O. Box 133318, Research
which is available in the docket for this Triangle Park, NC 27709–3318 or at
final rule, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– This action is not subject to Executive http://www.ncasi.org.
OAR–2016–0678. For all but one of the Order 13045 because it is not Instead of the current ASTM D6348–
facilities affected by the final rule, economically significant as defined in 12 standard, the ASTM D6348–03
including the small businesses, the costs Executive Order 12866, and because the (Reapproved 2010) standard is
associated with the final rule EPA does not believe the environmental referenced in the Surface Coating of
requirements are less than 0.001 percent health or safety risks addressed by this Wood Building Products NESHAP. The
of annual sales revenues; for the action present a disproportionate risk to QC criteria in ASTM D6348–03
remaining facility, the costs are less children. A description of the health (Reapproved 2010) are more closely
than 0.002 percent of annual sales risk assessment conducted as part of matched to the testing requirements in
revenues. We have, therefore, concluded 8 See National Tribal Air Association—EPA Air
this NESHAP. Use of ASTM D6348–03
that this action will have no net Policy Update Call; Thursday May 31, 2018, in the
(Reapproved 2010) is defined in 40 CFR
regulatory burden for all directly docket for this rule; Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 63.4751(i)(4). ASTM D6348–03
regulated small entities. 2016–0678. (Reapproved 2010) is an extractive FTIR
spectroscopy-based field test method • ASTM D6093–97 (Reapproved NESHAP source category across
and is used to quantify gas phase 2016), ‘‘Standard Test Method for different social, demographic, and
concentrations of multiple target Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in economic groups within the populations
compounds in emission streams from Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a living near facilities identified as having
stationary sources. Helium Gas Pycnometer.’’ This test the highest risks. The methodology and
ANSI A135.4–2012, ‘‘Basic method is used for the determination of the results of the demographic analyses
Hardboard,’’ is reasonably available the percent volume nonvolatile matter are included in a technical report, Risk
from the Composite Panel Association, in clear and pigmented coatings. and Technology Review—Analysis of
19465 Deerfield Avenue, Suite 306, The ASTM standards are reasonably Demographic Factors for Populations
Leesburg, VA 20176. The standard available from the American Society for Living Near Surface Coating of Wood
specifies requirements and test methods Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Building Products Source Category
for water absorption, thickness swelling, Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, Operations, available in the docket for
modulus of rupture, tensile strength, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959. this action, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
surface finish, dimensions, squareness, See http://www.astm.org/. OAR–2016–0678.
edge straightness, and moisture content While the EPA has identified another The results of the Surface Coating of
for five classes of hardboard, including 18 VCS as being potentially applicable Wood Building Products NESHAP
tileboard, part of a subcategory in the to this final rule, we have decided not source category demographic analysis
standard. to use these VCS in this rulemaking. indicate that approximately 700 people
The EPA is also using ASTM D4840– The use of these VCS would not be may be exposed to a cancer risk of 1-in-
99 (Reapproved 2018)e, ‘‘Standard practical due to lack of equivalency, 1 million based on allowable emissions
Guide for Sampling Chain-of-Custody documentation, validation date, and from the source category and no one is
Procedures,’’ in EPA Method 326 for its other important technical and policy exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI
chain of custody procedures and is considerations. See the memorandum greater than 1. The specific
incorporating this alternative method by titled Voluntary Consensus Standard demographic results indicate that the
reference. The ASTM D4840–99 Results for National Emission Standards percentage of the population potentially
(Reapproved 2018)e guide contains a for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface impacted by wood building products
comprehensive discussion of potential Coating of Wood Building Products, in emissions is similar among all
requirements for a sample chain-of- the docket for this final rule for the demographic groups (see Table 3 of this
custody program and describes the reasons for these determinations. preamble). The proximity results
procedures involved in sample chain-of- Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR (irrespective of risk) indicate that the
custody. The purpose of ASTM D4840– 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General population percentages for certain
99 (Reapproved 2018)e procedures is to Provisions, a source may apply to the demographic categories within 5 km of
provide accountability for and EPA for permission to use alternative source category emissions are greater
documentation of sample integrity from test methods or alternative monitoring than the corresponding national
the time samples are collected until the requirements in place of any required percentage for those same
time samples are disposed. EPA Method testing methods, performance demographics. The following
326 is added for the measurement of specifications, or procedures in the final demographic percentages for
organic HAP emissions if isocyanate is rule or any amendments. populations residing within close
a major organic HAP component of the proximity to facilities with Surface
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal
surface coating exhaust stream. Coating of Wood Building Products
The EPA is finalizing the use of the Actions To Address Environmental
source category facilities are higher than
following four VCS as alternatives to Justice in Minority Populations and
the corresponding nationwide
EPA Method 24 for the determination of Low-Income Populations
percentage: African American, ages 65
volatile matter content, water content, The EPA believes that this action does and up, over age 25 without a high
density, volume solids, and weight not have disproportionately high and school diploma, and below the poverty
solids of surface coatings and adverse human health or environmental level.
incorporate these VCS by reference: effects on minority populations, low- The risks due to actual HAP
• ASTM D2111–10 (Reapproved income populations, and/or indigenous emissions from this source category are
2015), ‘‘Standard Test Methods for peoples, as specified in Executive Order low for all populations (e.g., inhalation
Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). cancer risks are less than 1-in-1 million
Solvents and Their Admixtures.’’ These The documentation for this decision for all populations and noncancer HIs
test methods are used for the is contained in section IV.A of this are less than 1). We do not expect this
determination of the specific gravity of preamble and the technical report titled final rule to achieve significant
halogenated organic solvents and Risk and Technology Review—Analysis reductions in HAP emissions. We have
solvent admixtures. of Demographic Factors for Populations concluded that this final rule will not
• ASTM D2369–10 (Reapproved Living Near Wood Building Products have unacceptable adverse human
2015)e, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Surface Coating Sources, which is health or environmental effects on
Volatile Content of Coatings.’’ This test located in the public docket for this minority or low-income populations.
method describes a procedure used for action, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– The final rule does not affect the level
the determination of the weight percent 2016–0678. of protection provided to human health
volatile content of solvent-borne and We examined the potential for any EJ or the environment. However, this final
waterborne coatings. issues that might be associated with the rule will provide additional benefits to
• ASTM D2697–03 (Reapproved source category by performing a these demographic groups by improving
2014), ‘‘Standard Test Method for demographic analysis of the population the compliance, monitoring, and
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or close to the facilities. See section V.F, implementation of the NESHAP.
Pigmented Coatings.’’ This test method above. In this analysis, we evaluated the
is applicable to the determination of the distribution of HAP-related cancer and L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
volume of nonvolatile matter in noncancer risks from the Surface This action is subject to the CRA, and
coatings. Coating of Wood Building Products the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the ■ iv. By revising newly redesignated Leesburg, VA 20176, Telephone
Comptroller General of the United paragraph (h)(84). (703)724–1128, and
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ ■ d. By adding new paragraph (l); and www.compositepanel.org.
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). ■ e. By revising newly designated (1) ANSI A135.4–2012, Basic
paragraph (p)(5). Hardboard, approved June 8, 2012, IBR
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
The revisions and additions read as approved for § 63.4781.
Environmental protection, follows: (2) [Reserved]
Administrative practice and procedures, * * * * *
Air pollution control, Hazardous § 63.14 Incorporations by reference. (p) * * *
substances, Incorporation by reference, * * * * * (5) NCASI Method ISS/FP A105.01,
National Emission Standards for (h) * * * Impinger Source Sampling Method for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface (13) ASTM D1475–13, Standard Test Selected Aldehydes, Ketones, and Polar
Coating of Wood Building Products Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Compounds, December 2005, Methods
Residual Risk and Technology Review, Inks, and Related Products, approved Manual, IBR approved for table 4 to
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting November 1, 2013, IBR approved for subpart DDDD and §§ 63.4751(i) and
and recordkeeping requirements. §§ 63.4741(b) and (c) and 63.4751(c). 63.4752(e).
Dated: December 20, 2018. * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew R. Wheeler, (21) ASTM D2111–10 (Reapproved
Acting Administrator. 2015), Standard Test Methods for Subpart QQQQ—[Amended]
For the reasons set out in the Specific Gravity and Density of
Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their ■ 4. Section 63.4681 is amended by
preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
Admixtures, approved June 1, 2015, IBR revising paragraph (c)(1) introductory
the Code of Federal Regulations is
approved for § 63.4741(a). text to read as follows:
amended as follows:
* * * * * § 63.4681 Am I subject to this subpart?
PART 63—[AMENDED] (26) ASTM D2369–10 (Reapproved * * * * *
2015)e, Standard Test Method for (c) * * *
■ 1. The authority citation for part 63
Volatile Content of Coatings, approved (1) Surface coating in the processes
continues to read as follows:
June 1, 2015, IBR approved for identified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. § 63.4741(a). (xi) of this section that are part of
Subpart A—[Amended] * * * * * plywood and composite wood product
(30) ASTM D2697–03 (Reapproved manufacturing and subject to subpart
■ 2. Section 63.14 is amended: 2014), Standard Test Method for DDDD of this part including:
■ a. In paragraph (a), by removing— Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or * * * * *
‘‘http://www.archives.gov/federal_ Pigmented Coatings, approved July 1, ■ 5. Section 63.4683 is amended by
register/code_of_federal_regulations/ 2014, IBR approved for § 63.4741(a) and revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read
ibr_locations.html’’ and adding (b). as follows:
‘‘www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ * * * * *
ibr-locations.html’’ in its place; (64) ASTM D4840–99 (Reapproved § 63.4683 When do I have to comply with
■ b. By redesignating the paragraphs in this subpart?
2018)e, Standard Guide for Sampling
the Old Paragraph column as the Chain-of-Custody Procedures, approved * * * * *
paragraphs in the New Paragraph August 15, 2018, IBR approved for (a) For a new or reconstructed affected
column as follows: appendix A to part 63. source, the compliance date is the
applicable date in paragraph (a)(1) or (2)
Old paragraph New paragraph * * * * *
of this section:
(79) ASTM D6093–97 (Reapproved
(1) If the initial startup of your new
(c) .............................. (f) 2016), Standard Test Method for Percent
or reconstructed affected source is
(d) .............................. (g) Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or
(e) through (g) ........... (c) through (e) before May 28, 2003, the compliance
Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas
(l) through (s) ............ (m) through (t); date is May 28, 2003; except that the
Pycnometer, Approved December 1,
compliance date for the revised
2016, IBR approved for § 63.4741(a) and
■ c. In paragraph (h)— requirements promulgated at
(b).
■ i. In the introductory text, by §§ 63.4700, 63.4710, 63.4720, 63.4730,
removing ‘‘American Society for Testing * * * * * 63.4741, 63.4751, 63.4752, 63.4761,
and Materials (ASTM)’’ and adding (84) ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 63.4763, 63.4764, 63.4766, 63.4781,
‘‘ASTM International’’ in its place; 2010), Standard Test Method for table 4 of this subpart QQQQ, and
■ ii. By redesignating the paragraphs in Determination of Gaseous Compounds appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 is
the Old Paragraph column as the by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier September 3, 2019.
paragraphs in the New Paragraph Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, (2) If the initial startup of your new
column as follows: including Annexes A1 through A8, or reconstructed affected source occurs
Approved October 1, 2010, IBR after May 28, 2003, the compliance date
Old paragraph New paragraph approved for §§ 63.1571(a), 63.4751(i), is March 4, 2019 or the date of initial
(h)(13) through (h)(19) .... (h)(14) through (h)(20)
63.4752(e), 63.4766(b), tables 4 and 5 to startup of your affected source,
(h)(20) through (h)(23) .... (h)(22) through (h)(25) subpart JJJJJ, tables 4 and 6 to subpart whichever is later; except that if you
(h)(24) through (h)(26) .... (h)(27) through (h)(29) KKKKK, tables 1, 2, and 5 to subpart commenced construction or
(h)(27) through (h)(59) .... (h)(31) through (h)(63) UUUUU and appendix B to subpart
(h)(60) through (h)(73) .... (h)(65) through (h)(78) reconstruction of your new or
(h)(74) through (h)(105) .. (h)(80) through (h)(111); UUUUU. reconstructed affected source after May
* * * * * 28, 2003, but on or before May 16, 2018,
■ iii. By adding new paragraphs (h)(13), (l) Composite Panel Association, the compliance date for the revised
(21), (26), (30), (64), and (79); and 19465 Deerfield Avenue, Suite 306, requirements promulgated at
§§ 63.4700, 63.4710, 63.4720, 63.4730, (3) For new or reconstructed sources system or the add-on control device.
63.4741, 63.4751, 63.4752, 63.4761, with initial startup after May 16, 2018, The SSMP must also address any
63.4763, 63.4764, 63.4766, 63.4781, any coating operation(s) for which you coating operation equipment that may
table 4 of this subpart QQQQ, and use the emission rate with add-on cause increased emissions or that would
appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 is controls option, as specified in affect capture efficiency if the process
September 3, 2019. § 63.4691(c), must be in compliance equipment malfunctions, such as
(b) For an existing affected source, the with the applicable emission limitations conveyors that move parts among
compliance date is the date 3 years after and work practice standards as specified enclosures.
May 28, 2003, except that the in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of ■ 7. Section 63.4710 is amended by
compliance date for the revised this section. revising paragraph (c)(8)(ii) to read as
requirements promulgated at (i) The coating operation(s) must be in follows:
§§ 63.4700, 63.4710, 63.4720, 63.4730, compliance with the applicable
63.4741, 63.4751, 63.4752, 63.4761, emission limit in § 63.4690 at all times. § 63.4710 What notifications must I
63.4763, 63.4764, 63.4766, 63.4781, (ii) The coating operation(s) must be submit?
table 4 of this subpart QQQQ of part 63, in compliance with the operating limits * * * * *
and appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 is for emission capture systems and add- (c) * * *
September 3, 2019. on control devices required by § 63.4692 (8) * * *
* * * * * at all times, except for solvent recovery (ii) For the emission rate without add-
■ 6. Section 63.4700 is amended by: systems for which you conduct liquid- on controls option, provide the
■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(2) liquid material balances according to calculation of the total mass of organic
introductory text and paragraphs § 63.4761(j). HAP emissions for each month; the
(a)(2)(i) and (ii); (iii) The coating operation(s) must be calculation of the total volume of
■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(3); and in compliance with the work practice coating solids used each month; and the
■ c. Revising paragraphs (b) and (d). standards in § 63.4693 at all times. calculation of the 12-month organic
The revisions and addition read as (b) For existing sources as of March 4, HAP emission rate, using Equations 1
follows: 2019, before September 3, 2019, you and 1A (or 1A-alt) through 1C, 2, and 3,
must always operate and maintain your respectively, of § 63.4751.
§ 63.4700 What are my general
requirements for complying with this affected source, including all air * * * * *
subpart? pollution control and monitoring ■ 8. Section 63.4720 is amended by:
(a) * * * equipment you use for purposes of ■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(6)(ii) and
(2) Any coating operation(s) at complying with this subpart, according paragraph (a)(7) introductory text;
existing sources for which you use the to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(1)(i). On ■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(7)(i)
emission rate with add-on controls and after September 3, 2019 for such through (xiv) as paragraphs (a)(7)(i)(A)
option, as specified in § 63.4691(c), existing sources and after March 4, 2019 through (N);
must be in compliance with the for new or reconstructed sources, you ■ c. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(i)
applicable emission limitations as must always operate and maintain your introductory text and paragraph
specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through affected source, including associated air (a)(7)(ii);
(iii) of this section. pollution control equipment and ■ d. Revising paragraph (c) introductory
(i) Before September 3, 2019, the monitoring equipment, in a manner text; and
coating operation(s) must be in consistent with safety and good air ■ e. Adding paragraph (d).
compliance with the applicable pollution control practices for The revisions and additions read as
emission limit in § 63.4690 at all times, minimizing emissions. The general duty follows:
except during periods of startup, to minimize emissions does not require
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). On you to make any further efforts to § 63.4720 What reports must I submit?
and after September 3, 2019, the coating reduce emissions if levels required by (a) * * *
operation(s) must be in compliance with the applicable standard have been (6) * * *
the applicable emission limit in achieved. Determination of whether a (ii) The calculations used to
§ 63.4690 at all times. source is operating in compliance with determine the 12-month organic HAP
(ii) Before September 3, 2019, the operation and maintenance emission rate for the compliance period
coating operation(s) must be in requirements will be based on in which the deviation occurred. You
compliance with the applicable information available to the must provide the calculations for
operating limits for emission capture Administrator which may include, but Equations 1, 1A (or 1A-alt) through 1C,
systems and add-on control devices is not limited to, monitoring results, 2, and 3 in § 63.4751; and if applicable,
required by § 63.4692 at all times, review of operation and maintenance the calculation used to determine mass
except during periods of SSM, and procedures, review of operation and of organic HAP in waste materials
except for solvent recovery systems for maintenance records, and inspection of according to § 63.4751(e)(4). You do not
which you conduct liquid-liquid the source. need to submit background data
material balances according to * * * * * supporting these calculations (e.g.,
§ 63.4761(j). On and after September 3, (d) For existing sources, before information provided by materials
2019, the coating operation(s) must be September 3, 2019, if your affected suppliers or manufacturers, or test
in compliance with the operating limits source uses an emission capture system reports).
for emission capture systems and add- and add-on control device, you must * * * * *
on control devices required by § 63.4692 develop a written startup, shutdown, (7) Deviations: Emission rate with
at all times, except for solvent recovery and malfunction plan (SSMP) according add-on controls option. You must be in
systems for which you conduct liquid- to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(3). The compliance with the emission
liquid material balances according to SSMP must address startup, shutdown, limitations in this subpart as specified
§ 63.4761(j). and corrective actions in the event of a in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) and (ii) of this
* * * * * malfunction of the emission capture section.
(i) For existing sources, before (E) The date and time that each CPMS (i) Data collected using test methods
September 3, 2019, if you used the was inoperative, except for zero (low- supported by EPA’s Electronic Reporting
emission rate with add-on controls level) and high-level checks. Tool (ERT) as listed on EPA’s ERT
option and there was a deviation from (F) The date, time, and duration that website (https://www.epa.gov/
an emission limitation (including any each CPMS was out-of-control, electronic-reporting-air-emissions/
periods when emissions bypassed the including the information in electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time
add-on control device and were diverted § 63.8(c)(8). of the test. Submit the results of the
to the atmosphere), the semiannual (G) The date and time period of each performance test to the EPA via the
compliance report must contain the deviation from an operating limit in Compliance and Emissions Data
information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i)(A) Table 3 to this subpart, date and time Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can
through (N) of this section. This period of any bypass of the add-on be accessed through EPA’s Central Data
includes periods of SSM during which control device. Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/).
deviations occurred. (H) A summary of the total duration The data must be submitted in a file
of each deviation from an operating format generated through the use of
* * * * * limit in Table 3 to this subpart, each EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may
(ii) After March 4, 2019 for new and bypass of the add-on control device submit an electronic file consistent with
reconstructed sources, and on and after during the semiannual reporting period, the extensible markup language (XML)
September 3, 2019 for existing sources, and the total duration as a percent of the schema listed on EPA’s ERT website.
if you used the emission rate with add- total source operating time during that (ii) Data collected using test methods
on controls option and there was a semiannual reporting period. that are not supported by EPA’s ERT as
deviation from an emission limitation (I) A breakdown of the total duration listed on EPA’s ERT website at the time
(including any periods when emissions of the deviations from the operating of the test. The results of the
bypassed the add-on control device and limits in Table 3 to this subpart and performance test must be included as an
were diverted to the atmosphere), the bypasses of the add-on control device attachment in the ERT or an alternate
semiannual compliance report must during the semiannual reporting period electronic file consistent with the XML
contain the information in paragraphs by identifying deviations due to control schema listed on EPA’s ERT website.
(a)(7)(ii)(A) through (M) of this section. equipment problems, process problems, Submit the ERT generated package or
(A) The beginning and ending dates of other known causes, and other alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
each compliance period during which unknown causes; a list of the affected (iii) Confidential business information
the 12-month organic HAP emission rate source or equipment, an estimate of the (CBI). If you claim some of the
exceeded the applicable emission limit quantity of each regulated pollutant information submitted under paragraph
in § 63.4690. emitted over any emission limit, and a (a)(1) of this section is CBI, you must
(B) The calculations used to description of the method used to submit a complete file, including
determine the 12-month organic HAP estimate the emissions. information claimed to be CBI, to the
(J) A summary of the total duration of EPA. The file must be generated through
emission rate for each compliance
CPMS downtime during the semiannual the use of EPA’s ERT or an alternate
period in which a deviation occurred.
reporting period and the total duration electronic file consistent with the XML
You must provide the calculation of the
of CPMS downtime as a percent of the schema listed on EPA’s ERT website.
total mass of organic HAP emissions for
total source operating time during that Submit the file on a compact disc, flash
the coatings, thinners, and cleaning
semiannual reporting period. drive, or other commonly used
materials used each month, using (K) A description of any changes in
Equations 1 and 1A through 1C of electronic storage medium and clearly
the CPMS, coating operation, emission mark the medium as CBI. Mail the
§ 63.4751; and, if applicable, the capture system, or add-on control
calculation used to determine mass of electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/
device since the last semiannual CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group
organic HAP in waste materials reporting period.
according to § 63.4751(e)(4); the Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD
(L) For each deviation from the C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham,
calculation of the total volume of standard, including work practice
coating solids used each month, using NC 27703. The same file with the CBI
standards, a description of the omitted must be submitted to the EPA
Equation 2 of § 63.4751; the calculation deviation, the date and time period of
of the mass of organic HAP emission via EPA’s CDX as described in
the deviation, and the actions you took paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section.
reduction each month by emission to correct the deviation. (2) You must submit the Notification
capture systems and add-on control (M) A statement of the cause of each of Compliance Status required in
devices, using Equations 1 and 1A deviation. § 63.4710(c) and the semiannual
through 1D of § 63.4761, and Equations * * * * * compliance reports required in
2, 3, and 3A through 3C of § 63.4761, as (c) SSM reports. For existing sources, paragraph (a) of this section to the EPA
applicable; the calculation of the total before September 3, 2019, if you used via the CEDRI. (CEDRI can be accessed
mass of organic HAP emissions each the emission rate with add-on controls through the EPA’s CDX (https://
month, using Equation 4 of § 63.4761; option and you had an SSM during the cdx.epa.gov/)). For semiannual
and the calculation of the 12-month semiannual reporting period, you must compliance reports, you must use the
organic HAP emission rate, using submit the reports specified in appropriate electronic report in CEDRI
Equation 5 of § 63.4761. You do not paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. for this subpart or an alternative
need to submit the background data electronic file format consistent with the
* * * * *
supporting these calculations (e.g., (d) Electronic reporting. (1) Within 60 XML schema listed on the CEDRI
information provided by materials days after the date of completing each website (https://www.epa.gov/
suppliers or manufacturers, or test performance test required by this electronic-reporting-air-emissions/
reports). subpart, you must submit the results of compliance-and-emissions-data-
(C) A brief description of the CPMS. the performance test following the reporting-interface-cedri). If the
(D) The date of the latest CPMS procedures specified in paragraphs reporting form specific to this subpart is
certification or audit. (d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. not available in CEDRI at the time that
the report is due, you must submit the majeure, you must meet the ■ g. Redesignating paragraph (k)(6)
report to the Administrator at all the requirements outlined in paragraphs introductory text as paragraph (k)(1)(vi)
appropriate addresses listed in § 63.13. (d)(4)(i) through (v) of this section. introductory text and revising it; and
Once the reporting template has been (i) You may submit a claim if a force ■ h. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(7) and
available in CEDRI for 1 year, you must majeure event is about to occur, occurs, (8) as paragraphs (k)(1)(vii) and (viii).
begin submitting all subsequent reports or has occurred or there are lingering The revisions and additions read as
via CEDRI. For the Notification of effects from such an event within the follows:
Compliance Status, you must submit a period of time beginning five business
days prior to the date the submission is § 63.4730 What records must I keep?
file in portable document format (PDF)
to CEDRI. The reports must be due. For the purposes of this section, a * * * * *
submitted by the deadlines specified in force majeure event is defined as an (c) * * *
this subpart, regardless of the method in event that will be or has been caused by (3) For the emission rate without add-
which the reports are submitted. circumstances beyond the control of the on controls option, a record of the
(3) If you are required to affected facility, its contractors, or any calculation of the total mass of organic
electronically submit a report through entity controlled by the affected facility HAP emissions for the coatings,
CEDRI in EPA’s CDX, you may assert a that prevents you from complying with thinners, and cleaning materials used
claim of EPA system outage for failure the requirement to submit a report each month, using Equations 1, 1A (or
to timely comply with the reporting electronically within the time period 1A-alt) through 1C, and 2 of § 63.4751;
requirement. To assert a claim of EPA prescribed. Examples of such events are and, if applicable, the calculation used
system outage, you must meet the acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, to determine mass of organic HAP in
requirements outlined in paragraphs earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or waste materials according to
(d)(3)(i) through (vii) of this section. terrorism, or equipment failure or safety § 63.4751(e)(4); the calculation of the
(i) You must have been or will be hazard beyond the control of the total volume of coating solids used each
precluded from accessing CEDRI and affected facility (e.g., large scale power month, using Equation 2 of § 63.4751;
submitting a required report within the outage). and the calculation of each 12-month
time prescribed due to an outage of (ii) You must submit the notification organic HAP emission rate, using
either EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems. to the Administrator in writing as soon Equation 3 of § 63.4751.
(ii) The outage must have occurred as possible following the date you first * * * * *
within the period of time beginning five knew, or through due diligence should (k) If you use the emission rate with
business days prior to the date that the have known, that the event may cause add-on controls option, you must keep
submission is due. or has caused a delay in reporting. the records specified in paragraphs
(iii) The outage may be planned or (iii) You must provide to the (k)(1) through (2) of this section.
unplanned. Administrator: (1) For existing sources, before
(iv) You must submit notification to (A) A written description of the force September 3, 2019:
the Administrator in writing as soon as majeure event; * * * * *
possible following the date you first (B) A rationale for attributing the (v) For each capture system that is not
knew, or through due diligence should delay in reporting beyond the regulatory a PTE, the data and documentation you
have known, that the event may cause deadline to the force majeure event; used to determine capture efficiency
or has caused a delay in reporting. (C) Measures taken or to be taken to according to the requirements specified
(v) You must provide to the minimize the delay in reporting; and in §§ 63.4764 and 63.4765(b) through
Administrator a written description (D) The date by which you propose to (e), including the records specified in
identifying: report, or if you have already met the paragraphs (k)(1)(v)(A) through (C) of
(A) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX reporting requirement at the time of the this section that apply to you.
or CEDRI was accessed and the system notification, the date you reported.
was unavailable; (iv) The decision to accept the claim * * * * *
(B) A rationale for attributing the of force majeure and allow an extension (vi) The records specified in
delay in reporting beyond the regulatory to the reporting deadline is solely paragraphs (k)(1)(vi)(A) and (B) of this
deadline to EPA system outage; within the discretion of the section for each add-on control device
(C) Measures taken or to be taken to Administrator. organic HAP destruction or removal
minimize the delay in reporting; and (v) In any circumstance, the reporting efficiency determination as specified in
(D) The date by which you propose to must occur as soon as possible after the § 63.4766.
report, or if you have already met the force majeure event occurs. * * * * *
reporting requirement at the time of the ■ 9. Section 63.4730 is amended by: (2) After March 4, 2019 for new and
notification, the date you reported. ■ a. Revising paragraph (c)(3) and reconstructed sources, and on and after
(vi) The decision to accept the claim paragraph (k) introductory text; September 3, 2019 for existing sources:
of EPA system outage and allow an ■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(1) (i) The records required to show
extension to the reporting deadline is through (4) as paragraphs (k)(1)(i) continuous compliance with each
solely within the discretion of the through (iv); operating limit specified in Table 3 to
Administrator. ■ c. Adding paragraph (k)(1) this subpart that applies to you.
(vii) In any circumstance, the report introductory text and paragraph (k)(2); (ii) For each capture system that is a
must be submitted electronically as ■ d. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(5)(i) PTE, the data and documentation you
soon as possible after the outage is through (iii) as paragraphs (k)(1)(v)(A) used to support a determination that the
resolved. through (C); capture system meets the criteria in
(4) If you are required to ■ e. Redesignating paragraph (k)(5) Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR
electronically submit a report through introductory text as paragraph (k)(1)(v) part 51 for a PTE and has a capture
CEDRI in EPA’s CDX, you may assert a introductory text and revising it; efficiency of 100 percent, as specified in
claim of force majeure for failure to ■ f. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(6)(i) § 63.4765(a).
timely comply with the reporting and (ii) as paragraphs (k)(1)(vi)(A) and (iii) For each capture system that is
requirement. To assert a claim of force (B); not a PTE, the data and documentation
you used to determine capture device performance test showing that (b) * * *
efficiency according to the requirements the performance test was conducted (1) ASTM Method D2697–03
specified in §§ 63.4764 and 63.4765(b) under representative operating (Reapproved 2014) or D6093–97
through (e), including the records conditions. (Reapproved 2016). You may use ASTM
specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(iii)(A) (v) Records of the data and Method D2697–03 (Reapproved 2014),
through (C) of this section that apply to calculations you used to establish the ‘‘Standard Test Method for Volume
you. emission capture and add-on control Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or
(A) Records for a liquid-to- device operating limits as specified in Pigmented Coatings’’ (incorporated by
uncaptured-gas protocol using a § 63.4767 and to document compliance reference, see § 63.14), or D6093–97
temporary total enclosure or building with the operating limits as specified in (Reapproved 2016), ‘‘Standard Test
enclosure. Records of the mass of total Table 3 to this subpart. Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile
volatile hydrocarbon (TVH) as measured (vi) A record of the work practice plan Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings
by Method 204A or F of appendix M to required by § 63.4693, and Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer’’
40 CFR part 51 for each material used documentation that you are (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14),
in the coating operation, and the total implementing the plan on a continuous to determine the volume fraction of
TVH for all materials used during each basis. coating solids for each coating. * * *
capture efficiency test run, including a ■ 10. Section 63.4741 is amended by * * * * *
copy of the test report. Records of the revising: (3) * * *
mass of TVH emissions not captured by ■ a. Paragraph (a)(2);
the capture system that exited the mvolatiles = Total volatile matter content of the
■ b. The subject heading and first
coating, including HAP, volatile organic
temporary total enclosure or building sentence of paragraph (b)(1); compounds (VOC), water, and exempt
enclosure during each capture efficiency ■ c. The defined terms ‘‘mvolatiles’’ and compounds, determined according to
test run as measured by Method 204D or ‘‘Davg’’ in Equation 1 in paragraph (b)(3) Method 24 in appendix A–7 of 40 CFR
E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, introductory text; and part 60, grams volatile matter per liter
including a copy of the test report. ■ d. Paragraph (c). coating.
Records documenting that the enclosure The revisions read as follows: Davg = Average density of volatile matter in
used for the capture efficiency test met the coating, grams volatile matter per
the criteria in Method 204 of appendix § 63.4741 How do I demonstrate initial liter volatile matter, determined from test
compliance with the emission limitations? results using ASTM Method D1475–13,
M to 40 CFR part 51 for either a
temporary total enclosure or a building * * * * * ‘‘Standard Test Method for Density of
(a) * * * Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related
enclosure. Products,’’ (incorporated by reference,
(B) Records for a gas-to-gas protocol (2) Method 24 (appendix A–7 to 40
CFR part 60). For coatings, you may use see § 63.14), information from the
using a temporary total enclosure or a supplier or manufacturer of the material,
building enclosure. Records of the mass Method 24 to determine the mass
or reference sources providing density or
of TVH emissions captured by the fraction of nonaqueous volatile matter specific gravity data for pure materials.
emission capture system as measured by and use that value as a substitute for If there is disagreement between ASTM
Method 204B or C of appendix M to 40 mass fraction of organic HAP. (Note: Method D1475–13 test results and other
CFR part 51 at the inlet to the add-on Method 24 is not appropriate for those information sources, the test results will
control device, including a copy of the coatings with a water content that take precedence.
test report. Records of the mass of TVH would result in an effective detection (c) Determine the density of each
emissions not captured by the capture limit greater than the applicable coating. Determine the density of each
system that exited the temporary total emission limit.) One of the voluntary coating used during the compliance
enclosure or building enclosure during consensus standards in paragraphs period from test results using ASTM
each capture efficiency test run as (a)(2)(i) through (iv) may be used as an Method D1475–13, ‘‘Standard Test
measured by Method 204D or E of alternative to using Method 24. Method for Density of Liquid Coatings,
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, (i) ASTM Method D2111–10 Inks, and Related Products,’’
including a copy of the test report. (Reapproved 2015), ‘‘Standard Test (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14),
Records documenting that the enclosure Methods for Specific Gravity and or information from the supplier or
used for the capture efficiency test met Density of Halogenated Organic manufacturer of the material. If there is
the criteria in Method 204 of appendix Solvents and Their Admixtures,’’ disagreement between ASTM Method
M to 40 CFR part 51 for either a (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14); D1475–13 test results and the supplier’s
temporary total enclosure or a building (ii) ASTM Method D2369–10 or manufacturer’s information, the test
enclosure. (Reapproved 2015)e, ‘‘Standard Test results will take precedence.
(C) Records for an alternative Method for Volatile Content of
Coatings,’’ (incorporated by reference, * * * * *
protocol. Records needed to document a ■ 11. Section 63.4751 is amended by:
capture efficiency determination using see § 63.14);
(iii) ASTM Method D2697–03 ■ a. Revising paragraph (c);
an alternative method or protocol as ■ b. Revising the defined term ‘‘A’’ in
specified in § 63.4765(e), if applicable. (Reapproved 2014), ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter Equation 1 in of paragraph (e)
(iv) The records specified in introductory text; and
paragraphs (k)(2)(iv)(A) and (B) of this in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,’’
■ c. Adding paragraph (i).
section for each add-on control device (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14);
The revisions and addition read as
organic HAP destruction or removal and
(iv) ASTM Method D6093–97 follows:
efficiency determination as specified in
§ 63.4766. (Reapproved 2016), ‘‘Standard Test § 63.4751 How do I demonstrate initial
(A) Records of each add-on control Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile compliance with the emission limitations?
device performance test conducted Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings * * * * *
according to §§ 63.4764 and 63.4766. Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer,’’ (c) Determine the density of each
(B) Records of the coating operation (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). material. Determine the density of each
conditions during the add-on control * * * * * coating, thinner, and cleaning material
used during each month from test A = Total mass of organic HAP in the § 63.14) (for formaldehyde) or Method
results using ASTM Method D1475–13 coatings used during the month, grams, 326 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 (for
as calculated in Equation 1A (or 1A-alt) isocyanates) to obtain an organic HAP
(incorporated by reference, see § 63.14),
of this section.
information from the supplier or emission factor (EF). The voluntary
manufacturer of the material, or * * * * * consensus standard ASTM D6348–03
(i) Alternative compliance
reference sources providing density or (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by
demonstration. As an alternative to
specific gravity data for pure materials. reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an
paragraph (h) of this section, you may
If there is disagreement between ASTM demonstrate initial compliance by alternative to using Method 320 under
Method D1475–13 test results and such identifying each organic HAP the conditions specified in paragraphs
other information sources, the test component in the coating(s) and (i)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section.
results will take precedence. conducting a performance test using (1) You must also calculate the mass
* * * * * Method 320 of appendix A to 40 CFR of organic HAP emitted from the
(e) * * * part 63 or NCASI Method ISS/FP coatings used during the month using
A105.01 (incorporated by reference in Equation 1A-alt of this section:
Where: ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 2010), using Method 320 under the conditions
A = Total mass of organic HAP in the sections A1 through A8 are mandatory. specified in § 63.4751(i)(4)(i) and (ii).
coatings used during the month, grams. (ii) In ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved ■ 13. Section 63.4761 is amended by
Volc,i = Total volume of coating, i, used revising paragraph (j)(3) to read as
2010) Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking
during the month, liters.
Technique), the percent (%) R must be follows:
Dc,j = Density of coating, i, grams coating per
liter of coatings. determined for each target analyte
§ 63.4761 How do I demonstrate initial
Wc,i = Mass fraction of organic HAP in (Equation A5.5 of ASTM D6348–03). In compliance?
coating, i, grams organic HAP per gram order for the test data to be acceptable
coating. for a compound, %R must be between * * * * *
EFc,i = Organic HAP emission factor (three- (j) * * *
70 and 130 percent. If the %R value (3) Determine the mass fraction of
run average from performance testing, does not meet this criterion for a target
evaluated as proportion of mass organic volatile organic matter for each coating,
compound, the test data are not thinner, and cleaning material used in
HAP emitted to mass of organic HAP in
acceptable for that compound, and the the coating operation controlled by the
the coatings used during the
performance test). test must be repeated for that analyte solvent recovery system during the
m = Number of different coatings used during following adjustment of the sampling month, grams volatile organic matter per
the month. and/or analytical procedure before the gram coating. You may determine the
retest. The %R value for each volatile organic matter mass fraction
(2) Calculate the organic HAP compound must be reported in the test
emission rate for the 12-month using Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60,
report, and all field measurements must appendix A–7, one of the voluntary
compliance period, grams organic HAP be corrected with the calculated %R
per liter coating solids used, using consensus standards specified in
value for that compound using the § 63.4741(a)(2)(i) through (iv), or an EPA
Equation 3 of this section. following equation: Reported Result = approved alternative method, or you
(3) The organic HAP emission rate for (Measured Concentration in the Stack × may use information provided by the
the initial 12-month compliance period, 100)/%R. manufacturer or supplier of the coating.
calculated using Equation 3 of this
■ 12. Section 63.4752 is amended by In the event of any inconsistency
section, must be less than or equal to the
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: between information provided by the
applicable emission limit in § 63.4690.
manufacturer or supplier and the results
You must keep all records as required § 63.4752 How do I demonstrate of Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60,
by §§ 63.4730 and 63.4731. As part of continuous compliance with the emission
appendix A–7, or an approved
the Notification of Compliance Status limitations?
alternative method, the test method
required by § 63.4710, you must identify * * * * * results will take precedence unless after
the coating operation(s) for which you (e) If you use the alternative consultation, a regulated source could
used the emission rate without add-on compliance demonstration described in demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
controls option and submit a statement § 63.4751(i), you must identify each enforcement agency that the formulation
that the coating operation(s) was (were) organic HAP component in the data were correct.
in compliance with the emission coating(s) and conduct a performance
limitations during the initial * * * * *
test every 5 years to obtain an organic
compliance period because the organic ■ 14. Section 63.4763 is amended by
HAP emission factor (EF). You must use
HAP emission rate was less than or revising paragraph (h) to read as
the following methods, as appropriate:
equal to the applicable emission limit in follows:
Method 320 of appendix A to 40 CFR
§ 63.4690, determined according to this part 63 or NCASI Method ISS/FP § 63.4763 How do I demonstrate
section. A105.01 (incorporated by reference, see continuous compliance with the emission
(4) If ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved § 63.14) (for formaldehyde) or Method limitations?
2010) is used, the conditions specified 326 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 (for * * * * *
in paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (ii) must be isocyanates). The voluntary consensus (h) For existing sources, before
met. standard ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved September 3, 2019, consistent with
(i) Test plan preparation and 2010) (incorporated by reference, see §§ 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that
ER04MR19.010</GPH>
implementation in the Annexes to § 63.14) may be used as an alternative to occur during a period of SSM of the
emission capture system, add-on control document emission capture system and using Method 320 if the conditions
device, or coating operation that may add-on control device operating specified in § 63.4751(i)(4)(i) and (ii) are
affect emission capture or control device conditions during the test and explain met. You must use the same method for
efficiency are not violations if you why the conditions represent normal both the inlet and outlet measurements.
demonstrate to the Administrator’s operation. (1) Use Method 25 of appendix A–7
satisfaction that you were operating in * * * * * to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on control
accordance with § 63.6(e)(1). The ■ 16. Section 63.4766 is amended by device is an oxidizer, and you expect
Administrator will determine whether revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (4), the total gaseous organic concentration
deviations that occur during a period (b), (d), and (f) to read as follows: as carbon to be more than 50 parts per
you identify as an SSM are violations, million (ppm) at the control device
according to the provisions in § 63.6(e). § 63.4766 How do I determine the add-on outlet.
* * * * * control device emission destruction or (2) Use Method 25A of appendix A–
removal efficiency?
■ 15. Section 63.4764 is amended by 7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on control
revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to read * * * * * device is an oxidizer, and you expect
(a) * * * the total gaseous organic concentration
as follows:
(1) Use Method 1 or 1A of appendix as carbon to be 50 ppm or less at the
§ 63.4764 What are the general A–1 to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, control device outlet.
requirements for performance tests? to select sampling sites and velocity
(3) Use Method 25A of appendix A–
(a) * * * traverse points.
7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on control
(1) Representative coating operation (2) Use Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F
device is not an oxidizer.
operating conditions. You must conduct of appendix A–1 to 40 CFR part 60, or
Method 2G of appendix A–2 to 40 CFR (4) If Method 25A is used, and if
the performance test under
part 60, as appropriate, to measure gas formaldehyde is a major organic HAP
representative operating conditions for
volumetric flow rate. component of the surface coating
the coating operation. Operations during
(3) Use Method 3, 3A, or 3B of exhaust stream, use Method 320 of
periods of startup, shutdown, and
appendix A–2 to 40 CFR part 60, as appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 or NCASI
nonoperation do not constitute
appropriate, for gas analysis to Method ISS/FP A105.01 (incorporated
representative conditions. You may not
determine dry molecular weight. You by reference in § 63.14) or ASTM
conduct performance tests during
may also use as an alternative to Method D6348–03 (Reapproved 2010)
periods of malfunction. You must
3B, the manual method for measuring (incorporated by reference in § 63.14) to
record the process information that is
the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon determine formaldehyde concentration.
necessary to document operating
conditions during the test and explain monoxide content of exhaust gas in (5) In addition to Method 25 or 25A,
why the conditions represent normal ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue use Method 326 of appendix A to 40
operation. Upon request, you shall make and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, CFR part 63 if isocyanate is a major
available to the Administrator such Instruments and Apparatus]’’ organic HAP component of the surface
records as may be necessary to (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). coating exhaust stream.
determine the conditions of (4) Use Method 4 of appendix A–3 to * * * * *
performance tests. 40 CFR part 60 to determine stack gas (d) For each test run, determine the
(2) Representative emission capture moisture. total gaseous organic emissions mass
system and add-on control device * * * * * flow rates for the inlet and the outlet of
operating conditions. You must conduct (b) Measure total gaseous organic the add-on control device, using
the performance test when the emission mass emissions as carbon at the inlet Equation 1 of this section. If there is
capture system and add-on control and outlet of the add-on control device more than one inlet or outlet to the add-
device are operating at a representative simultaneously, using Method 25 or on control device, you must calculate
flow rate, and the add-on control device 25A of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60, the total gaseous organic mass flow rate
is operating at a representative inlet and Method 320 or 326 of appendix A using Equation 1 of this section for each
concentration. Representative to 40 CFR part 63, as specified in inlet and each outlet and then total all
conditions exclude periods of startup paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this of the inlet emissions and total all of the
and shutdown. You may not conduct section. The voluntary consensus outlet emissions. The mass emission
performance tests during periods of standard ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved rates for formaldehyde and individual
malfunction. You must record 2010) (incorporated by reference in isocyanate must be determined
information that is necessary to § 63.14) may be used as an alternative to separately.
Where: or 2G, dry standard cubic meters/hour section. Destruction and removal
Mf = Total gaseous organic emissions mass (dscm/h). efficiency must be determined
flow rate, grams per hour (h). 41.6 = Conversion factor for molar volume,
independently for formaldehyde and
MW = Molecular weight of analyte of interest gram-moles per cubic meter (mol/m3) (@
293 Kelvin (K) and 760 millimeters of isocyanates.
(12 for Method 25 and 25A results).
mercury (mmHg)). ■ 17. Section 63.4781 is amended by
Cc = Concentration of organic compounds in
the vent gas (as carbon if determined by * * * * * revising paragraph (3) under the
Method 25 or Method 25A), parts per (f) Determine the emission destruction definition of ‘‘deviation’’ and revising
million by volume (ppmv), dry basis. or removal efficiency of the add-on the definition of ‘‘tileboard’’ to read as
Qsd = Volumetric flow rate of gases entering control device as the average of the follows:
or exiting the add-on control device, as efficiencies determined in the three test
ER04MR19.000</GPH>
determined by Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, runs and calculated in Equation 2 of this
§ 63.4781 What definitions apply to this

the standard ANSI A135.4–2012 is also known as Class I hardboard or
subpart? (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) tempered hardboard.
* * * * * as approved by the American National * * * * *
Deviation * * * Standards Institute. The standard ■ 18. Table 4 to Subpart QQQQ is
(3) On and after September 3, 2019, specifies requirements and test methods revised to read as follows:
fails to meet any emission limit, or for water absorption, thickness swelling, Table 4 to Subpart QQQQ of Part 63—
operating limit, or work practice modulus of rupture, tensile strength, Applicability of General Provisions to
standard in this subpart during SSM. surface finish, dimensions, squareness, Subpart QQQQ of Part 63
* * * * * edge straightness, and moisture content You must comply with the applicable
Tileboard means hardboard that meets for five classes of hardboard. Tileboard General Provisions requirements
the specifications for Class I given by according to the following table:
Applicable
Citation Subject to subpart Explanation
QQQQ
§ 63.1(a)(1)–(14) ................ General Applicability ............................................. Yes.

§ 63.1(b)(1)–(3) .................. Initial Applicability Determination ......................... Yes ............. Applicability to subpart QQQQ is also specified
in § 63.4681.
§ 63.1(c)(1) ........................ Applicability After Standard Established .............. Yes.
§ 63.1(c)(2) ........................ Applicability of Permit Program for Area Sources No .............. Area sources are not subject to subpart QQQQ.
§ 63.1(c)(3) ........................ [Reserved] ............................................................ No.
§ 63.1(c)(4)–(5) .................. Extensions and Notifications ................................ Yes.
§ 63.1(d) ............................ [Reserved] ............................................................ No.
§ 63.1(e) ............................ Applicability of Permit Program Before Relevant Yes.
Standard is Set.
§ 63.2 ................................. Definitions ............................................................. Yes ............. Additional definitions are specified in § 63.4781.
§ 63.3(a)–(c) ...................... Units and Abbreviations ....................................... Yes.
§ 63.4(a)(1)–(5) .................. Prohibited Activities .............................................. Yes.
§ 63.4(b)–(c) ...................... Circumvention/Severability ................................... Yes.
§ 63.5(a) ............................ Construction/Reconstruction ................................ Yes.
§ 63.5(b)(1)–(6) .................. Requirements for Existing, Newly Constructed, Yes.
and Reconstructed Sources.
§ 63.5(c) ............................. [Reserved] ............................................................ No.
§ 63.5(d) ............................ Application for Approval of Construction/Recon- Yes.
struction.
§ 63.5(e) ............................ Approval of Construction/Reconstruction ............. Yes.
§ 63.5(f) ............................. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction Based Yes.
on Prior State Review.
§ 63.6(a) ............................ Compliance With Standards and Maintenance Yes.
Requirements—Applicability.
§ 63.6(b)(1)–(7) .................. Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Yes ............. § 63.4683 specifies compliance dates.
Sources.
§ 63.6(c)(1)–(5) .................. Compliance Dates for Existing Sources .............. Yes ............. § 63.4683 specifies compliance dates.
§ 63.6(d) ............................ [Reserved] ............................................................ No.
§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ..................... General Duty to Minimize Emissions ................... No .............. See § 63.4700(b) for general duty requirement.
§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) .................... Requirement to Correct Malfunctions ASAP ........ No.
§ 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ................... Operation and Maintenance Requirements En- Yes.
forceable Independent of Emissions Limita-
tions.
§ 63.6(e)(2) ........................ [Reserved] ............................................................ No.
§ 63.6(e)(3) ........................ SSMP ................................................................... No.
§ 63.6(f)(1) ......................... Compliance Except During SSM .......................... No.
§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ................... Methods for Determining Compliance .................. Yes.
§ 63.6(g)(1)–(3) .................. Use of an Alternative Standard ............................ Yes.
§ 63.6(h) ............................ Compliance with Opacity/Visible Emissions No .............. Subpart QQQQ does not establish opacity stand-
Standards. ards and does not require continuous opacity
monitoring systems (COMS).
§ 63.6(i)(1)–(16) ................. Extension of Compliance ..................................... Yes.
§ 63.6(j) .............................. Presidential Compliance Exemption .................... Yes.
§ 63.7(a)(1) ........................ Performance Test Requirements—Applicability ... Yes ............. Applies to all affected sources. Additional re-
quirements for performance testing are speci-
fied in §§ 63.4751, 63.4752, 63.4764, 63.4765,
and 63.4766.
§ 63.7(a)(2) ........................ Performance Test Requirements—Dates ............ Yes ............. Applies only to performance tests for capture
system and control device efficiency at
sources using these to comply with the stand-
ard. § 63.4760 specifies the schedule for per-
formance test requirements that are earlier
than those specified in § 63.7(a)(2).
§ 63.7(a)(3) ........................ Performance Tests Required By the Adminis- Yes.
trator.
§ 63.7(a)(4) ........................ Notification of Delay in Performance Testing Due Yes.
to Force Majeure.
Applicable
QQQQ
§ 63.7(b)–(d) ...................... Performance Test Requirements—Notification, Yes ............. Applies only to performance tests for capture
Quality Assurance, Facilities Necessary for system and add-on control device efficiency at
Safe Testing, Conditions During Test. sources using these to comply with the stand-
ard.
§ 63.7(e)(1) ........................ Performance Testing ............................................ Yes.
§ 63.7(f) ............................. Performance Test Requirements—Use of Alter- Yes ............. Applies to all test methods except those used to
native Test Method. determine capture system efficiency.
§ 63.7(g)–(h) ...................... Performance Test Requirements—Data Analysis, Yes ............. Applies only to performance tests for capture
Recordkeeping, Reporting, Waiver of Test. system and add-on control device efficiency at
sources using these to comply with the stand-
ard.
§ 63.8(a)(1)–(2) .................. Monitoring Requirements—Applicability ............... Yes ............. Applies only to monitoring of capture system and
add-on control device efficiency at sources
using these to comply with the standard. Addi-
tional requirements for monitoring are speci-
fied in § 63.4768.
§ 63.8(a)(3) ........................ [Reserved] ............................................................ No.
§ 63.8(a)(4) ........................ Additional Monitoring Requirements .................... No .............. Subpart QQQQ does not have monitoring re-
quirements for flares.
§ 63.8(b) ............................ Conduct of Monitoring .......................................... Yes.
§ 63.8(c)(1) ........................ Continuous Monitoring System (CMS) Operation Yes ............. Applies only to monitoring of capture system and
and Maintenance. add-on control device efficiency at sources
using these to comply with the standard. Addi-
tional requirements for CMS operations and
maintenance are specified in § 63.4768.
§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) ..................... General Duty to Minimize Emissions and CMS No.
Operation.
§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) .................... Operation and Maintenance of CMS ................... Yes.
§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) .................... Requirement to Develop SSM Plan for CMS ...... No.
§ 63.8(c)(2)–(3) .................. Monitoring System Installation ............................. Yes.
§ 63.8(c)(4) ........................ CMSs .................................................................... No .............. § 63.4768 specifies the requirements for the op-
eration of CMS for capture systems and add-
on control devices at sources using these to
comply.
§ 63.8(c)(5) ........................ COMS ................................................................... No .............. Subpart QQQQ does not have opacity for visible
emission standards.
§ 63.8(c)(6) ........................ CMS Requirements .............................................. Yes ............. § 63.4768 specifies the requirements for moni-
toring systems for capture systems and add-
on control devices at sources using these to
comply.
§ 63.8(c)(7) ........................ CMS Out-of-Control Periods ................................ Yes.
§ 63.8(c)(8) ........................ CMS Out-of-Control Periods Reporting ............... No .............. § 63.4720 requires reporting of CMS out-of-con-
trol periods.
§ 63.8(d)–(e) ...................... Quality Control Program and CMS Performance No .............. Subpart QQQQ does not require the use of con-
Evaluation. tinuous emissions monitoring systems.
§ 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ................... Use of an Alternative Monitoring Method ............ Yes.
§ 63.8(f)(6) ......................... Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test .................. No .............. Subpart QQQQ does not require the use of con-
tinuous emissions monitoring systems.
§ 63.8(g)(1)–(5) .................. Data Reduction ..................................................... No .............. §§ 63.4767 and 63.4768 specify monitoring data
reduction.
§ 63.9(a)–(d) ...................... Notification Requirements .................................... Yes.
§ 63.9(e) ............................ Notification of Performance Test .......................... Yes ............. Applies only to capture system and add-on con-
trol device performance tests at sources using
these to comply with the standard.
§ 63.9(f) ............................. Notification of Visible Emissions/Opacity Test ..... No .............. Subpart QQQQ does not have opacity or visible
emission standards.
§ 63.9(g)(1)–(3) .................. Additional Notifications When Using CMS ........... No .............. Subpart QQQQ does not require the use of con-
§ 63.9(h) ............................ Notification of Compliance Status ........................ Yes ............. § 63.4710 specifies the dates for submitting the
Notification of Compliance Status.
§ 63.9(i) .............................. Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines ...................... Yes.
§ 63.9(j) .............................. Change in Previous Information ........................... Yes.
§ 63.10(a) .......................... Recordkeeping/Reporting—Applicability and Yes.
General Information.
§ 63.10(b)(1) ...................... General Recordkeeping Requirements ................ Yes ............. Additional requirements are specified in
§§ 63.4730 and 63.4731.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(ii) ............. Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Duration of No.
Startups and Shutdowns.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ................. Recordkeeping Relevant to CMS ......................... Yes.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ........... Recordkeeping Relevant to SSM ......................... No.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(xi) .......... Recordkeeping for CMS Malfunctions ................. Yes.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(xii) ................ Records ................................................................ Yes.
Applicable
QQQQ
§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ................ ............................................................................... No .............. Subpart QQQQ does not require the use of con-
§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ............... ............................................................................... Yes.
§ 63.10(b)(3) ...................... Recordkeeping Requirements for Applicability Yes.
Determinations.
§ 63.10(c)(1)–(6) ................ Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Yes.
Sources with CMS.
§ 63.10(c)(7)–(8) ................ ............................................................................... No .............. The same records are required in
§ 63.4720(a)(7).
§ 63.10(c)(9)–(14) .............. ............................................................................... Yes.
§ 63.10(c)(15) .................... Use of SSM Plan .................................................. No.
§ 63.10(d)(1) ...................... General Reporting Requirements ........................ Yes ............. Additional requirements are specified in
§ 63.4720.
§ 63.10(d)(2) ...................... Report of Performance Test Results ................... Yes ............. Additional requirements are specified in
§ 63.4720(b).
§ 63.10(d)(3) ...................... Reporting Opacity or Visible Emissions Observa- No .............. Subpart QQQQ does not require opacity or visi-
tions. ble emissions observations.
§ 63.10(d)(4) ...................... Progress Reports for Sources With Compliance Yes.
Extensions.
§ 63.10(d)(5) ...................... SSM Reports ........................................................ No .............. Malfunctions shall be reported based on compli-
ance option under § 63.4720(a)(5–7).
§ 63.10(e)(1)–(2) ................ Additional CMS Reports ....................................... No .............. Subpart QQQQ does not require the use of con-
§ 63.10(e)(3) ...................... Excess Emissions/CMS Performance Reports .... No .............. § 63.4720(b) specifies the contents of periodic
compliance reports.
§ 63.10(e)(4) ...................... COMS Data Reports ............................................ No .............. Subpart QQQQ does not specify requirements
for opacity or COMS.
§ 63.10(f) ........................... Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver ........................ Yes.
§ 63.11 ............................... Control Device Requirements/Flares ................... No .............. Subpart QQQQ does not specify use of flares for
compliance.
§ 63.12 ............................... State Authority and Delegations .......................... Yes.
§ 63.13 ............................... Addresses ............................................................. Yes.
§ 63.14 ............................... Incorporation by Reference .................................. Yes ............. Test Methods ANSI A135.4–2012, ANSI/ASME
PTC 19.10–1981, Part 10, ASTM D1475–13,
ASTM D2111–10 (Reapproved 2015), ASTM
D2369–10 (Reapproved 2015) e, ASTM
D2697–03 (Reapproved 2014), ASTM D4840–
99 (2018) e, ASTM D6093–97 (Reapproved
2016), ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 2010)
and NCASI Method ISS/FP A105.01 (incor-
porated by reference, see § 63.14).
§ 63.15 ............................... Availability of Information/Confidentiality .............. Yes.
§ 63.16 ............................... Requirements for Performance Track Member Yes.
Facilities.
■ 19. Appendix A to part 63 is amended Method 326—Method for Determination of methods. Therefore, to obtain reliable results,
by adding Method 326 in numerical Isocyanates in Stationary Source Emissions persons using this method should have a
order to read as follows: thorough knowledge of at least Method 1,
1.0 Scope and Application Method 2, Method 3, and Method 5 found in
Appendix A to Part 63—Test Methods This method is applicable to the collection Appendices A–1, A–2, and A–3 in Part 60 of
and analysis of isocyanate compounds from this title.
* * * * * the emissions associated with manufacturing 1.1 Analytes. This method is designed to
processes. This method is not inclusive with determine the mass emission of isocyanates
respect to specifications (e.g., equipment and being emitted from manufacturing processes.
supplies) and sampling procedures essential The following is a table (Table 1–1) of the
to its performance. Some material is isocyanates and the manufacturing process at
incorporated by reference from other EPA which the method has been evaluated:
TABLE 326–1—ANALYTES
Detection limit
Compound’s name CAS No. Manufacturing process
(ng/m3) a
2,4-Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI) ................................................ 584–84–9 106 Flexible Foam Production.

1,6-Hexamethylene Diisocyanate (HDI) .................................... 822–06–0 396 Paint Spray Booth.
Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanate (MDI) ................................... 101–68–8 112 Pressed Board Production.
Methyl Isocyanate (MI) .............................................................. 624–83–0 228 Not used in production.
a Estimated detection limits are based on a sample volume of 1 m3 and a 10-ml sample extraction volume.
1.2 Applicability. Method 326 is a 5.0 Safety 6.2.2 Wash Bottles. Three. PTFE or glass
method designed for determining compliance 5.1 Organizations performing this method wash bottles are recommended; polyethylene
with National Emission Standards for are responsible for maintaining a current wash bottles must not be used because
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Method awareness file of Occupational Safety and organic contaminants may be extracted by
326 may also be specified by New Source Health Administration (OSHA) regulations exposure to organic solvents used for sample
Performance Standards (NSPS), State regarding safe handling of the chemicals recovery.
Implementation Plans (SIPs), and operating specified in this method. A reference file of 6.2.3 Glass Sample Storage Containers.
permits that require measurement of material safety data sheets should also be Chemically resistant, borosilicate amber glass
isocyanates in stationary source emissions, to made available to all personnel involved in bottles, 500-mL or 1,000-mL. Bottles should
determine compliance with an applicable performing the method. Additional be tinted to prevent the action of light on the
references to laboratory safety are available. sample. Screw-cap liners shall be either
emission standard or limit.
PTFE or constructed to be leak-free and
1.3 Data Quality Objectives (DQO). The 6.0 Equipment and Supplies resistant to chemical attack by organic
principal objective is to ensure the accuracy recovery solvents. Narrow-mouth glass
of the data at the actual emissions levels and 6.1 Sample Collection. A schematic of the
sampling train used in this method is shown bottles have been found to leak less
in the actual emissions matrix encountered. frequently.
To meet this objective, method performance in Figure 207–1. This sampling train
configuration is adapted from Method 5 6.2.4 Graduated Cylinder. To measure
tests are required and NIST-traceable impinger contents to the nearest 1 ml or 1 g.
procedures, and, as such, most of the
calibration standards must be used. Graduated cylinders shall have subdivisions
required equipment is identical to that used
2.0 Summary of Method in Method 5 determinations. The only new not >2 mL.
component required is a condenser. 6.2.5 Plastic Storage Containers. Screw-
2.1 Gaseous and/or aerosol isocyanates cap polypropylene or polyethylene
6.1.1 Probe Nozzle. Borosilicate or quartz
are withdrawn from an emission source at an glass; constructed and calibrated according to containers to store silica gel and charcoal.
isokinetic sampling rate and are collected in Method 5, sections 6.1.1.1 and 10.1, and 6.2.6 Funnel and Rubber Policeman. To
a multicomponent sampling train. The coupled to the probe liner using a Teflon aid in transfer of silica gel or charcoal to
primary components of the train include a union; a stainless steel nut is recommended container (not necessary if silica gel is
heated probe, three impingers containing for this union. When the stack temperature weighed in field).
derivatizing reagent in toluene, an empty exceeds 210 °C (410 °F), a one-piece glass 6.2.7 Funnels. Glass, to aid in sample
impinger, an impinger containing charcoal, nozzle/liner assembly must be used. recovery.
and an impinger containing silica gel. 6.1.2 Probe Liner. Same as Method 5, 6.3 Sample Preparation and Analysis.
2.2 The liquid impinger contents are section 6.1.1.2, except metal liners shall not The following items are required for
recovered, concentrated to dryness under be used. Water-cooling of the stainless steel sample analysis.
vacuum, brought to volume with acetonitrile sheath is recommended at temperatures 6.3.1 Rotary Evaporator. Buchii Model
(ACN) and analyzed with a high pressure exceeding 500 °C (932 °F). Teflon may be EL–130 or equivalent.
liquid chromatograph (HPLC). used in limited applications where the 6.3.2 1000 ml Round Bottom Flask for use
minimum stack temperature exceeds 120 °C with a rotary evaporator.
3.0 Definitions [Reserved] (250 °F) but never exceeds the temperature 6.3.3 Separatory Funnel. 500-ml or larger,
where Teflon is estimated to become unstable with PTFE stopcock.
4.0 Interferences
[approximately 210 °C (410 °F)]. 6.3.4 Glass Funnel. Short-stemmed or
4.1 The greatest potential for interference 6.1.3 Pitot Tube, Differential Pressure equivalent.
comes from an impurity in the derivatizing Gauge, Filter Heating System, Metering 6.3.5 Vials. 15-ml capacity with PTFE
reagent, 1-(2-pyridyl)piperazine (1,2-PP). System, Barometer, Gas Density lined caps.
This compound may interfere with the Determination Equipment. Same as Method 6.3.6 Class A Volumetric Flasks. 10-ml
resolution of MI from the peak attributed to 5, sections 6.1.1.3, 6.1.1.4, 6.1.1.6, 6.1.1.9, for bringing samples to volume after
unreacted 1,2-PP. 6.1.2, and 6.1.3. concentration.
4.2 Other interferences that could result 6.1.4 Impinger Train. Glass impingers are 6.3.7 Filter Paper. Qualitative grade or
in positive or negative bias are (1) alcohols connected in series with leak-free ground- equivalent.
that could compete with the 1,2-PP for glass joints following immediately after the 6.3.8 Buchner Funnel. Porcelain with 100
reaction with an isocyanate and (2) other heated probe. The first impinger shall be of mm ID or equivalent.
compounds that may co-elute with one or the Greenburg-Smith design with the 6.3.9 Erlenmeyer Flask. 500-ml with side
more of the derivatized isocyanates. standard tip. The remaining five impingers arm and vacuum source.
4.3 Method interferences may be caused shall be of the modified Greenburg-Smith 6.3.10 HPLC with at least a binary
by contaminants in solvents, reagents, design, modified by replacing the tip with a pumping system capable of a programmed
glassware, and other sample processing 1.3-cm (1⁄2-in.) I.D. glass tube extending about gradient.
hardware. All these materials must be 1.3 cm (1⁄2 in.) from the bottom of the outer 6.3.11 Column Systems Column systems
cylinder. A water-jacketed condenser is used to measure isocyanates must be capable
routinely shown to be free from interferences
placed between the outlet of the first of achieving separation of the target
under conditions of the analysis by preparing
impinger and the inlet to the second compounds from the nearest eluting
and analyzing laboratory method (or reagent)
impinger to reduce the evaporation of compound or interferents with no more than
blanks. toluene from the first impinger. 10 percent peak overlap.
4.3.1 Glassware must be cleaned 6.1.5 Moisture Measurement. For the 6.3.12 Detector. UV detector at 254 nm. A
thoroughly before using. The glassware purpose of calculating volumetric flow rate fluorescence detector (FD) with an excitation
should be washed with laboratory detergent and isokinetic sampling, you must also of 240 nm and an emission at 370 nm may
in hot water followed by rinsing with tap collect either Method 4 in Appendix A–3 to be also used to allow the detection of low
water and distilled water. The glassware may this part or other moisture measurement concentrations of isocyanates in samples.
be dried by baking in a glassware oven at 400 methods approved by the Administrator 6.3.13 Data system for measuring peak
°C for at least one hour. After the glassware concurrent with each Method 326 test run. areas and retention times.
has cooled, it should be rinsed three times 6.2 Sample Recovery
with methylene chloride and three times 6.2.1 Probe and Nozzle Brushes; 7.0 Reagents and Standards
with acetonitrile. Volumetric glassware Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) bristle 7.1 Sample Collection Reagents.
should not be heated to 400 °C. Instead, after brushes with stainless steel wire or PTFE 7.1.1 Charcoal. Activated, 6–16 mesh.
washing and rinsing, volumetric glassware handles are required. The probe brush shall Used to absorb toluene vapors and prevent
may be rinsed with acetonitrile followed by have extensions constructed of stainless them from entering the metering device. Use
methylene chloride and allowed to dry in air. steel, PTFE, or inert material at least as long once with each train and discard.
4.3.2 The use of high purity reagents and as the probe. The brushes shall be properly 7.1.2 Silica Gel and Crushed Ice. Same as
solvents helps to reduce interference sized and shaped to brush out the probe liner Method 5, sections 7.1.2 and 7.1.4
problems in sample analysis. and the probe nozzle. respectively
7.1.3 Impinger Solution. The impinger Method 5, section 8.3.1, except for the container, and mark the liquid level on the
solution is prepared by mixing a known following variations: Place 300 ml of the bottle.
amount of 1-(2-pyridyl) piperazine (purity impinger absorbing solution in the first 8.2.2 Container No. 2, Impingers 3 and 4.
99.5+%) in toluene (HPLC grade or impinger and 200 ml each in the second and Quantitatively transfer the liquid from each
equivalent). The actual concentration of 1,2- third impingers. The fourth impinger shall impinger into a glass container labeled with
PP should be approximately four times the remain empty. The fifth and sixth impingers the test run identification and ‘‘Container No.
amount needed to ensure that the capacity of shall have 400 g of charcoal and 200–300 g 2.’’ Rinse each impinger and all connecting
the derivatizing solution is not exceeded. of silica gel, respectively. Alternatively, the glassware twice with toluene and twice again
This amount shall be calculated from the charcoal and silica gel may be combined in with acetonitrile and transfer the rinses into
stoichiometric relationship between 1,2-PP the fifth impinger. Set-up the train as in Container No. 2. After all components have
and the isocyanate of interest and Figure 326–1. During assembly, do not use been collected in the container, seal the
preliminary information about the any silicone grease on ground-glass joints. container, and mark the liquid level on the
concentration of the isocyanate in the stack Note: During preparation and assembly of bottle.
emissions. A concentration of 130 mg/ml of the sampling train, keep all openings where Note: The contents of the fifth and sixth
1,2-PP in toluene can be used as a reference contamination can occur covered with PTFE impinger (silica gel) can be discarded.
point. This solution shall be prepared, stored film or aluminum foil until just before
in a refrigerated area away from light, and 8.2.3 Container No. 3, Reagent Blank.
assembly or until sampling is about to begin.
used within ten days of preparation. Save a portion of both washing solutions
8.1.3 Leak-Check Procedures. Follow the (toluene/acetonitrile) used for the cleanup as
7.2 Sample Recovery Reagents. leak-check procedures given in Method 5,
7.2.1 Toluene. HPLC grade is required for a blank. Transfer 200 ml of each solution
sections 8.4.2 (Pretest Leak-Check), 8.4.3 directly from the wash bottle being used and
sample recovery and cleanup (see Note to (Leak-Checks During the Sample Run), and
7.2.2 below). combine in a glass sample container with the
8.4.4 (Post-Test Leak-Check), with the test identification and ‘‘Container No. 3.’’
7.2.2 Acetonitrile. HPLC grade is required exception that the pre-test leak-check is
for sample recovery and cleanup. Note: Seal the container, and mark the liquid level
mandatory
Organic solvents stored in metal containers on the bottle and add the proper label.
8.1.4 Sampling Train Operation. Follow
may have a high residue blank and should 8.2.4 Field Train Proof Blanks. To
the general procedures given in Method 5,
not be used. Sometimes suppliers transfer demonstrate the cleanliness of sampling train
section 8.5. Turn on the condenser coil
solvents from metal to glass bottles; thus coolant recirculating pump and monitor the glassware, you must prepare a full sampling
blanks shall be run before field use and only gas entry temperature. Ensure proper gas train to serve as a field train proof blank just
solvents with a low blank value should be entry temperature before proceeding and as it would be prepared for sampling. At a
used. again before any sampling is initiated. It is minimum, one complete sampling train will
7.3 Analysis Reagents. Reagent grade important that the gas entry temperature not be assembled in the field staging area, taken
chemicals should be used in all tests. All exceed 50 °C (122 °F), thus reducing the loss to the sampling area, and leak-checked. The
reagents shall conform to the specifications of toluene from the first impinger. For each probe of the blank train shall be heated
of the Committee on Analytical Reagents of run, record the data required on a data sheet during and the train will be recovered as if
the American Chemical Society, where such such as the one shown in Method 5, Figure it were an actual test sample. No gaseous
specifications are available. 5–3. sample will be passed through the sampling
7.3.1 Toluene, C6H5CH3. HPLC Grade or 8.2 Sample Recovery. Allow the probe to train. Field blanks are recovered in the same
equivalent. cool. When the probe can be handled safely, manner as described in sections 8.2.1 and
7.3.2 Acetonitrile, CH3CN (ACN). HPLC wipe off all external particulate matter near 8.2.2 and must be submitted with the field
Grade or equivalent. the tip of the probe nozzle and place a cap samples collected at each sampling site.
7.3.3 Methylene Chloride, CH2Cl2. HPLC over the tip to prevent losing or gaining 8.2.5 Field Train Spike. To demonstrate
Grade or equivalent. particulate matter. Do not cap the probe tip the effectiveness of the sampling train, field
7.3.4 Hexane, C6H14. HPLC Grade or tightly while the sampling train is cooling handling, and recovery procedures you must
equivalent. down because this will create a vacuum in prepare a full sampling train to serve as a
7.3.5 Water, H2O. HPLC Grade or the train. Before moving the sample train to field train spike just as it would be prepared
equivalent. the cleanup site, remove the probe from the for sampling. The field spike is performed in
7.3.6 Ammonium Acetate, CH3CO2NH4. sample train and cap the opening to the the same manner as the field train proof
7.3.7 Acetic Acid (glacial), CH3CO2H. probe, being careful not to lose any blank with the additional step of adding the
7.3.8 1-(2-Pyridyl)piperazine, (1,2-PP), condensate that might be present. Cap the Field Spike Solution to the first impinger
≥99.5% or equivalent. impingers and transfer the probe and the after the initial leak check. The train will be
7.3.9 Absorption Solution. Prepare a impinger/condenser assembly to the cleanup recovered as if it were an actual test sample.
solution of 1-(2-pyridyl)piperazine in toluene area. This area should be clean and protected No gaseous sample will be passed through
at a concentration of 40 mg/300 ml. This from the weather to reduce sample the sampling train. Field train spikes are
solution is used for method blanks and contamination or loss. Inspect the train prior recovered in the same manner as described
method spikes. to and during disassembly and record any in sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 and must be
7.3.10 Ammonium Acetate Buffer abnormal conditions. It is not necessary to submitted with the samples collected for
Solution (AAB). Prepare a solution of measure the volume of the impingers for the each test program.
ammonium acetate in water at a purpose of moisture determination as the 8.3 Sample Transport Procedures.
concentration of 0.1 M by transferring 7.705 method is not validated for moisture Containers must remain in an upright
g of ammonium acetate to a 1,000 ml determination. Treat samples as follows: position at all times during shipment.
volumetric flask and diluting to volume with 8.2.1 Container No. 1, Probe and Samples must also be stored at <4 °C between
HPLC Grade water. Adjust pH to 6.2 with Impinger Numbers 1 and 2. Rinse and brush the time of sampling and concentration. Each
glacial acetic acid. the probe/nozzle first with toluene twice and sample should be extracted and concentrated
8.0 Sample Collection, Storage and then twice again with acetonitrile and place within 30 days after collection and analyzed
Transport the wash into a glass container labeled with within 30 days after extraction. The extracted
the test run identification and ‘‘Container No. sample must be stored at 4 °C.
Note: Because of the complexity of this 1.’’ When using these solvents ensure that 8.4 Sample Custody. Proper procedures
method, field personnel should be trained in proper ventilation is available. Quantitatively and documentation for sample chain of
and experienced with the test procedures in transfer the liquid from the first two custody are critical to ensuring data integrity.
order to obtain reliable results. impingers and the condenser into Container The chain of custody procedures in ASTM
8.1 Sampling No. 1. Rinse the impingers and all connecting D4840–99 (Reapproved 2018) e ‘‘Standard
8.1.1 Preliminary Field Determinations. glassware twice with toluene and then twice Guide for Sampling Chain-of-Custody
Same as Method 5, section 8.2. again with acetonitrile and transfer the rinses Procedures’’ (incorporated by reference, see
8.1.2 Preparation of Sampling Train. into Container No. 1. After all components § 63.14) shall be followed for all samples
Follow the general procedure given in have been collected in the container, seal the (including field samples and blanks).
9.0 Quality Control procedures and acceptance criteria are listed train spike must be submitted with the
9.1 Sampling. Sampling Operations. The in Table 326–3 below. samples collected for each test program.
9.2.1 Check for Breakthrough. Recover 9.2.4 Determination of Method Detection
sampling quality control procedures and
and determine the isocyanate(s) Limit. Based on your instrument’s sensitivity
acceptance criteria are listed in Table 326–2 and linearity, determine the calibration
below; see also section 9.0 of Method 5. concentration of the last two impingers
concentrations or masses that make up a
9.2 Analysis. The analytical quality separately from the first two impingers.
representative low level calibration range.
control procedures required for this method 9.2.2 Field Train Proof Blank. Field
The MDL must be determined at least
includes the analysis of the field train proof blanks must be submitted with the samples annually for the analytical system using an
blank, field train spike, and reagent and collected at each sampling site. MDL study such as that found in section 15.0
method blanks. Analytical quality control 9.2.3 Reagent Blank and Field Train to Method 301 of appendix A to part 63 of
Spike. At least one reagent blank and a field this chapter.
TABLE 326–2—SAMPLING QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

QA/QC criteria Acceptance criteria Frequency Consequence if not met
Sampling Equipment Leak ≤0.00057 m3/min (0.020 cfm) or 4% of Prior to, during (optional) and Prior to: Repair and repeat calibration.
Checks. sampling rate, whichever is less. at the completion to sam- During/Completion: None, testing
pling. should be considered invalid.
Dry Gas Meter Calibration— within ±2% of average factor (indi- Pre-test ................................. Repeat calibration point.
Pre-Test (individual correc- vidual).
tion factor—Yi).
Dry Gas Meter Calibration— 1.00 ±1% .............................................. Pre-test ................................. Adjust the dry gas meter and recali-
Pre-Test (average correc- brate.
tion factor—Yc).
Dry Gas Meter Calibration— Average dry gas meter calibration fac- Each Test ............................. Adjust sample volumes using the fac-
Post-test. tor agrees with ±5% Yc. tor that gives the smallest volume.
Temperature sensor calibra- Absolute temperature measures by Prior to initial use and before Recalibrate; sensor may not be used
tion. sensor within ±1.5% of a reference each test thereafter. until specification is met.
sensor.
Barometer calibration .............. Absolute pressure measured by instru- Prior to initial use and before Recalibrate; instrument may not be
ment within ±10 mm Hg of reading each test thereafter. used until specification is met.
with a mercury barometer or NIST
traceable barometer.
TABLE 326–3—ANALYTICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

QA/QC criteria Acceptance criteria Frequency Consequence if not met
Calibration—Method Blanks ... <5% level of expected analyte ............. Each analytical method blank Locate source of contamination; reana-
lyze.
Calibration—Calibration Points At least six calibration point bracketing Each analytical batch ........... Incorporate additional calibration points
the expected range of analysis. to meet criteria.
Calibration—Linearity .............. Correlation coefficient >0.995 .............. Each analytical batch ........... Verify integration, reintegrate. If nec-
essary, recalibrate.
Calibration—secondary stand- Within ±10% of true value .................... After each calibration ............ Repeat secondary standard
ard verification. verification, recalibrate if necessary.
Calibration—continual calibra- Within ±10% of true value .................... Daily and after every ten Invalidate previous ten sample anal-
tion verification. samples. ysis, recalibrate and repeat calibra-
tion, reanalyze samples until suc-
cessful.
Sample Analysis ..................... Within the valid calibration range ......... Each sample ......................... Invalidate the sample if greater than
the calibration range and dilute the
sample so that it is within the cali-
bration range. Appropriately flag any
value below the calibration range.
Replicate Samples .................. Within ±10% of RPD ............................ Each sample ......................... Evaluate integrations and repeat sam-
ple analysis as necessary.
Field Train Proof Blank ........... ≤10% level of expected analyte ........... Each test program ................ Evaluate source of contamination.
Field Train Spike ..................... Within ±30% of true value .................... Each test program ................ Evaluate performance of the method
and consider invalidating results.
Breakthrough .......................... Final two impingers Mass collected is Each test run ........................ Invalidate test run.
>5% of the total mass or >20% of
the total mass when the measured
results are 20% of the applicable
standard. Alternatively, there is no
breakthrough requirement when the
measured results are 10% of the ap-
plicable standard.
10.0 Calibration and Standardization appropriate dilutions of aliquots of the stock should weigh heavily in the interpretation of
into Acetonitrile. the chromatograms. If the peak area exceeds
Note: Maintain a laboratory log of all 10.5 Preparation of Method Blanks. the linear range of the calibration curve, the
calibrations. Prepare a method blank for each test program sample must be diluted with acetonitrile and
10.1 Probe Nozzle, Pitot Tube Assembly, (up to twenty samples) by transferring 300 ml reanalyzed. Average the replicate results for
Dry Gas Metering System, Probe Heater, of the absorption solution to a 1,000-ml each run. For each sample you must report
Temperature Sensors, Leak-Check of round bottom flask and concentrate as the same information required for analytical
Metering System, and Barometer. Same as outlined in section 11.2. calibrations (Section 11.1). For non-detect or
Method 5, sections 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.6 Preparation of Field Spike Solution. values below the detection limit of the
10.5, 8.4.1, and 10.6, respectively. Prepare a field spike solution for every test method, you shall report the value as ‘‘<’’
10.2 High Performance Liquid program in the same manner as calibration numerical detection limit.
Chromatograph. Establish the retention times standards (see Section 10.4). The mass of the
for the isocyanates of interest; retention times 12.0 Data Analysis and Calculations
target isocyanate in the volume of the spike
will depend on the chromatographic solution for the field spike train shall be Nomenclature and calculations, same as in
conditions. The retention times provided in equivalent to that estimated to be captured Method 5, section 6, with the following
Table 10–1 are provided as a guide to relative from the source concentration for each additions below.
retention times when using a C18, 250 mm compound; alternatively, you may also 12.1 Nomenclature.
x 4.6 mm ID, 5mm particle size column, a 2 prepare a solution that represents half the AS = Response of the sample, area counts.
ml/min flow rate of a 1:9 to 6:4 Acetonitrile/ applicable standard. b = Y-intercept of the linear regression line,
Ammonium Acetate Buffer, a 50 ml sample 10.7 HPLC Calibrations. See Section 11.1. area counts.
loop, and a UV detector set at 254 nm. BR = Percent Breakthrough
11.0 Analytical Procedure CA = Concentration of a specific isocyanate
TABLE 326–4—EXAMPLE RETENTION 11.1 Analytical Calibration. Perform a compound in the initial sample, mg/ml.
TIMES multipoint calibration of the instrument at CB = Concentration of a specific isocyanate
six or more upscale points over the desired compound in the replicate sample, mg/
Retention times quantitative range (multiple calibration ml.
ranges shall be calibrated, if necessary). The CI = Concentration of a specific isocyanate
Retention field samples analyzed must fall within at compound in the sample, mg/ml.
Compound time least one of the calibrated quantitative ranges Crec = Concentration recovered from spike
(minutes) and meet the performance criteria specified train, mg/ml.
below. The lowest point in your calibration CS = Concentration of isocyanate compound
MI .......................................... 10.0 curve must be at least 5, and preferably 10, in the stack gas, mg/dscm
1,6-HDI ................................. 19.9 times the MDL. For each calibration curve, CT = Concentration of a specific isocyanate
2,4-TDI .................................. 27.1 the value of the square of the linear compound (Impingers 1–4), mg/dscm
MDI ....................................... 27.3 correlation coefficient, i.e., r2, must be Cspike = Concentration spiked, mg/ml.
≥0.995, and the analyzer response must be C4 = Concentration of a specific isocyanate
10.3 Preparation of Isocyanate within ±10 percent of the reference value at compound (Impingers 14), mg/dscm
Derivatives. each upscale calibration point. Calibrations FIm = Mass of Free Isocyanate
10.3.1 HDI, TDI, MDI. Dissolve 500 mg of must be performed on each day of the FTSrec = Field Train Spike Recovery
each isocyanate in individual 100 ml aliquots analysis, before analyzing any of the samples. Im = Mass of the Isocyanate
of methylene chloride (MeCl2), except MDI Following calibration, a secondary standard Imw = MW of the Isocyanate
which requires 250 ml of MeCl2. Transfer a shall be analyzed. A continual calibration IUm = Mass of Isocyanate-urea derivative
5-ml aliquot of 1,2-PP (see section 7.3.8) to verification (CCV) must also be performed IUmw = MW of the isocyanate-urea
each solution, stir and allow to stand prior to any sample and after every ten M = Slope of the linear regression line, area
overnight at room temperature. Transfer 150 samples. The measured value of this counts-ml/mg.
ml aliquots of hexane to each solution to independently prepared standard must be mI = Mass of isocyanate in the total sample
precipitate the isocyanate-urea derivative. within ±10 percent of the expected value. MW = Molecular weight
Using a Buchner funnel, vacuum filter the Report the results for each calibration RPD = Relative Percent Difference
solid-isocyanate-urea derivative and rinse standard secondary standard, and CCV as VF = Final volume of concentrated sample,
with 50 ml of hexane. Dissolve the well as the conditions of the HPLC. The typically 10 ml.
precipitate in a minimum aliquot of MeCl2. reports should include at least the peak area, Vmstd = Volume of gas sample measured by
Repeat the hexane precipitation and filtration height, and retention time for each isocyanate the dry-gas meter, corrected to standard
twice. After the third filtration, dry the compound measured as well as a conditions, dscm (dscf).
crystals at 50 °C and transfer to bottles for chromatogram for each standard. Conversion from Isocyanate to the
storage. The crystals are stable for at least 21 11.2 Concentration of Samples. Transfer Isocyanate-urea derivative. The equation
months when stored at room temperature in each sample to a 1,000-ml round bottom for converting the amount of free
a closed container. flask. Attach the flask to a rotary evaporator isocyanate to the corresponding amount
10.3.2 MI. Prepare a 200 mg/ml stock and gently evaporate to dryness under of isocyanate-urea derivative is as
solution of methyl isocyanate-urea, transfer vacuum in a 65 °C water bath. Rinse the follows:
60 mg of 1,2-PP to a 100-ml volumetric flask round bottom flask three times each with 2
containing 50 ml of MeCl2. Carefully transfer 12.2 Conversion from Isocyanate to the
ml of acetonitrile and transfer the rinse to a
20 mg of methyl isocyanate to the volumetric Isocyanate-urea derivative. The equation for
10-ml volumetric flask. Dilute the sample to
flask and shake for 2 minutes. Dilute the converting the amount of free isocyante to
volume with acetonitrile and transfer to a 15-
solution to volume with MeCl2 and transfer the corresponding amount of isocyante-urea
ml vial and seal with a PTFE lined lid. Store
derivative is as follows:
to a bottle for storage. Methyl isocyanate does the vial ≤4 °C until analysis.
not produce a solid derivative and standards 11.3 Analysis. Analyze replicative
must be prepared from this stock solution. samples by HPLC, using the appropriate
10.4 Preparation of calibration standards. conditions established in section 10.2. The
Prepare a 100 mg/ml stock solution of the width of the retention time window used to The equation for converting the amount of IU
isocyanates of interest from the individual make identifications should be based upon derivative to the corresponding amount of
ER04MR19.002</GPH>
isocyanate-urea derivative as prepared in measurements of actual retention time FLm is as follows:

sections 10.3.1 and 10.3.2. This is variations of standards over the course of a
accomplished by dissolving 1 mg of each day. Three times the standard deviation of a
isocyanate-urea derivative in 10 ml of retention time for a compound can be used
Acetonitrile. Calibration standards are to calculate a suggested window size; 12.3 Calculate the correlation coefficient,
ER04MR19.001</GPH>
prepared from this stock solution by making however, the experience of the analyst slope, and intercepts for the calibration data
using the least squares method for linear Environmental Protection Agency, April
regression. Concentrations are expressed as 1971, PB–203 060/BE, APTD–0581, 35
the x-variable and response is expressed as pp.
the y-variable. 2. Rom, J.J., Maintenance, Calibration, and
12.4 Calculate the concentration of Operation of Isokinetic Source Sampling
12.9 Calculate Percent Breakthrough Equipment, Research Triangle Park, NC,
isocyanate in the sample:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
March 1972, PB–209 022/BE, APTD–
0576, 39 pp.
Where: 3. Schlickenrieder, L.M., Adams, J.W., and
12.5 Calculate the total amount collected
K = 35.314 ft3/m3 if Vm(std) is expressed in Thrun, K.E., Modified Method 5 Train
in the sample by multiplying the English units. = 1.00 m3/m3 if Vm(std) is and Source Assessment Sampling
concentration (mg/ml) times the final volume expressed in metric units. System: Operator’s Manual, U.S.
of acetonitrile (10 ml). Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/
13.0 Method Performance
600/8–85/003/1985).
Evaluation of sampling and analytical 4. Shigehara, R.T., Adjustments in the EPA
12.6 Calculate the concentration of procedures for a selected series of Nomograph for Different Pitot Tube
compounds must meet the quality control
isocyanate (mg/dscm) in the stack gas. Coefficients and Dry Molecular Weights,
criteria (See Section 9) for each associated
Stack Sampling News, 2:4–11 (October
analytical determination. The sampling and
analytical procedures must be challenged by 1974).
the test compounds spiked at appropriate 5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40
12.7 Calculate Relative Percent Difference levels and carried through the procedures. CFR part 60, Appendices A–1, A–2, and
(RPD) for each replicative sample A–3, Methods 1–5.
14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved] 6. Vollaro, R.F., A Survey of Commercially
15.0 Waste Management [Reserved] Available Instrumentation for the
Measurement of Low-Range Gas
16.0 Alternative Procedures [Reserved] Velocities, Research Triangle Park, NC,
17.0 References U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Emissions Measurement Branch,
1. Martin, R.M., Construction Details of November 1976 (unpublished paper).
12.8 Calculate Field Train Spike Isokinetic Source-Sampling Equipment,
Recovery Research Triangle Park, NC, U.S. 18.0 Diagrams
ER04MR19.009</GPH>
ER04MR19.008</GPH>
ER04MR19.007</GPH>
ER04MR19.006</GPH>
ER04MR19.005</GPH>
ER04MR19.004</GPH>
[FR Doc. 2019–01902 Filed 3–1–19; 8:45 am]

ER04MR19.003</GPH>
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

19 - 1345 - 00 - e (Contoh RIA) USA Wood Building Product PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

19 - 1345 - 00 - e (Contoh RIA) USA Wood Building Product PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

7682 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No.

42 / Monday, March 4, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

I. General Information G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

Baseline Actual Emissions:

Total Population ........................................................................................... 317,746,049 0 0

Other and Multiracial ................................................................................... 7 0 0

Below Poverty Level .................................................................................... 14 0 0

Over 25 and without High School Diploma ................................................. 14 0 0

Linguistically Isolated by Percent

Linguistically Isolated ................................................................................... 6% 0% 0%

§ 63.4781 What definitions apply to this

§ 63.1(a)(1)–(14) ................ General Applicability ............................................. Yes.

2,4-Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI) ................................................ 584–84–9 106 Flexible Foam Production.

TABLE 326–2—SAMPLING QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

TABLE 326–3—ANALYTICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

isocyanate-urea derivative as prepared in measurements of actual retention time FLm is as follows:

[FR Doc. 2019–01902 Filed 3–1–19; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen