[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-29194]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 6, 1994]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-5114-3]
RIN 2860-AD57

 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; 
Proposed Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From Wood 
Furniture Manufacturing Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The proposed standards would limit emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) from existing and new wood furniture manufacturing 
operations located at major sources. The proposed standards implement 
section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act as amended, which require the 
Administrator to regulate emissions of HAP listed in section 112(b) of 
the Act. The intent of the standards is to protect the public by 
requiring new and existing major sources to control emissions to the 
level attainable by implementing the maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT), taking into consideration the cost of achieving such 
emission reductions, any nonair quality and other air quality-related 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    The EPA is also proposing Method 311 with the standards. Method 311 
will be used to assist in demonstrating compliance with the proposed 
emission limitations.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before February 21, 
1995.
    Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held, if requested, to 
provide interested persons an opportunity for oral presentation of 
data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed standards for wood 
furniture manufacturing operations. If anyone contacts the EPA 
requesting to speak at a public hearing by January 4, 1995, a public 
hearing will be held on January 19, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m. 
Persons interested in attending the hearing should notify Ms. Kim Teal, 
(919) 541-5580, to verify that a hearing will occur.
    Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral 
testimony must contact the EPA by January 4, 1995, by contacting Ms. 
Kim Teal, Coatings and Consumer Products Group (MD-13), U. S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5580.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if 
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 
(LE-131), Attention, Docket No. A-93-10, U. S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
    Docket. Docket No. A-93-10, containing supporting information used 
in developing the proposed standards, is available for public 
inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 
Waterside Mall, Room M-1500, 1st Floor, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, 
DC 20460. Telephone (202) 260-7548, FAX (202) 260-4400. The proposed 
regulatory text and other materials related to this rulemaking are 
available for review in the docket. A reasonable fee may be charged for 
copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the 
proposed standards, contact Dr. Madeleine Strum at (919) 541-2383, 
Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-
13), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble 
is organized as follows:

I. Background
    A. Regulatory Background
    B. Regulatory Negotiation Approach
II. Description of the Source Category
III. Summary of the Standards
    A. Applicability of the Standards
    B. Actual Standards and Format of the Standards
    C. Compliance and Monitoring Requirements
    D. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
IV. Summary of Impacts
    A. Environmental Impacts
    B. Energy Impacts
    C. Economic Impacts
    D. Cost Impacts
V. Decision Process for NESHAP Development
    A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
    B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP
VI. Rationale
    A. Selection of Pollutants and Source Category
    B. Selection of Emission Points
    C. Selection of Proposed Emission Limits
    D. Selection of Format of Proposed Emission Limits
    E. Selection of Work Practice Standards
    F. Pollution Prevention Considerations
    G. Selection of Compliance and Monitoring Requirements
    H. Selection of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
    I. Small Business Considerations
    J. Selection of Definition of Source
    K. Relationship Between General Provisions and Proposed Rule
    L. Relationship Between Operating Permit Program and Proposed 
Rule
    M. Solicitation of Comments
VII. Other Considerations
VIII. Administrative Requirements
    A. Public Hearing
    B. Docket
    C. Executive Order 12866
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    F. Miscellaneous
    G. Statutory Analysis

    The proposed regulatory text is not included in this Federal 
Register notice but is available in Docket No. A-93-10 (see ADDRESSES). 
The proposed regulatory language is also available on the Technology 
Transfer Network (TTN), one of EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The 
TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of 
air pollution control. The service is free, except for the cost of a 
phone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for up to a 14,400 bps modem. If more 
information on TTN is needed call the HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

I. Background

A. Regulatory Background

    The proposed rule represents the EPA's first comprehensive 
regulation of the wood furniture (surface coating) category. No Federal 
rules, such as new source performance standards (NSPS), have previously 
been promulgated for this industry. In 1990, the Clean Air Act was 
amended; two titles of the 1990 Amendments affect wood furniture 
manufacturers, prompting regulation of this industry.
    Title III of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 was enacted to 
help reduce the increasing levels of nationwide air toxics emissions. 
Under Title III, section 112 of the Act was amended to give the EPA the 
authority to establish national standards to reduce air toxics from 
sources that emit such pollutants. Section 112(b) contains a list of 
the HAP that are the specific air toxics to be regulated by national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). Section 
112(c) directs the EPA to use this pollutant list to develop and 
publish a list of source categories (industries) for which NESHAP will 
be developed. This list of source categories was published in the 
Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) and includes a category 
for major sources entitled wood furniture (surface coating). Therefore, 
the proposed standards regulate emissions of HAP from new and existing 
wood furniture (surface coating) operations located at major sources. A 
major source of HAP emissions is one that emits or has the potential to 
emit, considering controls, greater than 9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) 
(10 tons per year [tons/yr]) of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tons/yr) 
of multiple HAP.
    The control of HAP is to be achieved through promulgation of 
emission standards under sections 112(d) and 112(f) and design, 
equipment, work practice, or operational standards under section 112(h) 
for categories of sources that emit HAP. The EPA began the wood 
furniture NESHAP development process (described in section V of this 
preamble) in November 1990. During the information gathering stage, the 
EPA surveyed more than 850 facilities in the wood furniture industry in 
order to assess the many differences in operations and potential 
control techniques across the industry.
    Another section of the amended Act that affects wood furniture 
manufacturers is section 183 of Title I. Section 183(a) requires the 
EPA to issue control techniques guidelines (CTG's) for 11 categories of 
stationary sources of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. The 
EPA is developing a CTG for the wood furniture manufacturing industry 
as part of the requirements of section 183(a). The intent of the CTG is 
to provide guidance to States for regulating VOC emissions from wood 
furniture finishing, cleaning, and washoff operations at wood furniture 
manufacturing facilities located in areas of ozone nonattainment. The 
CTG identifies reasonably available control technology (RACT), which is 
generally the minimum stringency that States apply to such sources. The 
Agency began developing the CTG in the Fall 1989, prior to initiating 
the NESHAP. The status of the CTG and the basis for selecting the 
regulatory alternatives were presented to the National Air Pollution 
Control Techniques Advisory Committee (NAPCTAC) in November 1991 at a 
public meeting attended by industry and regulatory agency 
representatives.
    The CTG and the proposed NESHAP are concerned with two different 
situations. The CTG provides guidance on regulating emissions of VOC 
from wood furniture finishing, cleaning, and washoff operations and 
will likely affect only facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas 
only, while the proposed NESHAP will regulate emissions of HAP from all 
wood furniture (surface coating) operations nationwide. Although the 
two situations are different, a source may well be affected by both. 
For example, if a wood furniture manufacturer is: (1) Located in an 
ozone nonattainment area; (2) uses VOC's that are on the HAP list; and 
(3) is a major source of HAP emissions and the source's VOC emissions 
are greater than the applicability level for the CTG, the source would 
be subject to both the standards proposed herein and to the RACT 
requirements for VOC's imposed by the State regulatory agency.
    Due to the potential overlap of this rule and the RACT requirements 
for VOC's, the EPA developed them concurrently so that the requirements 
of the two would be consistent. After the bulk of the information 
gathering phase of the CTG and the NESHAP was complete, both the 
proposed rule and the CTG were developed within the framework of a 
regulatory negotiation, described below. Today's rulemaking proposes 
the NESHAP and identifies the rationale the regulatory negotiation 
Committee followed in developing it. The EPA plans to subsequently 
publish the CTG, including the recommended RACT, in a guidance document 
that will be available to all interested parties.

B. Regulatory Negotiation Approach

    The EPA recognizes that there are many issues and challenges in 
developing, proposing, and promulgating a NESHAP for this source 
category. During the winter of 1992/1993, the EPA met with 
representatives of the industry (including small and large 
manufacturers), trade associations, finishing material suppliers, resin 
suppliers, States, and environmental groups at public meetings to 
discuss issues, share information, and assess whether a regulatory 
negotiation would be appropriate for this industry. Two exploratory 
meetings were held for these purposes. After the exploratory meetings, 
three public meetings were held in spring and early summer of 1993 to 
continue to discuss issues associated with regulatory development. 
After publishing in the Federal Register on June 23, 1993, a notice of 
establishment of the regulatory negotiation committee (58 FR 34011), 
the first official regulatory negotiation meeting was held in July 
1993. Formal meetings and informal workshops were held over the next 
several months to identify and resolve the many issues associated with 
the regulation of HAP emissions from wood furniture manufacturing 
operations. The Committee members are listed in Table 1.

    Table 1.--Wood Furniture NESHAP Regulatory Negotiation Committee    
                               Membership                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Members                            Affiliations                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freeman Allen........  Sierra Club.                                     
Terry Black*.........  PA Department of Environmental Resources.        
Jack Burgess.........  Pridgen Cabinet Works (Small Business).          
Gerry Currier........  AKZO Coatings.                                   
William Deal.........  Bernhardt Furniture Company (Office Furniture).  
John DeVido..........  Aqualon (Resins).                                
William Dorris.......  Lilly Industries (Coatings).                     
Jack Edwardson.......  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.            
Paul Eisele..........  MASCO Corporation (Kitchen Cabinets).            
Jon Heinrich.........  WI Department of Natural Resources.              
Gary Hunt............  NC Office of Waste Reduction.                    
Alan Klimek..........  NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
                        Resources.                                      
John Lingelbach......  Facilitator.                                     
Brian Morton.........  NC Environmental Defense Fund.                   
Peter Nicholson......  Rohm and Haas (Resins).                          
Susan Perry..........  Business and Institutional Furniture             
                        Manufacturers Association.                      
Andy Riedell.........  PPG Industries (Coatings).                       
David Rothermel......  Stylecraft Corporation (Small Business).         
William Sale.........  Broyhill Furniture (Residential Furniture).      
Mike Soots...........  Kincaid Furniture (Residential Furniture).       
Richard Titus........  Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association.       
Janet Vail...........  West MI Environmental Action Council.            
Stephen Willcox......  American Lung Association of NC.                 
Susan Wildau.........  Facilitator.                                     
John Zeltsman........  Architectural Woodwork Institute (Small          
                        Business).                                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Left the State of Pennsylvania in December 1993 and is now with Rettew 
  Associates in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.                                

    Using various forums, the Committee discussed many challenging 
issues such as subcategorizing the source category, the emission data 
to be used to select the standards, potential regulatory formats, 
emission limits, work practice standards, compliance determination 
techniques, enforcement, and reporting and recordkeeping. Other issues 
such as the impacts of the rule on small businesses, the relationship 
between the proposed rule and the Title V operating permit program, and 
the effects of foreign competition were also considered. Given the 
potential for compliance with the rule by substituting non-HAP 
compounds for HAP contained in the coatings (e.g., ethanol for 
methanol), the issue of substitution of non-HAP VOC's for HAP was 
discussed at great length. Another major concern was the possibility of 
substituting a more toxic HAP for another HAP. This concern prompted a 
discussion on the relative toxicity of compounds used in wood furniture 
manufacturing.
    At the final negotiating session of the full Committee, many of the 
major issues were resolved conceptually. Thereafter, the Committee 
reviewed drafts of the regulatory language and the preamble and held 
conference calls and informal working group meetings to resolve the 
remaining issues. Some Committee members feel that because the proposed 
standards were developed solely for this source category and many of 
the provisions were developed through a regulatory negotiation process, 
which often requires concessions from some parties in exchange for 
concessions from other parties in other areas, these proposed standards 
should not be used as a basis for the development of standards for 
other source categories.
    The emission limitations for adhesives were developed by the EPA 
outside of the regulatory negotiation process, because adhesive 
suppliers were not represented on the Committee. While a Glue Work 
Group was formed to address gluing operations, the Committee members 
decided to suspend the work so they could focus their efforts on 
finishing, cleaning, and washoff operations.

II. Description of the Source Category

    The following paragraphs briefly describe the operations covered by 
the proposed standards for the wood furniture (surface coating) source 
category. The EPA has produced a draft of Chapters 1 through 4 of the 
CTG. These chapters provide a detailed process description for the many 
types of wood furniture operations in this source category. Interested 
parties can refer to the draft chapters, which may be found in the 
docket of materials supporting this proposed rule, for a more detailed 
description than that provided here.
    The wood furniture industry encompasses the manufacture of many 
diverse products. For the purposes of the proposed rule, the wood 
furniture (surface coating) category includes production of the 
following products and their components:
    1. Wood kitchen cabinets;
    2. Wood residential furniture;
    3. Upholstered residential and office furniture;
    4. Wood television, radio, phonograph, and sewing machine cabinets;
    5. Wood office furniture and fixtures;
    6. Partitions, shelving, and lockers; and
    7. Other wood furniture not described by one of the above 
categories.
    Despite the broad range of products manufactured by this source 
category, some manufacturing operations are common. There are four 
basic wood furniture manufacturing operations that are included in the 
affected emission source subject to the proposed rule. These are 
finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff.
    Wood furniture finishing operations include those operations in 
which a finishing material is applied to a substrate. Finishing 
processes differ within the industry, but typically they consist of 
application of finishing materials, evaporation of volatiles, and 
curing of the piece in an oven. Facilities may finish the furniture in 
components and then assemble it, but more commonly, the piece of 
furniture is assembled and then finished. The furniture or furniture 
components may be moved manually from one finishing application station 
to the next, or may be on tow lines that automatically move through the 
finishing lines.
    The types of finishing materials include stains, basecoats, 
washcoats, glazes, fillers, sealers, highlights, enamels, and topcoats 
that all serve different functions. The number, sequence, and type of 
finishing materials varies by the type and quality of the furniture 
being finished. All of the finishing materials may contain HAP that are 
emitted during application.
    After the finishing material is applied, the wood substrate 
typically enters a flashoff area where the more volatile solvents 
evaporate and the finishing material begins to cure, and then enters an 
oven where curing of the finishing material and evaporation of the 
volatile solvents continues. The evaporation of volatile compounds that 
are HAP are the source of HAP emissions from the drying operation. In 
this preamble, the process of finishing and drying a piece of furniture 
or furniture component is referred to as the finishing operation.
    Gluing operations occur at most, but not all, wood furniture 
facilities. Gluing operations vary from plant to plant and include the 
manufacture of composite pressed wood products such as hardwood 
plywood, and applying laminates to wood products, veneers to solid wood 
(or composite wood products), edges to tables or desks, and foam to 
fabric. Four major types of adhesives are used in the industry: hot 
melts, polyvinyl acetates (PVA), urea-formaldehyde (UF) resins, and 
contact adhesives. Hot melts are not a source of HAP emissions. 
Polyvinyl acetate adhesives contain very small amounts (less than 0.3 
percent) of vinyl acetate monomer (a HAP). The UF resins are used 
primarily in the kitchen cabinet and residential furniture segments. 
These resins are a source of formaldehyde (a HAP) emissions, both from 
the free formaldehyde in the adhesive and as a reaction byproduct 
during the cure. Formaldehyde emissions in furniture manufacturing 
occur during the use of these resins in the plant and also during 
storage, use, and cutting of composite pressed wood products that are 
used in furniture manufacturing and that contain these resins. (For 
reasons that are discussed later, the proposed rule does not address 
formaldehyde emissions associated with formaldehyde-based adhesive 
resins or composite wood products containing these resins.) Contact 
adhesives contain varying quantities of HAP as solvent. These adhesives 
are used for laminating countertops and office furniture and for 
upholstery operations such as gluing foam to fabric and fabric to wood. 
Contact adhesives used for upholstery operations are also known as foam 
adhesives.
    Cleaning activities are also common throughout the wood furniture 
industry. The resins typical of wood furniture coatings require a high-
solvency-rated solvent to dissolve them into the coating mix. 
Similarly, dried coatings that must be removed in cleaning operations 
require such solvents. These industrial solvents sometimes contain HAP 
that evaporate when the solvent is exposed to the air and is 
subsequently discharged to the atmosphere via ventilation air. 
Equipment that must be cleaned within a wood furniture plant is 
typically that which comes in close contact with the coating material; 
e.g., application equipment and spray booths.
    Finished furniture that does not meet specification may need to be 
refinished; the cured coating is removed by washing off the old coating 
using solvent. This process is called washoff.

III. Summary of the Standards

    The proposed standards are summarized below. The rationale for the 
regulatory decisions made in their development is provided in section 
VI.

A. Applicability of the Standards

    The provisions of the proposed rule apply to new and existing wood 
furniture manufacturing operations that are located at plant sites that 
are major sources of HAP. A major source is defined in the General 
Provisions to part 63 as ``any stationary source or group of stationary 
sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that 
emits or has the potential to emit, considering controls, in the 
aggregate, 10 tons/yr of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons/yr or 
more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants. * * *''
    As noted in Sec. 63.800(a) of the proposed rule, the proposed wood 
furniture rule would apply only to facilities that are major sources as 
defined in 40 CFR part 63.2. An important consideration in the 
definition of ``major source'' is a given plant site's ``potential to 
emit.'' The ``potential to emit'' is defined in 40 CFR part 63.2 as 
follows: ```Potential to emit' means the maximum capacity of a 
stationary source to emit a pollutant under its physical and 
operational design. Any physical or operational limitation on the 
capacity of the stationary source to emit a pollutant, including air 
pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or 
on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, 
shall be treated as part of its design if the limitation or the effect 
it would have on emissions is Federally enforceable.''
    A key aspect of the potential to emit definition is that 
restrictions must be Federally enforceable. Examples of restrictions 
that would be considered Federally enforceable are listed in a 
definition in 40 CFR 63.2.
    The EPA believes that there are a substantial number of wood 
furniture facilities whose actual emissions of HAP are substantially 
less than ``major'' amounts (i.e., more than 10 tons per year of any 
single HAP, or more than 25 tons per year from the sum of all HAP 
emitted). Many of these facilities, however, would be considered 
``major sources'' that are subject to the proposed rule because there 
is no Federally enforceable restriction in place that limits their 
potential to emit HAP. The EPA believes that the wood furniture rule 
should provide a mechanism for such facilities to accept and document 
such restrictions.
    The EPA proposes, in Sec. 63.800(b) of the proposed rule, that if 
owners or operators commit to using no more than 250 gallons per month, 
or 3,000 gallons per rolling 12-month period, of coating, gluing, 
cleaning, and washoff materials at the plant site, and if the plant 
site does not contain other sources of HAP emissions, then the plant 
site can be considered an area source to which the rule does not apply.
    The 250 gallon level was selected based upon worst-case assumptions 
regarding the levels of HAP in the various materials. The proposed rule 
would require a commitment to this level, accompanied by monthly 
records of materials. The EPA requests comment on: (1) whether an 
alternative to the 250/3,000 gallon level would be appropriate, (2) the 
level and type of reporting needed to document the owner's commitment, 
and (3) the frequency and nature of the recordkeeping requirement.
    The EPA believes that there are sources using more than 250 gallons 
per month that may emit less than ``major'' amounts, and for which the 
owner or operator may be willing to accept case-by-case operating 
restrictions that would ensure that the potential to emit does not 
exceed the major source threshold. The EPA is considering adding 
language to the final rule that would provide a mechanism for such 
sources. The EPA requests comment on (1) whether such language should 
be added, (2) the type of reporting and process required to establish 
the case-by-case commitment, (in particular, how to establish 
throughput and content limitations that could ensure area source 
status), and (3) the types of records that should be maintained to 
document compliance with the restrictions. In addition, the EPA 
requests comment on whether the level of recordkeeping and reporting 
should vary, depending on the level of emissions (as reflected by the 
throughput and content of the materials used).
    The EPA requests comment on the appropriate timing of a wood 
furniture facility's applicability determination, and on whether all 
facilities, regardless of their past emissions or HAP usage, should be 
eligible to qualify as area sources under the HAP usage limits. The 
Agency also seeks comment on whether a facility that is initially 
determined to be subject to the rule should be able subsequently to 
escape applicability, and if so, under what circumstances.
    As stated in section II, the wood furniture manufacturing industry 
encompasses the manufacture of many different products including 
cabinets, office furniture, store fixtures, and residential furniture. 
The specific operations to which the proposed rule would apply include 
those that fall under the standard industrial classification (SIC) 
codes listed in Table 2.
    For the purposes of the proposed rule, the affected emission source 
includes the finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff operations at 
each wood furniture plant.

                 Table 2.--Wood Furniture SIC Categories                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  SIC code                            Description                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2434........  Wood kitchen cabinets.                                    
2511........  Wood household furniture, except upholstered.             
2512........  Wood household furniture, upholstered.                    
2517........  Wood television, radios, phonograph, and sewing machine   
               cabinets.                                                
2519........  Household furniture, not elsewhere classified.            
2521........  Wood office furniture.                                    
2531........  Public building and related furniture.                    
2541........  Wood office and store fixtures, partitions, shelving, and 
               lockers.                                                 
2599........  Furniture and fixtures, not elsewhere classified.         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Actual Standards and Format of the Standards

    The proposed rule includes emission limits and work practice 
standards; the emission limits are summarized in Table 3. As indicated 
in this table, the proposed rule would limit HAP emissions from 
finishing operations at existing sources to 1.0 kilogram of volatile 
HAP (VHAP) per kilogram of solids used (1.0 pound of VHAP/pound of 
solids).

              Table 3.--Summary of Proposed Emission Limits             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Existing              
                Emission point                     source     New source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finishing Operations:                                                   
    (a) Achieve a weighted average HAP content                          
     across all coatings (maximum kg VHAP/kg                            
     solids [lb VHAP/lb solids], as applied)..         a1.0         a0.8
    (b) Use compliant finishing materials                               
     (maximum kg VHAP/kg solids [lb VHAP/lb                             
     solids], as applied)                                               
        Stains................................         a1.0         a1.0
        Washcoats.............................       a,b1.0       a,b0.8
        Sealers...............................         a1.0         a0.8
        Topcoats..............................         a1.0         a0.8
        Basecoats.............................       a,b1.0       a,b0.8
        Enamels...............................       a,b1.0       a,b0.8
        Thinners (maximum % HAP allowable); or         10.0         10.0
    (c) As an alternative, use control device;                          
     or.......................................         c1.0         c0.8
    (d) Use a combination of (b) and (c)......          1.0          0.8
Cleaning Operations:                                                    
    Strippable spray booth material (maximum                            
     VOC content, kg VOC/kg solids [lb VOC/lb                           
     solids]).................................          0.8          0.8
Gluing Operations:                                                      
  Contact adhesives:                                                    
    (a) Use compliant contact adhesives                                 
     (maximum kg VHAP/kg solids [lb VHAP/lb                             
     solids], as applied) based on following                            
     criteria                                                           
        i. For foam adhesives used in product                           
         subject to flammability testing......          1.8          0.2
        ii. For all other contact adhesives                             
         (including foam adhesives used in                              
         products not subject to flammability                           
         testing); or.........................          1.0          0.2
    (b) Use a control device..................         d1.0         d0.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aThe limits refer to the HAP content of the coating, as applied.        
bCompliant washcoats, basecoats, and enamels and thinners containing no 
  more than 10 percent HAP by weight must be used if they are purchased 
  premade, that is, if they are not formulated onsite by thinning other 
  finishing materials. If they are formulated onsite, they must be      
  formulated using compliant finishing materials (i.e., those that meet 
  the limits specified in this table) and thinners containing no more   
  than 3.0 percent HAP by weight.                                       
cThe control device must operate at an efficiency that is equivalent to 
  no greater than 1.0 kilogram (or 0.8 kilogram) of HAP being emitted   
  from the affected emission source per kilogram of solids used.        
dThe control device must operate at an efficiency that is equivalent to 
  no greater than 1.0 kilogram (or 0.2 kilogram) of HAP being emitted   
  from the affected emission source per kilogram of solids used.        

    An owner or operator of an existing affected source can comply with 
this limit by:
    1. Limiting the average HAP content across all finishing operations 
to 1.0 kilogram of volatile HAP per kilogram of solids (kg VHAP/kg 
solids) (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied;
    2. Limiting the HAP content of (i) each stain, each sealer, and 
each topcoat, to 1.0 kg VHAP/kg solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids), as 
applied; (ii) limiting the HAP content of thinners used for stains, 
sealers, and topcoats to no more than 10.0 percent HAP by weight; and 
(iii) using washcoats, basecoats, and enamels that are formulated at 
the facility with coatings containing no more than 1.0 kg VHAP/kg 
solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids) and thinners containing no more than 3.0 
percent HAP by weight or using washcoats, basecoats, and enamels that 
have a HAP content of no more than 1.0 kg VHAP/kg solids (1.0 lb VHAP/
lb solids), as applied, and thinners that have a HAP content of no more 
than 10.0 percent by weight;
    3. Using a control device to limit emissions from finishing 
operations to 1.0 kg VHAP/kg solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids); or
    4. A combination of (2) and (3).
    As indicated in Table 3, the proposed standards would limit HAP 
emissions from finishing operations at new sources to 0.8 kg VHAP/kg 
solids (0.8 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied. Owners or operators of new 
sources can comply with the proposed standards by:
    1. Limiting the average HAP content across all finishing operations 
to no more than 0.8 kg VHAP/kg solids (0.8 lb VHAP/lb solids), as 
applied; or
    2. Limiting the HAP content of (1) each stain to no more than 1.0 
kg VHAP/kg solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied; (2) each sealer 
and topcoat to no more than 0.8 kg VHAP/kg solids (0.8 lb VHAP/lb 
solids), as applied; (3) each thinner used for stains, sealers, and 
topcoats to no more than 10.0 percent HAP by weight; and (4) using 
washcoats, basecoats, and enamels that are formulated at the facility 
with coatings containing no more than 0.8 kg VHAP/kg solids (0.8 lb 
VHAP/lb solids) and thinners containing no more than 3.0 percent HAP by 
weight or using washcoats, basecoats, and enamels that have a HAP 
content of no more than 0.8 kg VHAP/kg solids (0.8 lb VHAP/lb solids), 
as applied, and thinners that have a HAP content of no more than 10.0 
percent by weight;
    3. Using a control device to limit emissions from finishing 
operations to 0.8 kg VHAP/kg solids (0.8 lb VHAP/lb solids); or
    4. A combination of (2) and (3).
    If owners or operators comply with the proposed standards through 
the use of a control device, the overall control efficiency that is 
equivalent to the proposed standards for existing sources is that which 
results in 1.0 kilogram of VHAP being emitted per kilogram of solids 
used. For new sources, the control efficiency that is equivalent to the 
proposed standards is that which results in 0.8 kilogram of VHAP being 
emitted per kilogram of solids used. This control efficiency will be 
source-specific, depending on the HAP content and percent solids of the 
finishing materials used at baseline conditions. Baseline conditions 
are those conditions that exist at a plant prior to installing and 
operating the control device.
    The HAP emissions from cleaning operations are controlled by 
limiting the VOC content of the strippable booth coating that is 
applied to spray booths; this material is used to reduce the need to 
clean spray booth walls with organic solvent. Gluing operations are 
controlled through the proposed rule by limiting the HAP content of 
contact adhesives to the levels identified in Table 3. The HAP 
emissions from contact adhesives can also be controlled through the use 
of a control device.
    In addition to numerical emission limits, the proposed rule limits 
HAP emissions from existing and new sources through the work practices 
identified in Table 4. These work practices cover finishing, gluing, 
cleaning, and washoff operations. The owner or operator subject to this 
rule is also required to develop a Work Practice Implementation Plan 
that demonstrates how the work practice standards will be executed.

                              Table 4.--Summary of Proposed Work Practice Standarda                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Emission source                                           Work practice                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Finishing Operations                                              
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer equipment leaks...........  Develop written inspection and maintenance plan to address and prevent     
                                      leaks. The plan must identify a minimum inspection frequency of 1/month.  
Storage containers, including        When such containers are used for HAP or HAP-containing materials, keep    
 mixing equipment.                    covered when not in use.                                                  
Application equipment..............  Discontinue use of air spray guns.b                                        
Finishing materials................  Demonstrate that usage of HAP of potential concern have not increased      
                                      except as allowed by proposed standards; document in the formulation      
                                      assessment plan.                                                          
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Cleaning Operations                                              
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gun/line cleaning..................  Collect cleaning solvent into a closed container.                          
                                     Cover all containers associated with cleaning when not in use.             
Spray booth cleaning...............  Do not use solvents except as allowed by the proposed rule.                
Washoff/general cleaning...........  Do not use chemicals that are known or probable human carcinogens in       
                                      cleaning solvents in concentrations subject to MSDS reporting, as required
                                      by OSHA.                                                                  
                                     Keep washoff tank covered when not in use.                                 
                                     Minimize dripping by tilting and/or rotating part to drain as much solvent 
                                      as possible and allowing sufficient dry time.                             
                                     Maintain a log of the quantity and type of solvent used for washoff and    
                                      cleaning, as well as the quantity of waste solvent shipped offsite, and   
                                      the fate of this waste (recycling or disposal).                           
                                     Maintain a log of the number of pieces washed off, and the reason for the  
                                      wash off.                                                                 
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Miscellaneous                                                 
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operator training..................  All operators shall be trained on proper application, cleanup, and         
                                      equipment use. The training program shall be written and retained onsite. 
Implementation plan................  Develop a plan to implement these work practice standards and maintain     
                                      onsite.                                                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aThe proposed work practice standards apply to both existing and new major sources.                             
bAir guns will be allowed only in the following instances:                                                      
--When they are used in conjunction with coatings that emit less than 1.0 kg VOC per kg of solids used;         
--Touchup and repair under limited conditions;                                                                  
--When spray is automated;                                                                                      
--When add-on controls are employed;                                                                            
--If the cumulative application is less than 5 percent of the total gallons of coating applied; or              
--If the permitting agency determines that it is economically or technically infeasible to use other application
  technologies.                                                                                                 

    At a minimum, the Work Practice Implementation Plan should 
specifically identify procedures (e.g., checklists) for confirming:
    1. That all storage containers are normally closed, that is, closed 
unless an operator is actively engaged in activities such as emptying 
or filling the container;
    2. That organic solvents are not used for spray booth cleaning, 
except as allowed by the proposed rule;
    3. That conventional air spray guns are not in use at any finishing 
application station, except as allowed by the proposed rule;
    4. That cleaning solvent from gun cleaning and line flushing is 
collected in a normally closed container;
    5. That the washoff tank is normally closed; and
    6. That dripping from the washoff tank is minimized by tilting and 
rotating the part to drain as much solvent as possible.
    Other programs to be incorporated into the Work Practice 
Implementation Plan include:
    1. An inspection and maintenance (I&M) plan to address equipment 
leaks from transfer operations;
    2. An operator training program;
    3. An accounting system for washoff and cleaning solvents; and
    4. A formulation assessment plan.
    The I&M plan for equipment leaks must require, at a minimum, 
inspection of all equipment (e.g., pumps, valves, and flanges) used to 
transfer or apply finishing materials, adhesives, and solvents. The 
inspection may be a visual inspection only, but must be conducted at a 
minimum frequency of once per month, with repairs to leaking equipment 
made within 15 calendar days.
    The operator training program must require that all new and 
existing personnel involved in finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff 
operations be trained. All new personnel, those hired after the 
effective date of the standard, shall be trained upon hiring. All 
existing personnel, those hired before the effective date of the 
standard, shall be trained within 6 months of the effective date of the 
standard. All personnel shall be given refresher training annually. The 
training must include, at a minimum, appropriate application 
techniques, appropriate cleaning and washoff procedures, appropriate 
equipment setup, and appropriate management of cleaning wastes.
    The solvent accounting system must require, at a minimum, that the 
facility record the quantity and type of solvent used for washoff and 
cleaning, the number of pieces washed off and the reasons why, and the 
quantity of spent solvent generated from each site.
    The work practice standards also must require the owner or operator 
of the affected source to develop a formulation assessment plan (FAP). 
The plan requires the facility to track usage of those volatile HAP 
that are listed in the proposed rulemaking pursuant to section 112(g) 
as ``nonthreshold,'' ``high concern,'' or ``unrankable'' (collectively 
these are called ``VHAP of potential concern'').
    Under the FAP, each facility would identify a baseline level of 
usage for each VHAP of potential concern presented in Table 4 of the 
proposed rule. The baseline usage level would be the highest annual 
usage from 1994, 1995, or 1996. If, after November 1998, the annual 
usage of the VHAP exceeds its baseline level, the owner or operator of 
the affected source must provide a written notification to the 
permitting authority that describes the amount of increase and explains 
the reasons for exceedance of the baseline level. The following 
explanation would relieve the owner or operator from further action, 
unless the affected source is not in compliance with any State 
regulations or requirements for that VHAP.
    1. The increase is de minimis (no more than 15.0 percent above the 
established baseline);
    2. The facility complies with any State air toxics regulations or 
guidelines for that VHAP;
    3. It results from the adoption of low VOC coatings, that is, 
coatings with a VOC content of no more than 1.0 lb VOC/lb solids, as 
applied (the potential increase in HAP being deemed acceptable because 
it is offset by a decrease in VOC); or
    4. The usage is below the de minimis values presented in Table 4 of 
Sec. 63.803 of the proposed rule.
    If the exceedance cannot be attributed to any of the above 
explanations, the owner or operator must confer with the permitting 
authority to discuss the reasons for the increase in usage and to 
determine if there are practical and reasonable technology-based 
solutions for reducing the usage. If there are solutions, the owner or 
operator shall develop a plan to reduce usage of the pollutant to the 
extent feasible. If it is determined that there are no practical and 
reasonable solutions, the facility would take no further action.
    If, after November 1998, a facility uses a VHAP of potential 
concern for which a baseline level of usage has not been previously 
established, than the baseline level would be equivalent to the de 
minimus level, based on 70 year exposure levels and data provided in 
the proposed rulemaking pursuant to section 112(g) of the Clean Air 
Act, for that pollutant.
    As described in Table 4, the Work Practice Implementation Plan, 
including the I&M program, operator training program, solvent 
accounting system, and formulation assessment plan, must be written by 
the owner or operator and maintained onsite.

C. Compliance and Monitoring Requirements

1. Compliance Dates
    The compliance date for existing sources subject to this rule that 
emit 45.4 Mg (50 tons) or more of HAP per year is November 21, 1997. 
The compliance date for existing sources subject to this rule that emit 
less than 45.4 Mg (50 tons) of HAP per year is 3 years after the 
effective date of the rule. Existing area sources that become major 
sources are required to comply within 1 year after becoming a major 
source. Once an area source becomes a major source and thus subject to 
the regulation, a subsequent decrease in emissions does not allow the 
source to be exempt from the standards (even if emissions are decreased 
to below the major source criteria cutoff). New area sources that 
become major sources are subject to new source MACT immediately upon 
becoming a major source.
    Owners or operators of new sources that commence construction after 
the standards are proposed but before the standards are promulgated 
will have to comply immediately upon startup, unless the promulgated 
regulation is more stringent than the proposed regulation. In 
accordance with section 112(i)(2) of the Act, if the promulgated 
standards are more stringent than the proposed standards, the 
compliance date for sources that commence construction after proposal 
but before promulgation will be 3 years after the promulgation date, 
provided the owner or operator complies with the standards as proposed 
until the compliance date. All other new sources will have to comply 
with the proposed standards immediately upon startup.
2. Compliance Methods
    Sources must demonstrate compliance with the emission limits 
identified in Table 3 and the work practice standards in Table 4. A 
source must first demonstrate initial compliance and then continuous 
compliance with the standards. A summary of both the initial and 
continuous compliance methods is provided in Table 5. Compliance 
provisions are specified for the emission limits and for the work 
practice standards. For all sources, the results of the initial 
compliance are reported with the initial compliance report required by 
Sec. 63.9(h) and Sec. 63.807(b). Sources using compliant materials to 
comply with the proposed rule document their continuous compliance 
status through semiannual reports required by Sec. 63.807(c). Sources 
using control devices to comply with the proposed rule document their 
continuous compliance status through semiannual reports required by 
Sec. 63.10(e). Other reporting and recordkeeping requirements are 
summarized in section III.D.
    Section 114(a)(3) of the amended CAA requires enhanced monitoring 
and compliance certifications of all major stationary sources. The 
annual compliance certifications certify whether compliance has been 
continuous or intermittent. Enhanced monitoring shall be capable of 
detecting deviations from each applicable emission limitation or 
standard with sufficient representativeness, accuracy, precision, 
reliability, frequency and timeliness to determine if compliance is 
continuous during a reporting period. The monitoring in this regulation 
satisfies the requirements of enhanced monitoring.

                                Table 5.--Compliance and Monitoring Requirements                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Proposed requirement           Initial compliance method                Continuous compliance method         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Emission limits for                                                                                          
 finishing materials:                                                                                           
    (a) Achieve a weighted  (a) Submit the results of the         (a) For each finishing material, maintain     
     average HAP limit       averaging calculation for the first   copies of the CPDS and the monthly usage     
     across all finishing    month after the compliance date;      quantities, and calculate the weighted       
     materials; or.          submit information with compliance    average emission limit across all finishing  
                             status information report required    materials and solvents for each monthly      
                             by Sec. 63.9(h).                      period. Submit calculation results and       
                                                                   compliance certification 2x/yr.              
    (b) Use compliant       (b) Submit the compliance status      (b) Maintain copies of the CPDS for each      
     stains, washcoats,      information report required by Sec.   finishing material and thinner and records of
     sealers, topcoats,      63.9(h).                              the VHAP content, in kg VHAP/kg solids (lb   
     basecoats, enamels,                                           VHAP/lb solids), as applied, for each        
     and thinners; or.                                             finishing method. Submit compliance          
                                                                   certification 2x/yr.                         
    (c) Use a control       (c) Conduct performance testing in    (c) Conduct continuous parameter monitoring in
     device; or.             accordance with Sec. 63.804(e)(3)     accordance with Sec. 63.804(f)(3) of the     
                             of the proposed rule and with the     proposed rule and with the General Provisions
                             General Provisions to subpart A of    to subpart A of part 63.                     
                             part 63.                                                                           
    (d) A combination of    (d) Meet the requirements of (b),     (d) Meet the requirements of (b) and (c), as  
     (b) and (c).            and (c), as applicable.               applicable.                                  
2. Emission limits for                                                                                          
 adhesives:                                                                                                     
    (a) Use compliant       (a) Submit the compliance status      (a) Maintain copies of the CPDS for each glue 
     contact adhesives;      information report required by Sec.   used and records of the VHAP content, in kg  
     or.                     63.9(h).                              VHAP/kg solids (lb VHAP/lb solids), as       
                                                                   applied, for each contact adhesive. Submit   
                                                                   compliance certification 2x/yr.              
    (b) Use a control       (b) Conduct performance testing in    (b) Conduct continuous parameter monitoring in
     device.                 accordance with 63.804(e)(6) of the   accordance with 63.804(f)(6) of the proposed 
                             proposed rule and with the General    rule and with the General Provisions to      
                             Provisions to subpart A of part 63.   subpart A to part 63.                        
                             Sec. 63.9(h).                                                                      
3. Emission limits for                                                                                          
 cleaning:                                                                                                      
    Use compliant spray     Submit the compliance status          Maintain copies of CPDS for each spray booth  
     booth material.         information report required by Sec.   material. Submit compliance certification 2x/
                             63.9(h).                              yr.                                          
4. Work practice                                                                                                
 standards:                                                                                                     
    All work practices....  Prepare and maintain work practice    Follow work practice standards implementation 
                             standards implementation plan.        plan. Submit compliance certification 2x/yr. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Emission Limits for Finishing Operations. There are four methods 
of complying with the finishing material emission limits in the 
proposed rule as outlined in Tables 3 and 5. These include an averaging 
approach, the use of specific compliant materials, the use of a control 
device, or some combination of compliant materials and a control 
device. There are also special compliance provisions for sources using 
a compliant coatings approach that apply coatings using continuous 
coaters.
    An owner or operator that chooses the averaging approach can 
demonstrate initial compliance by recording the HAP and solids content, 
as reported on the certified product data sheet (CPDS), for each 
finishing material and solvent used by the facility in finishing 
operations and the quantity of each solvent and finishing material that 
is used. A CPDS is documentation furnished by coating suppliers or an 
outside laboratory that provides the HAP and solids content of the 
finishing material (or adhesives or solvent), as determined using the 
EPA Methods 311 and 24, respectively. The EPA Method 311, which is used 
to determine the HAP content of a coating or solvent, is being proposed 
with this rule. Currently, the method is only applicable for volatile 
HAP's. A modified version of the test method is being developed for 
determining the HAP content of coatings in which the HAP is used as a 
reactive diluent or the HAP is formed and emitted during the curing 
process. After it is completed, the modified version of the method 
should be used for these coatings. The owner or operator must then 
calculate the average kg VHAP/kg solids (lb VHAP/lb solids) for all 
finishing materials, as applied, used at the facility using Equation 1 
of Sec. 63.804(a)(1) of the proposed rule. Initial compliance is 
demonstrated if, over the first month after the compliance date, E (the 
average emission limitation achieved by the emission points 
participating in the averaging approach) is less than or equal to 1.0 
kg VHAP/kg solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids) for existing sources or 0.8 
kg VHAP/kg solids (0.8 lb VHAP/lb solids) for new sources. Continuous 
compliance is demonstrated by performing the same averaging calculation 
over each and every subsequent monthly period. A violation of the 
monthly average would be considered a violation for each operating day 
of the month, unless the affected source can demonstrate that the 
violation of the monthly average can be attributed to a particular day 
or days during the month.
    An owner or operator that uses compliant finishing materials can 
demonstrate initial and on-going compliance with the limits for 
affected stains, washcoats, sealers, topcoats, basecoats, and enamels 
by recording the HAP and solids content, as reported in the CPDS, for 
each affected stain, washcoat, sealer, topcoat, basecoat, and enamel 
used by the facility. The owner or operator must then calculate the kg 
VHAP/kg solids (lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied, for each of these 
materials.
    If a finishing material is thinned with solvent after purchase, the 
HAP and solids content reported on the CPDS must be adjusted to account 
for HAP from the thinner and the lower solids content of the thinned 
material. The HAP content of the thinner must be no more than 10.0 
percent by weight. Washcoats, basecoats, and enamels will be deemed 
compliant if they are formulated at the wood furniture facility with a 
compliant coating and thinners containing no more than 3.0 percent HAP 
by weight.
    The owner or operator of an existing source is in initial and 
continuous compliance with the proposed standards if the HAP content of 
each affected stain, sealer, and topcoat is no greater than 1.0 kg 
VHAP/kg solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied; each thinner used 
for stains, sealers, topcoats, and premade washcoats, basecoats, and 
enamels is less than or equal to 10.0 percent HAP by weight; and each 
washcoat, basecoat, and enamel that is formulated at the facility is 
formulated with a coating containing no more than 1.0 kg VHAP/kg solids 
(1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids) and a thinner containing no more than 3.0 
percent HAP by weight, or each washcoat, basecoat, and enamel that is 
purchased premade has a HAP content of no more than 1.0 kg VHAP/kg 
solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied.
    The owner or operator of a new source is in initial and continuous 
compliance with the proposed standards if the HAP content of each stain 
is no greater than 1.0 kg VHAP/kg solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids), as 
applied; the HAP content of each sealer and topcoat is no greater than 
0.8 kg VHAP/kg solids (0.8 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied, each thinner 
used for stains, sealers, and topcoats, and washcoats, basecoats, and 
enamels that are purchased premade is less than or equal to 10.0 
percent HAP by weight; and each washcoat, basecoat, and enamel that is 
formulated at the facility is formulated with a coating containing no 
more than 0.8 kg VHAP/kg solids (0.8 lb VHAP/lb solids) and a thinner 
containing no more than 3.0 percent HAP by weight, or each one that is 
purchased premade has a HAP content of no more than 0.8 kg VHAP/kg 
solids (0.8 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied. The use of any finishing 
material or thinner that does not meet the HAP limits specified in the 
proposed rule during any day constitutes a separate violation of the 
proposed rule for that day.
    The proposed standards include special compliance provisions for 
sources using a compliant coatings approach for meeting the proposed 
standards and that are applying those coatings using continuous 
coaters. With continuous coaters, any coating that is not applied to 
the parts to be finished is recycled to the coating reservoir. Solvent 
is added to the coating reservoir to ensure the proper mixture of 
solids and solvent is maintained. In this case, the records may show 
that the VHAP content of the coating in the reservoir is above the 
emission limit and a sample of the coating in the reservoir may 
indicate the coating is compliant. While the records are the more 
accurate measure of the VHAP content of the coating, they do not 
reflect that there will be some evaporation of the VHAP from the 
coating being recycled to the reservoir. In order to account for this 
evaporation, the EPA examined special compliance provisions for 
facilities using continuous coaters. Affected sources that are applying 
coatings using continuous coaters have two options for demonstrating 
compliance. These are:
    1. Using compliant coatings, as determined by the VHAP content of 
the coating in the reservoir and the VHAP content of the coating as 
calculated from records; or
    2. Using compliant coatings, as determined by the VHAP content of 
the coating in the reservoir, and maintaining a viscosity of the 
coating in the reservoir that is no less than the viscosity of the 
initial coating.
    The Agency recognizes that records may show the VHAP content of a 
coating is higher than the emission limitation when the coating is 
applied with a continuous coater. However, the Agency also recognizes 
that continuous coaters are potentially more efficient than spray 
application systems. In order to use option (2), the affected source 
must demonstrate that there is a relationship between the viscosity of 
the material and the HAP content of the material. Affected sources may 
monitor the viscosity of the coating with a viscosity meter or they may 
measure the viscosity each time solvent is added to the reservoir. If 
an affected source does not wish to monitor the viscosity then records 
must demonstrate that the coating is compliant.
    In determining compliance, sources using compliant materials 
(finishing materials, thinners, adhesives) should include periods of 
startup and shutdown because startups and shutdowns should not affect 
compliance with the rule.
    Owners or operators can also comply with the proposed rule by using 
a control device. Initial compliance is demonstrated by conducting 
performance testing in accordance with Sec. 63.805 of the proposed 
standards and the General Provisions to subpart A of part 63. The 
overall control efficiency (R) that is required by the standards is 
that which corresponds to Eac in Equation 2 of Sec. 63.804(a)(3) 
being less than or equal to 1.0 kg VHAP/kg solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb 
solids) for existing sources or 0.8 kg VHAP/kg solids (0.8 lb VHAP/lb 
solids) for new sources. Owners or operators using this approach can 
demonstrate continuous compliance with the regulation by continuously 
measuring and recording site-specific operating parameters, the values 
of which are established by the owner or operator during the initial 
compliance test. The operating parameter value is defined as the 
minimum or maximum value established for a control device or process 
parameter that, independently, or in combination with one or more other 
operating parameter values, determines that an owner or operator is 
complying with the applicable emission limitation or standards. The 
parameters that would be monitored under the control system scenarios 
expected in this industry are discussed in section VI.G.
    Owners or operators that choose to use a combination of techniques 
to demonstrate compliance must follow each applicable compliance 
technique. For example, if a source uses a control device to control 
emissions from one emission point (e.g., one finishing step) and 
compliant finishing materials for the other finishing steps, the 
compliance provisions associated with both control devices and 
compliant finishing materials apply. To determine the overall control 
efficiency (R) that is required to comply at the affected emission 
points, Equation 2 must be used. However, Ebc will only include 
those finishing materials and solvents being directed to the control 
device rather than all finishing materials and solvents as shown in 
Equation 1.
    b. Emission limits for Gluing Operations. The proposed rule also 
identifies emission limits for gluing operations. The proposed rule 
would limit the HAP content of contact adhesives.
    There are two methods of complying with the emission limits for 
contact adhesives in the proposed rule as outlined in Tables 3 and 5. 
These are the use of compliant materials or the use of a control 
device.
    An owner or operator that uses compliant contact adhesives can 
demonstrate initial and on-going compliance with the contact adhesive 
limits (kg VHAP/kg solids) by recording the HAP and solids content, as 
reported on the CPDS, for each contact adhesive used by the facility. 
The owner or operator must then calculate the kg VHAP/kg solids (lb 
VHAP/lb solids), as applied, for each of the contact adhesives. If a 
contact adhesive is thinned with solvent after purchase, the HAP and 
solids content reported on the CPDS must be adjusted accordingly to 
show compliance with the standards. The owner or operator is in initial 
and continuous compliance with the proposed standards if the HAP 
content of each contact adhesive is no greater than 1.0 kg VHAP/kg 
solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied, for existing sources or 0.2 
kg VHAP/kg solids (0.2 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied, for new sources.
    The owner or operator of an affected source using foam adhesives 
(contact adhesives used for upholstery operations), to manufacture 
products that meet the upholstered seating flammability testing 
requirements of California Technical Bulletin 116, 117, or 133, the 
Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Association's 
(BIFMA) x 5.7, UFAC Flammability Testing, or any similar requirements 
from local, State, or Federal fire regulatory agencies is in initial 
and continuous compliance with the proposed standards if the HAP 
content of each foam adhesive is no greater than 1.8 kg VHAP/kg solids 
(1.8 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied, for existing sources or 0.2 kg 
VHAP/kg solids (0.2 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied, for new sources. 
The use of any contact adhesive that does not meet the HAP limits 
specified in the proposed rule during any day is a violation of the 
proposed rule for that day.
    Owners or operators may also comply with the proposed rule for 
contact adhesives by using a control device. Initial compliance is 
demonstrated by conducting performance testing in accordance with 
Sec. 63.805 of the proposed standards and the General Provisions to 
subpart A of part 63. The overall control efficiency (R) that is 
required by the standards is that which corresponds to Gac in 
Equation 3 of Sec. 63.804(c)(2) being less than or equal to 1.0 kg 
VHAP/kg solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids) for existing sources or 0.2 kg 
VHAP/kg solids (0.2 lb VHAP/lb solids) for new sources. Owners or 
operators using this approach can demonstrate continuous compliance 
with the regulation by continuously measuring and recording site-
specific operating parameters, the values of which are established by 
the owner or operator during the initial compliance test. The operating 
parameter value is defined as the maximum or minimum value established 
for a control device or process parameter, that independently, or in 
combination with one or more other parameter values, determines that an 
owner or operator is complying with the applicable emission limitation 
or standards. The parameters that would be monitored under the control 
system scenarios expected in this industry are discussed in section 
VI.G.
    c. Emission Limits for Cleaning Operations. Compliance with the 
emission limits for the strippable spray booth material can be 
demonstrated through a CPDS. Owners or operators would demonstrate on-
going compliance by submitting a compliance certification with the 
semiannual reports required by Sec. 63.807(c) of the proposed rule 
stating that compliant spray booth coatings continue to be used. The 
owner or operator is in initial and continuous compliance with the 
proposed rule if the VOC content of each strippable spray booth coating 
is no greater than 0.8 kg VOC/kg solids (0.8 lb VOC/lb solids), as 
applied. The application of any strippable spray booth coating that 
does not meet the VOC limit specified in the proposed rule during any 
day is a violation of the proposed rule for that day.
    d. Work Practice Standards. Compliance with the work practice 
standards is demonstrated if the Work Practice Implementation Plan is 
developed and followed. Owners or operators would demonstrate on-going 
compliance by submitting a compliance certification with the semiannual 
reports required by Sec. 63.807(c) of the proposed rule stating that 
the Work Practice Implementation Plan was being followed. Failure to 
implement any of the provisions of the Work Practice Implementation 
Plan during any day is a violation of the proposed rule for that day.

D. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    Most of the reporting and recordkeeping provisions of the General 
Provisions to this subpart apply to all sources subject to the proposed 
standards. A summary of these requirements and the additional reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements that are specific to this source 
category is presented in Table 6. The General Provisions are applicable 
to all sources subject to the proposed rule that are using control 
devices for compliance. However, as indicated in Table 6, some 
requirements of the General Provisions apply only to control devices, 
continuous monitors, etc. and are not pertinent to sources complying 
through the use of compliant materials (finishing materials, adhesives, 
strippable spray booth coatings). Table 1 of the proposed rule 
specifically cites which sections of the General Provisions do not 
apply to sources using compliant materials.
      

                     Table 6.--Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements of the Proposed Rule                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Requirement                             Due datea                      Applicability          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              General Provisionsb                                               
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(e): Operation and maintenance          By the compliance date.....  Sources using add-on controls.    
 requirements (including preparation of                                                                         
 startup, shutdown, malfunction plan).                                                                          
Sec. 63.7(b): Notification of performance test.  60 days prior to test......  Sources using add-on controls.    
    (c): Site-specific test plan...............  60 days prior to test......  Sources using add-on controls.    
    (g): Report of performance test results....  60 days after test.........  Sources using add-on controls.    
Sec. 63.8(d): Continuous monitoring system       N/A........................  Sources using add-on controls.    
 (CMS) quality control program.                                                                                 
    (e): Notification of performance evaluation  With performance test        Sources using VOC CMS.            
     for CMS and site-specific test plan for      notification or 60 days                                       
     CMS.                                         prior to test.                                                
    (e): Report of CMS performance results.....  60 days after test.........  Sources using VOC CMS.            
Sec. 63.9(b): Initial notification requirements  120 days after effective     All affected sources.             
                                                  datec.                                                        
    (b): Notification of anticipated startup...  30-60 days prior...........  All affected sources.             
    (b): Notification of actual startup........  15 days after..............  All affected sources.             
    (h): Notification of compliance status.....  60 days after compliance     All affected sources.             
                                                  demonstrationd.                                               
Sec. 63.10(b): Maintain all required             N/A........................  All affected sources.             
 information for 5 years.                                                                                       
    (c): Additional recordkeeping for CMS......  N/A........................  Sources using add-on controls.    
    (d): Startup, shutdown, and malfunction      2x/yr......................  Sources using add-on controls.    
     reports.                                                                                                   
    (e): Excess emissions and CMS performance    2x/yre.....................  Sources using add-on controls.    
     report, and summary report.                                                                                
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Requirements Specific to This Rule                                       
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Provide a list of the types and quantities    Recordkeeping..............  All affected sources.             
 of each regulated finishing material,                                                                          
 adhesive, and cleaning material used, and the                                                                  
 VHAP and solids content of each.                                                                               
2. To demonstrate initial compliance with the    Submit with compliance       Sources using average approach or 
 standard, provide:                               status report required by    compliant coatings. All affected 
Calculations to demonstrate compliance with       Sec. 63.9(h).                sources.                         
 emission limits                                                                                                
Work practice implementation plan, including:                                                                   
Inspection and maintenance plan to address                                                                      
 equipment leaks;                                                                                               
Operator training program;                                                                                      
Description of cleaning/wash-off solvent                                                                        
 tracking system;                                                                                               
Formulation assessment plan.                                                                                    
3. To demonstrate ongoing compliance, submit     2x/yr (overrides Sec.        Sources using average approach or 
 semiannual report of:.                           63.10(e); no exemptions      compliant coatings. All affected 
Calculations to demonstrate compliance with       for no episodes of           sources.                         
 emission limits, if averaging approach is        noncompliance).                                               
 used; or.                                                                                                      
Compliance certification, if compliant                                                                          
 finishing materials are used; and.                                                                             
Compliance certification associated with                                                                        
 thinners, adhesives, and spray booth                                                                           
 materials; and.                                                                                                
Certification that work practice standards are                                                                  
 being followed; and.                                                                                           
The quantity of cleaning and wash off solvent                                                                   
 that is used monthly in cases of                                                                               
 noncompliance, a description of methods used                                                                   
 to attain compliance.                                                                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aDue dates are identified only for those items that must be submitted to the Administrator (or the permitting   
  authority).                                                                                                   
bThe requirements of the General Provisions apply to all sources subject to this standard. Each source should   
  review the General Provisions in detail; this table is just a brief summary.                                  
cThe effective date is the date of promulgation of the standard in the Federal Register.                        
dThe compliance date is the date by which affected sources must comply with the standard. The compliance status 
  report would be due 60 days after the compliance date for sources using compliant materials. The report would 
  be due 60 days after the performance test for sources using add-on controls.                                  
eIf the affected source experiences excess emissions, the source must follow a quarterly reporting format for at
  least 1 year after the excess emissions occurred and until a request to reduce reporting frequency is         
  approved.                                                                                                     

    In general, existing affected sources will be required to submit 
the following reports:
    (1) The initial notification required by Sec. 63.9(b);
    (2) The compliance status information report required by 
Sec. 63.9(h) that should include calculations or performance test 
results demonstrating compliance with the emission limits;
    (3) Semiannual reports certifying compliance with the Work Practice 
Implementation Plan;
    (4) If compliant finishing materials, thinners, or adhesives, or an 
averaging approach is being used, semiannual reports demonstrating on-
going compliance with the emission limits; and
    (5) If a control device is being used, reports as required by 
Secs. 63.6 through 63.10 of the General Provisions to subpart A of part 
63.

IV. Summary of Impacts

A. Environmental Impacts

    This section will discuss the incremental increase or decrease in 
air pollution, water pollution and solid waste generation that would 
result from implementing the proposed standards. Nationwide impacts are 
provided for existing sources.
1. Air Pollution Impacts
    The HAP emissions from finishing and gluing operations are 
controlled through emission limits on the finishing materials and 
contact adhesives used by the industry and through work practice 
standards. Emissions from cleaning operations will be reduced through 
work practice standards and an emission limit for strippable spray 
booth coatings. Emissions of VOC that are both HAP and non-HAP may be 
controlled in the process of meeting the requirements for HAP 
reduction. The quantity of those non-HAP VOC's that will be removed, 
however, has not been quantified. The estimated primary and secondary 
air pollution impacts that would result from implementing the proposed 
standards are summarized below.
    a. Primary Air Pollution Impacts. The immediate air pollution 
impacts resulting from the proposed standards would be a reduction in 
the emission of HAP by the source category. At baseline conditions 
(i.e., the conditions that exist in the absence of NESHAP), total 
estimated HAP emissions from existing sources are 50,584 Mg/yr (55,744 
tons/yr). If the proposed standards were enacted, these emissions would 
drop to approximately 20,825 Mg/yr (22,949 tons/yr). This is a total 
estimated HAP emission reduction of 29,759 Mg/yr (32,795 tons/yr).
    The actual reduction in emissions may be larger than that estimated 
here because the estimate did not account for the reduction of HAP from 
a number of the work practice standards. While most of the work 
practice standards are expected to reduce emissions, it is difficult to 
quantify the actual reduction. Emission reductions resulting from the 
restrictions on the use of conventional air spray guns and the operator 
training program were estimated, but no emission reduction was assigned 
to the other work practice standards. Therefore, the emission reduction 
presented here does not reflect the total reductions that may be 
achieved through the work practice standards.
    The proposed standards could also potentially result in a decline 
in VOC emissions and a reduction in ozone or photochemical smog. While 
the HAP limits do not require the use of lower-VOC materials, the work 
practice standards should reduce the use of VOC containing materials 
and, therefore, VOC emissions.
    b. Secondary Air Pollution Impacts. The proposed standards are not 
expected to result in any secondary air pollution impacts. Secondary 
emissions of air pollutants typically result from generation of the 
energy needed to operate control devices. If some facilities choose to 
meet the proposed standards through the use of control devices there 
could be some secondary air pollution impacts resulting from the use of 
these devices. These have not been quantified here because it is 
anticipated that most facilities will meet the limits through the use 
of reformulated materials.
2. Water Pollution Impacts
    The proposed standards are expected to have no impact on water 
pollution because waterborne coatings are not required to meet the 
proposed emission limitations. However, the Agency requests comment on 
whether this assessment is correct and whether or not an expansion of 
the use of waterborne finishes and associated cleanup operations, in 
response to the NESHAP, would impact water discharge from wood 
furniture manufacturing plants.
3. Solid Waste Impacts
    The only impact of the proposed standards on solid waste is a 
potential decrease resulting from the limitation on conventional air 
spray guns. Conventional air spray guns have a lower transfer 
efficiency, resulting in more overspray than other types of spray 
application equipment. With the use of more efficient application 
equipment, overspray, and the amount of waste solids generated from 
this overspray, is reduced. Due to the uncertainties in trying to 
quantify this reduction, no estimate of the reduction in solid waste 
has been made.

B. Energy Impacts

    The proposed standards are not expected to impact energy usage by 
the industry. As with the secondary air pollution impacts, there may be 
some impact on energy usage if some facilities choose to use control 
devices to meet the proposed standards. However, these impacts have not 
been estimated because facilities are likely to meet the proposed 
standards through the use of reformulated material.

C. Economic Impacts

    The EPA performed an economic impact analysis of the requirements 
imposed on the wood furniture industry by this proposed rule. Since the 
economic impact analysis was completed, the proposed standards have 
changed. The cost impacts presented in IV.D reflect the changes in the 
proposed standards, but the economic impacts presented here are based 
on different cost impacts. The economic impact analysis is based on a 
total industry-wide capital investment of $13,335,900, an annual cost 
of $16,801,200, and a cost effectiveness of $578/Mg ($525/ton). Because 
the cost impact of the proposed standards is lower than those used for 
the economic impact analysis, the economic impacts presented here are 
expected to be greater than the actual economic impact. In performing 
the economic impact analysis potential price, output, employment, 
closure, and secondary effects on affected segments of the wood 
furniture industry were assessed using a market model of supply and 
demand for this industry. Potential small business impacts were also 
examined.
    The economic impact analysis assessed the economic impacts of the 
proposed rule on the household, cabinet, and commercial segments of the 
wood furniture industry. Estimated market price increases from the 
proposed rule are small, 0.07 percent or less in each of the three 
segments. Estimated reductions in market output are also relatively 
small ranging from 0.03 percent in the commercial segment to 0.20 
percent in the household segment. Total employment losses were 
estimated at 720 or approximately 0.22 percent of total industry 
employment. Most of these estimated losses (570) occur in the household 
furniture sector. Of the more than 700 operations expected to be 
directly impacted, three were predicted to close due to implementation 
of this rule. The dollar value of total wood furniture imports was 
estimated to increase by 0.43 percent, reflecting both increased volume 
and higher prices.
    Potential small business impacts were predicted to be minimal. 
Results from the economic impact and regulatory flexibility analyses 
indicate that smaller plants will not be systematically impacted more 
severely than larger operations. Moreover, the vast majority of small 
operations, which will not be subject to the requirements of the 
proposed rule, may benefit, to some extent, from slightly increased 
wood furniture prices.

D. Cost Impacts

    For existing major sources, the proposed standards are estimated to 
result in a total industry-wide capital investment of $7,046,600. This 
cost includes the capital cost of equipment required to achieve 
compliance with the proposed standards. The annual cost associated with 
the proposed standards is $15,279,600. This cost includes the capital 
cost of control (annualized, assuming a 7-percent interest rate and a 
10-year equipment life), annual operating cost including the additional 
cost of using reformulated materials, worker training, increased labor, 
and annual compliance, recordkeeping, and reporting costs. The annual 
control cost is approximately $10,779,600 and the annual compliance, 
recordkeeping and reporting cost is approximately $4,500,000. The 
associated cost effectiveness of the proposed standards is $513/Mg 
($466/ton).

V. Decision Process for NESHAP Development

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development

    Section 112 of the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection 
Agency the authority to establish national standards to reduce air 
emissions from sources that emit one or more HAP. Section 112(b) 
contains a list of HAP to be regulated by NESHAP. Section 112(c) 
directs the Agency to use this pollutant list to develop and publish a 
list of source categories for which NESHAP will be developed; this list 
was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). 
The Agency must list all known categories and subcategories of ``major 
sources'' that emit one or more of the listed HAP. A major source is 
defined in section 112(a) as any stationary source or group of 
stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common 
control that emits or has the potential to emit in the aggregate, 
considering controls, 10 tons/yr or more of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr 
or more of any combination of HAP.

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

    The NESHAP are to be developed to control HAP emissions from both 
new and existing sources according to the statutory directives set out 
in section 112(d) of the Act. The statute requires the standards to 
reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is 
achievable for new and existing sources. This control level is referred 
to as the ``maximum achievable control technology'' (MACT). The 
selection of MACT must reflect consideration of the cost of achieving 
the emission reduction, any nonair quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements for control levels more stringent than 
the MACT floors.
    The MACT floor is the least stringent level for MACT standards. For 
new sources, the standards for a source category or subcategory ``shall 
not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in 
practice by the best controlled similar source, as determined by the 
Administrator'' [section 112(d)(3)]. Existing source standards should 
be no less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by 
the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources for categories 
and subcategories with 30 or more sources or the best performing 5 
sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources 
[section 112(d)(3)].
    Although NESHAP are normally structured in terms of numerical 
emission limits, alternative approaches are sometimes necessary. In 
some cases, physically measuring emissions from a source may be 
impossible or at least impracticable because of technological and 
economic limitations. Section 112(h) authorizes the Administrator to 
promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, 
or combination thereof, in those cases where it is not feasible to 
prescribe or enforce an emissions standard.

VI. Rationale

    The following sections explain the rationale used in selecting the 
proposed standards.

A. Selection of Pollutants and Source Category

1. Selection of Pollutants
    The specific pollutants regulated by the proposed standards are 
those compounds that are listed as HAP in section 112(b) of the Act. In 
the wood furniture (surface coating) source category, HAP are emitted 
from finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff operations.
    The HAP most commonly used by the wood furniture industry are VOC's 
used as solvents in the finishing materials and include toluene, 
xylenes, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and methyl isobutyl 
ketone (MIBK). Another material used in finishing operations in this 
industry is thinner, which is used to dilute finishing materials 
purchased from an outside source. Thinners contain one or several of 
the HAP previously noted and, therefore, are a source of HAP emissions. 
Nonvolatile HAP that are contained in the finishing materials used by 
wood furniture manufacturers are typically in the pigments and include 
chromium, cobalt, and manganese.
    Gluing operations are also sources of HAP emissions. Formaldehyde 
is contained in urea-formaldehyde resins and is emitted during gluing 
operations, as well as during the storage, use, and cutting of 
composite wood products that contain these cured resins. Contact 
adhesives contain volatile solvents such as 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 
methylene chloride, toluene, and n-hexane that are HAP.
    The solvents contained in cleaning and washoff materials are 
typically the same solvents that are found in the coating formulations. 
Those that are HAP (identified above) are regulated by the proposed 
standards.
2. Selection of the Source Category
    The source category regulated by the proposed standards is wood 
furniture (surface coating). Specifically, major sources of HAP 
emissions are covered by the proposed rule; i.e., sources that have the 
potential to emit, considering controls, 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) of any 
one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tons/yr) of multiple HAP. Table 2 lists the 
many products that are manufactured by the source category and 
illustrates the diversity of the industry. As indicated in Table 2, the 
proposed rule applies to facilities included in at least nine SIC codes 
because some or all of the facilities that are included in these SIC 
codes produce wood furniture. The SIC codes listed in Table 2 are 
estimated to include greater than 11,000 facilities. Of these, it is 
estimated that 750 sources are major. This estimate is based on data 
collected from EPA's survey of the industry. The remaining sources are 
thought to be area sources, or synthetic area sources, and as such 
would not be subject to the proposed rule (see related discussion in 
section VI.A.2.b).
    a. Subcategorization. Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act gives the 
Environmental Protection Agency the authority to distinguish among 
classes, types, and sizes of sources within a source category in 
establishing standards. There are many reasons for subcategorizing a 
source category. A primary reason for subcategorizing a source category 
is that different types of control techniques may be appropriate 
depending on the type of product manufactured, the manufacturing 
process, and the size of the plant. Due to the diversity of this source 
category, the Committee considered subcategorizing the source category 
by industry market segment (e.g., kitchen cabinet manufacturers, 
residential furniture, upholstered furniture, etc.) and by 
manufacturing process (e.g., finishing a piece before it is assembled, 
finishing a piece after assembly).
    Discussions of subcategorization occurred through several 
regulatory negotiation meetings. A recurring issue during the 
discussions was the difficulty in assigning a facility to one 
subcategory. Some wood furniture facilities manufacture products for 
different market segments and some use multiple manufacturing 
processes.
    As the data were evaluated and the recommended format of the 
standards was developed, it became apparent that the proposed standards 
were most likely going to be a limit on the pounds of HAP emitted per 
pound of solids used at a source (see section VI.D). The Committee's 
review of the data revealed that the HAP limit of facilities in the 
source category did not vary significantly according to the industry 
market segment, the size of the facility, or the manufacturing process. 
In addition, subcategorization by market segment could not address the 
diversity of the industry as there was as much variation in the types 
of control techniques used within each market segment as between the 
market segments.
    Another aspect that the Committee discussed was the potential for 
subcategorization to limit the flexibility of sources in complying with 
the standards. One compliance method under consideration (and 
ultimately included in the proposal) was one that allowed averaging 
across various finishing steps within a facility. In this industry, 
however, the finishing steps could be within different subcategories 
and the EPA interprets the Act as not allowing averaging across 
subcategories for compliance determinations. This made 
subcategorization less attractive to the Committee.
    The Committee decided that the disadvantages of subcategorizing 
this industry outweighed any benefits to either the affected sources or 
to regulators. Instead, the Committee worked to allow multiple 
compliance techniques that could address the operational differences 
among the various segments within the source category.
    b. Area Source Evaluation. Of the estimated 11,000 sources in this 
source category, over 10,000 are thought to be area sources. The Agency 
also expects that some sources (known as ``synthetic area'' sources) 
will apply for a Federally enforceable limit on their potential to emit 
through the Title V permitting program or some other Federally 
enforceable program so that they are no longer considered major. A 
``synthetic area'' source is a source that has obtained a Federally 
enforceable limit that will preclude the source's HAP emissions from 
exceeding 10 tons per year of any one HAP or 25 tons per year of any 
combination of HAP; without this limit the source is considered major. 
The proposed standards do not apply to area sources (including 
synthetic area sources).

B. Selection of Emission Points

    The specific emission points regulated by the proposed standards 
are finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff operations, all of which 
are described in section II. At some wood furniture facilities, only 
finishing and cleaning operations will occur. At others, all four 
operations will take place. Finishing operations may be a small part of 
some plant operations (e.g., upholstered furniture), or may comprise 
the majority of plant operations (e.g., residential furniture). 
Nonetheless, finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff operations are 
the primary HAP emission sources at wood furniture facilities.
    The proposed standards for finishing and cleaning operations were 
developed within the framework of the regulatory negotiation described 
in section I.B. The proposed standards for gluing operations were 
developed by the Agency because adhesive suppliers were not represented 
on the Committee. However, the Agency did consult with adhesive 
suppliers and operators that perform gluing operations in developing 
the proposed standards. The EPA survey of the industry also included 
questions concerning gluing operations.
    The EPA analysis indicates that there are four primary types of 
adhesives used by the wood furniture industry: hot melts, polyvinyl 
acetate (PVA) adhesives, urea-formaldehyde (UF) resins, and contact 
adhesives. The proposed standards do not regulate UF resins, hot melts, 
or PVA adhesives.
    The EPA has explored the issue of UF resins in developing the 
NESHAP and has decided not to control formaldehyde emissions from UF 
resins in the proposed standards. Urea-formaldehyde resins were removed 
from consideration during the regulatory negotiation because the 
Committee members did not represent parties that would be significantly 
affected by these provisions. The EPA investigated UF resins outside of 
the negotiation using survey data, studies, and in meetings with the 
manufacturers and users.
    The major use of UF resins in the furniture industry is the 
manufacture of plywood. A furniture facility may make plywood for later 
use or glue decorative wood veneers to a wood substrate as part of the 
manufacturing process. Both of these processes, however, are considered 
to be plywood manufacturing. Thus, it makes sense to control 
formaldehyde emissions from UF resins in a broader, more comprehensive 
format through the NESHAP for Plywood and Particleboard Manufacturing 
that is scheduled to be promulgated in 2000. Accordingly, the EPA has 
decided to defer controlling emissions from UF resins in the proposed 
standards. In the interim, some members of the UF resins industry have 
expressed a willingness to work together with the EPA to explore 
scientific approaches to measure emissions and evaluate control 
technologies that limit emissions from UF resins and wood products 
containing these resins.
    Hot melts are also not covered by the proposed standards because 
they are not sources of HAP emissions. Hot melts are solid, ethylene 
vinyl acetate-based products that are used primarily for edgebanding, 
which is the process of applying a laminate to the edge of a 
countertop, desktop, table, or other piece of furniture.
    The PVA adhesives are waterbased emulsions that have the potential 
to emit small amounts of vinyl acetate monomer, a HAP. Typically, PVA 
adhesives contain less than 0.3 percent vinyl acetate monomer and are 
among the lowest emitting adhesives used by the industry. The EPA is 
not aware of lower emitting alternatives that can be used for all 
applications for which PVA adhesives are used. For this reason, the EPA 
is proposing that the use of PVA adhesives not be regulated by the 
proposed standards.

C. Selection of Proposed Emission Limits

    The proposed emission limits include a HAP emission limit for 
finishing operations, a limit on the HAP content of contact adhesives, 
and a limit on the VOC content of strippable spray booth materials. For 
a description of the rationale for selecting the proposed format for 
these emission limits, refer to section VI.D.
1. Determination of the MACT Floor
    Section 112 requires the EPA to set standards for existing and new 
sources of HAP emissions that represent the maximum degree of reduction 
achievable, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such 
emission reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements. For determining the proposed emission 
limits for finishing and gluing operations, a MACT floor approach was 
used. As was discussed in section V.B, for existing sources in source 
categories with 30 or more sources, the MACT floor is the average level 
of control that is achieved in practice by the best performing 12 
percent of sources in the source category.
    Work practice standards are also proposed to limit HAP emissions 
from finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff operations. The selection 
of the work practice standards is discussed in section VI.E.
    In order to determine the MACT floor for the wood furniture 
industry, the EPA surveyed more than 850 wood furniture manufacturing 
operations. Facilities of all sizes operating under each of the SIC 
codes of interest were surveyed in order to get a representative 
sampling of the industry. Responses were received from more than 300 
sources, 91 of which were determined to be major sources. Information 
provided by plants included the material safety data sheet (MSDS) for 
each finishing material, cleaning material, and adhesive containing HAP 
that was used at the plant, as well as information on HAP usage, HAP 
emissions, finishing material usage, cleaning solvent usage, adhesive 
usage, and control techniques used (if any).
    a. MACT Floor for Finishing Operations. 
    i. Existing sources. As discussed in section VI.D., in evaluating 
the data collected from industry on finishing operations, the format 
that seemed technically feasible and most flexible for the entire 
source category was an emission limit expressed in terms of pounds of 
volatile HAP (VHAP) emitted per pound of solids used (lb VHAP/lb solids 
[kg VHAP/kg solids]). Thus, the MACT floor for finishing operations at 
existing sources was calculated as the average HAP emission level (lb 
HAP/lb solids) achieved by the best performing 12 percent of sources, 
that is, those sources with the lowest HAP emission level. The HAP 
emission level for each facility was calculated by dividing the 
facility's total HAP usage by the total quantity of solids in the 
finishing materials.
    The Agency had collected sufficient data on the HAP usage at major 
sources from the survey of the industry, but did not have data on the 
solids content of each finishing material used by a facility. 
Therefore, the coating supplier for each major source calculated the 
emission level for that source. The Committee agreed that data provided 
by coating suppliers were more accurate than an emission level 
calculated using only the EPA's data base; because of the lack of data 
on the solids content, the Agency would have needed to make assumptions 
to calculate the emission level for each major source.
    Because information was available on 91 major sources, the MACT 
floor was calculated as the average emission limitation achieved by the 
best performing 11 existing sources (i.e., the best performing 12 
percent). The Committee agreed that the 11 sources should comprise 
every type of wood furniture operation covered by the proposed rule. If 
the MACT floor was calculated by looking only at the emission limit of 
the top 11 sources, without regard to industry segment, one industry 
segment could be ``over-represented.'' The Committee was especially 
concerned that one of the smaller industry segments could comprise the 
majority of sources in the MACT floor. Therefore, each industry segment 
was represented in the MACT floor proportional to its representation in 
the industry. The Committee agreed that the quantity of finishing 
material used was a reasonable method for assessing the percentage of 
the entire industry represented by each industry segment. Based on the 
finishing material usage data collected by the EPA through its survey 
of the industry, it was determined that the total finishing material 
usage by the source category was approximately distributed as follows:
--kitchen cabinets (SIC 2434): 34 percent
--residential furniture (2511): 44 percent
--office furniture (2521): 7 percent
--radio/TV cabinets (2517): 6 percent
--upholstered furniture (2512): 3.5 percent
--public building furniture (2531): 3 percent
--store fixtures (2541): 2 percent
--other (2519): 0.5 percent

    Based on the above distribution, the Committee agreed that the 11 
plants comprising the MACT floor should include the best performing 4 
kitchen cabinet plants (34 percent of 11), 5 residential furniture 
plants (44 percent), 1 office furniture plant (7 percent), and 1 plant 
manufacturing radio/TV cabinets (6 percent). The other industry 
segments comprised such a small percentage of the source category, the 
Committee believed that it was not necessary to represent them in the 
MACT floor analysis. The Committee also believed that the industry 
segments not included in the MACT floor were similar in many respects 
to those that were included and would therefore be able to achieve the 
same MACT floor emission limit.
    In reviewing the data collected by the EPA from industry, industry 
representatives expressed concern that control devices were ``over-
represented'' in the EPA's data base, which indicated approximately 5 
percent of major sources were equipped with control devices. Industry 
felt that they knew of each control device used by the industry and 
based on their knowledge, they believed no more than 1 percent of major 
sources were equipped with control devices. The Committee agreed that 
approximately 1 percent of the major sources are equipped with control 
devices. While the Act states that the MACT floor analysis shall be 
based on sources for which the Administrator has emissions information, 
this does not mean EPA should not use the information it has 
appropriately. Given that the Committee believed that control devices 
were over-represented in EPA's data base, the EPA concluded that the 
MACT floor should be calculated from a population of facilities that 
includes only 1 (instead of 4) control device (equivalent to 1 percent 
of the major sources in the data base).
    The Agency specifically requests comments on this decision. Any 
supporting data that would justify additional sources or fewer sources 
with control devices being included in the MACT floor analysis would be 
welcomed.
    Using the approaches described above, the average HAP emission 
level achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources 
was determined to be 1.0 lb HAP/lb solids (1.0 kg HAP/kg solids), as 
applied. As discussed in IV.D, the format of the emission limitation 
was later changed to kilograms of volatile HAP per kilogram of solids, 
as applied, (kg VHAP/kg solids [lb VHAP/lb solids] as applied). 
Therefore, the MACT floor for existing sources is 1.0 kg VHAP/kg solids 
(1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied.
    The EPA is considering two possible meanings for the word 
``average'' as the term is used above in relation to determining the 
MACT floor. First, ``average'' could be interpreted as the arithmetic 
mean. The arithmetic mean of a set of measurements is the sum of the 
measurements divided by the number of measurements in the set. The EPA 
has determined that the arithmetic mean of the emissions limitations 
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources would 
yield, in some cases, an emission limitation that fails to correspond 
to the limitation achieved by any particular technology. In such cases, 
the EPA would not select this approach. The word ``average'' could also 
be interpreted as the median emission limitation value. The median is 
the value in a set of measurements arranged in order of magnitude below 
and above which there are an equal number of values (i.e., it is the 
middle value). This approach identifies the emission limitation 
achieved by those sources within the top 12 percent, arranges those 
emission limitations by magnitude, and takes the control level achieved 
by the median source. This is mathematically equivalent to identifying 
the emission limitation achieved by the source at the 94th percentile 
level of emission control. Either of these two approaches could be used 
in developing standards for different source categories.
    In determining the MACT floor for this source category, the 
Committee used the approach that interprets the average as the 
arithmetic mean. The median approach is not feasible for the proposed 
standards because it would defeat the purpose of having proportional 
representation of each industry segment. The median approach would 
select the level of control achieved by one facility, the one at the 
94th percentile, and would only represent one industry segment. In 
addition, the arithmetic mean represents a technically achievable 
emission limitation for this industry. Of the 11 facilities in the 
floor, two have an emission limit of 1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids. A range of 
options can be used to meet the 1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids limit; the limit 
does not require the use of either a specific technology or a limited 
set of technologies. The EPA specifically solicits comments on its 
interpretation of average in general, and the use of an arithmetic mean 
for this rule specifically.
    ii. New sources. Section 112 of the Act specifies that the MACT 
floor for new sources shall be no less stringent than the level of 
control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar 
source. The Committee determined the MACT floor for new sources using 
an approach similar to that for existing sources; that is, one that 
represents the multiple industry segments within the source category. 
For new sources, the MACT floor was calculated by determining the HAP 
limit of the best performing source in each industry segment that 
comprised the existing source MACT floor (kitchen cabinets, residential 
furniture, radio/TV cabinets, office furniture). Then, a weighted 
average (weighted by the relative coating usage of each industry 
segment) was calculated to determine the HAP limit for new sources. 
This HAP limit was calculated to be 0.8 lb VHAP/lb solids (0.8 kg VHAP/
kg solids), as applied, and is the MACT floor for new sources for all 
industry segments.
    b. MACT Floor for Gluing Operations. The proposed standards would 
only regulate the HAP content of contact adhesives. Hot melts are not 
sources of HAP emissions, there are no lower emitting alternatives for 
PVA adhesives, and regulation of formaldehyde based adhesives is being 
deferred to later rulemaking. As discussed in section II, contact 
adhesives are used primarily for laminating and for upholstery 
operations. Contact adhesives used for upholstery operations are also 
referred to as foam adhesives. The emission limit for contact adhesives 
is expressed as a HAP limit, in pounds of VHAP per pound of solids, as 
applied. The MACT floor for contact adhesives was determined as an 
average (equivalent to the mean) of the HAP limit achieved by the best 
performing 12 percent of contact adhesives used by major sources in 
quantities greater than 200 gallons per year; this limit was calculated 
as 1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids (1.0 kg VHAP/kg solids), as applied. The HAP 
limit for each contact adhesive was determined from data provided by 
the adhesive supplier for each major source in the EPA's data base 
using contact adhesives. The HAP limit for the lowest emitting contact 
adhesive is 0.2 lb VHAP/lb solids, as applied. Thus, the MACT floor for 
contact adhesives used by new sources is a HAP content of no more than 
0.2 lb HAP/lb solids (0.2 kg VHAP/kg solids), as applied.
2. Selection of MACT
    The Committee proposed that MACT for finishing operations should be 
set at the same level as the MACT floor. This proposal was supported by 
review of the data on which the MACT floor is based. The Committee 
determined that HAP emission limits substantially lower than the MACT 
floor were not being met, nor could they be met by most facilities in 
the industry segments comprising the MACT floor.
    It is expected that most sources will comply with the proposed 
standards by reformulating existing coatings. Control devices are not 
widely used by sources covered by the proposed rule to control 
emissions from finishing operations. In addition, State rules do not 
require this level of control, and the Committee did not favor a 
proposal that would mandate the use of control devices. Thus, more 
stringent control could only be achieved in most cases by the exclusive 
use of coatings with a very low- or zero-HAP content. Currently, 
finishing materials with a very low or zero-HAP content have not been 
demonstrated to be feasible for all industry segments.
    Another factor that the Committee evaluated in selecting MACT was 
the impact of the proposed rule when the work practice standards are 
considered. These standards will result in additional reduction in HAP 
emissions. Because numerical limits are not assigned to all work 
practice standards, the total reduction in emissions that results from 
implementing such standards is not quantified. Given that an emission 
limit more stringent than the MACT floor could not be achieved by all 
segments of the industry and the fact that work practices will further 
reduce HAP emissions, the Committee favored setting the finishing 
material emission limits based on the MACT floor.
    In selecting MACT, the industry members of the Committee raised the 
possibility that EPA might, at some future time, conduct rulemaking 
activities to expand or reduce the current HAP list. The emission 
limits calculated for the wood furniture NESHAP were based on the list 
of 189 hazardous air pollutants published in the 1990 Clean Air Act and 
were not intended to apply to any changes that may be made to the list 
in the future. In the event the list is changed, either by the addition 
or deletion of VHAP, the Committee recommended that EPA re-examine the 
wood furniture emission limits and determine whether it should be 
adjusted to account for the change.
    The Agency proposes that MACT for contact adhesives should also be 
set at the same level as the MACT floor. (The Committee was not 
involved in selecting MACT for gluing operations.) Based upon 
discussions with industry, the Agency decided that an emission 
limitation more stringent than the MACT floor was not feasible for 
contact adhesives.
    The Agency proposes that MACT for contact adhesives used for 
upholstery operations (referred to here as foam adhesives) be set at a 
different level if the product manufactured with the foam adhesive 
meets flammability testing requirements of California Technical 
Bulletin 116, 117, or 133, BIFMA X 5.7, UFAC Flammability Testing, or 
any similar requirements from local, State, or Federal fire regulatory 
agencies. The limit of 1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids may require the use of 
waterborne foam adhesives. Many of the products manufactured with foam 
adhesives must meet standards for flammability. However, industry, 
including furniture manufacturers and adhesive suppliers, have stated 
that products manufactured with waterborne foam adhesives may fail 
these flammability tests. Therefore, the EPA has decided that foam 
adhesives used in products manufactured by existing sources that meet 
the flammability standards do not have to meet the limit of 1.0 lb 
VHAP/lb solids. For foam adhesives used in products manufactured by 
existing sources that do not meet the flammability standards, the EPA 
is proposing that MACT for existing sources be set at the MACT floor, 
that is, 1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids (1.0 kg VHAP/kg solids), as applied.
    The Agency believes that HAP emissions from foam adhesives used in 
products manufactured by existing sources can be reduced. In order to 
establish a limit for these adhesives, the EPA elected to set a limit 
equivalent to that of the lowest emitting solventborne foam adhesive 
used in quantities greater than 200 gallons per year. This adhesive has 
a HAP content of 1.8 lb VHAP/lb solids (1.8 kg VHAP/kg solids), as 
applied. Therefore, the EPA is proposing that MACT for existing sources 
for foam adhesives used in products that meet flammability standards be 
set at 1.8 lb VHAP/lb solids (1.8 kg VHAP/kg solids), as applied.
    Some manufacturers of contact adhesives have requested an exemption 
from the emission limitation for existing and new sources (1.0 kg VHAP/
kg solids and 0.2 kg VHAP/kg solids, respectively), for problem 
applications involving nonporous substrates such as rigid plastic, 
metal, and rubber. According to the manufacturers, these operations 
require solvent-dispersed adhesives. Low VOC and HAP alternatives are 
not expected to be available for several more years.
    Manufacturers have also requested an exemption for aerosol 
adhesives. These adhesives are typically used by small businesses and 
by larger businesses for touch-up and repair. According to 
manufacturers, they are highly specialized systems and reformulation 
involves complex problems that affect not only the adhesive but the 
delivery system as well.
    Rather than allow the exemptions at this time, the Agency has 
decided to request comment on whether the exemptions should be allowed 
and any data that would support or refute the need for these 
exemptions. Additionally, the Agency specifically requests comments on 
the approach used for establishing MACT for contact adhesives for 
existing sources including comment on the following issues:
    1. The appropriateness of excluding adhesives used in amounts less 
than 200 gallons per year, which the industry felt represented a de 
minimis usage, from calculation of the MACT floor;
    2. Calculating the MACT floor based on the average of the best 
performing 12 percent of adhesives for a data set that is limited, 22 
data points, but which the EPA believes is representative of the 
industry; and
    3. The appropriateness of setting MACT for foam adhesives for 
existing sources based on a special quality required for the product 
(i.e., flammability).

D. Selection of Format of Proposed Emission Limits

1. Finishing Operations
    For finishing operations, the VHAP content, expressed as pounds of 
VHAP emitted per pound of solids used (kg VHAP/kg solids), was 
determined to be the most appropriate format for the proposed 
standards. In selecting the format of the proposed standards, the 
following factors were considered:
    1. The format must accommodate multiple compliance techniques for 
the various industry segments;
    2. Given the large number of small businesses in this source 
category, the format must ensure that the cost of compliance is not 
excessive;
    3. The format must ensure that an equivalent level of control is 
achieved by all affected sources; and
    4. The format must facilitate enforcement by regulatory agencies.
    During the negotiation meetings, the Committee considered several 
formats for the finishing operations standards in addition to the 
selected format of pounds of VHAP emitted per pound of solids used. 
These included: (1) a percent efficiency format, (2) a limit on 
emissions of HAP per gallon of coating, and (3) a limit on emissions of 
HAP per gallon of solids. For all HAP-limit formats, including the one 
selected for the proposed standards, the quantity of HAP used annually 
is calculated as applied (the total emissions from a coating after any 
thinning by the furniture manufacturer). Therefore, if prepurchased 
coatings were diluted with thinner at a facility, this dilution was 
accounted for. A Measurement Work Group comprised of some of the 
Committee members was established by the Committee to investigate these 
potential regulatory formats.
    The Measurement Work Group determined that a percent reduction 
format was not appropriate for this source category. In debating a 
percent reduction format, the Measurement Work Group considered the 
fact that conventional control devices were not likely to be the 
compliance method of choice for this source category. Therefore, a 
straightforward measurement of capture and control device efficiency 
would not be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with a specific 
percent reduction. Instead, to implement a percent reduction format, 
baseline conditions at each affected source would have to be assessed. 
At an uncontrolled facility this would not be a problem; baseline 
conditions would be the current HAP emission rate. The percent 
reduction would be applied to this uncontrolled rate to calculate the 
controlled HAP emission rate required by the standards. Problems with 
the percent reduction format arise, however, if a facility has 
implemented control strategies prior to proposal of the MACT standards. 
If the same baseline year is selected for both the uncontrolled and 
controlled facility, the controlled facility would be required to 
control a greater quantity of HAP emissions than the uncontrolled 
facility. Thus, a percent reduction format was perceived as penalizing 
sources that initiated control strategies prior to proposal of the MACT 
standards. The Committee agreed with the Measurement Work Group's 
recommendation that a percent reduction format not be selected for this 
source category.
    Initially, the Measurement Work Group considered a limit on the 
pounds of HAP contained in a gallon of finishing material (lb HAP/gal), 
either for each finishing material or as an average across all 
finishing materials. In analyzing the data, however, the Measurement 
Work Group discovered that the pounds of HAP per gallon of finishing 
material format would not credit sources that switch to lower-emitting, 
higher-solids finishing materials. For example, a facility using a 
finishing material with a solids content of 40 percent and a HAP 
content of 3 lb/gal will emit fewer pounds of HAP than a facility using 
a finishing material with a solids content of 20 percent and a HAP 
content of 2 lb/gal because the first facility will use 50 percent less 
finishing material than the second. Because the HAP content of a 
finishing material is not directly related to the solids content, a 
comparison of the emission potential of two finishing materials using a 
lb/gal format cannot be made.
    As an alternative to the lb HAP/gal format, the Measurement Work 
Group considered a format of lb HAP/gal of solids. It was believed that 
this format would adequately credit sources that converted some or all 
of their conventional finishing materials to higher-solids coatings. A 
problem with the lb HAP/gal solids format, however, is that no EPA test 
method is currently available for accurately measuring the volume of 
solids in a finishing material.
    In an effort to develop standards that did not require measuring 
the volume of solids, the Measurement Work Group decided to explore a 
format based on the weight of solids used, rather than the volume of 
finishing material or volume of solids. In evaluating a format of lb 
HAP emitted per lb solids used, the Measurement Work Group first 
concluded that this format predicted actual emission reductions better 
than any other format when extremes in finishing materials were tested. 
For example, if a source were to increase the solids content of its 
finishing material and decrease its usage of finishing materials, the 
format of lb HAP/lb solids properly credited the source's emission 
reduction.
    Three potential drawbacks to the format of lb HAP/lb solids were 
identified by the Measurement Work Group. The first drawback concerned 
higher solids stains. Unlike the film building finishing materials, 
stain usage is not directly related to the solids content. A source 
could use a higher solids stain to reduce its lb HAP/lb solids level 
without decreasing stain usage or HAP emissions. The second drawback 
was that a source could double its film thickness to reduce the lb HAP/
lb solids value while increasing emissions. The third drawback with 
using a lb HAP/lb solids format is related to pigmented finishing 
materials such as basecoats and enamels. Some of the pigments used in 
these finishing materials have a higher density than the solids used in 
conventional finishing materials. While these finishing materials 
typically have a lower HAP content than the conventional finishing 
materials used by the industry, the lb HAP/lb solids format for these 
finishing materials will overestimate the actual decrease in emissions 
because of the higher density of the solids.
    The Work Group presented its findings to the Committee along with a 
recommendation that, despite the drawbacks, the lb HAP/lb solids format 
was the most reasonable. Regarding the first drawback (the problem with 
higher solids stains), the Work Group agreed that this issue did not 
pose a significant problem with the lb HAP/lb solids format. An 
analysis of an extreme case, that is, a stain with a solids content at 
the upper end of the normal range, indicated that the error would be 
less than 5 percent, which the Committee agreed was an acceptable 
margin of error.
    However, another issue associated with the relationship between a 
lb HAP/lb solids format and stains was raised by industry when the 
Committee was developing the compliant coatings approach for meeting 
the emission limitation. As discussed, stains are low-solids finishing 
materials so formulating a stain to meet a limitation based on solids 
is difficult. The industry indicated that a compliant stain could be 
formulated, but only if the emission limitation applied only to the 
volatile HAP in the coating. Stains may contain small amounts of 
nonvolatile HAP such as chromium and manganese compounds for which 
there are no readily acceptable non-HAP substitutions. The industry 
pointed out that a significant percentage of these nonvolatile HAP are 
captured and controlled by filters in the spray booths. A small 
percentage may be emitted from overspray that is not captured by the 
filters, but industry indicated that these emissions will be reduced by 
the equipment requirements of the proposed standards, which will reduce 
finishing material usage and overspray (see discussion of work 
practices in section VI.E.). The Committee agreed that these 
nonvolatile HAP will be reduced both by filters and by the application 
equipment requirements so that the emission limitation for the 
finishing materials would apply only to the volatile HAP.
    Regarding the second drawback (the coating thickness issue), 
industry pointed out that economics would preclude a source from 
meeting standards expressed as a lb HAP/lb solids by doubling the 
coating thickness. According to industry representatives, finishing 
lines are designed to run at a certain speed. To increase coating 
thickness, the line would have to be slowed down to apply more 
finishing material. This practice would lower the overall production 
rate. The cost of the additional finishing material and the lost 
production would deter a source from this approach. Industry 
representatives also pointed out that, in most situations, the product 
quality would suffer if the coating thickness were doubled. Given the 
unlikely situation of a source doubling its coating thickness, the 
Committee agreed that this was not a significant drawback to the lb 
HAP/lb solids format.
    Regarding the third drawback cited above (fully pigmented finishing 
materials), although the lb HAP/lb solids format overestimates the 
actual emissions reductions from pigmented finishing materials, the 
Work Group agreed that this was not a significant problem because these 
materials represent a small amount of total finishing material usage. 
Industry estimated that these finishing materials account for less than 
5 percent of total usage, and data collected by the EPA support this 
estimate.
    As a result of the above discussions, the format of today's 
proposed rule for coating operations is a lb VHAP/lb solids emission 
limit (kg VHAP/kg solids). While this format has been evaluated and is 
considered appropriate for this source category due to the similarities 
in the densities of the solids used in the coatings, the Agency 
recommends that before using this format for setting emission limits 
for other source categories a thorough evaluation of its 
appropriateness for that source category be conducted.
2. Gluing Operations
    The Agency and the Glue Work Group, which was involved in the 
initial discussions concerning the development of emission standards 
for adhesives, considered several formats in developing the proposed 
standards for gluing operations. The potential formats for contact 
adhesives evaluated by the EPA included a limit on the HAP content of 
the adhesive expressed as a pound of HAP per gal and a HAP content 
based on a lb HAP/lb solids. For the reasons cited for finishing 
operations, a format expressed as a lb HAP/gal is not adequate for 
determining emission reduction. Likewise, for the same reasons 
discussed for finishing, a HAP limit in terms of lb VHAP/lb solids (kg 
VHAP/kg solids) was selected as the format for the proposed standards. 
This format was agreed upon by the Agency and the Glue Work Group.

E. Selection of Work Practice Standards

    The proposed rule contains many work practices that the Committee 
believed are pollution prevention approaches that limit emissions from 
finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff operations. Section 112(h) of 
the Act gives the EPA the authority to promulgate design, equipment, 
work practice, or operational standards, or a combination thereof. Such 
standards are necessary in cases where physically measuring emissions 
from a source is impossible or at least impracticable. The work 
practices that were selected as part of the proposed standards are 
practices that the Committee agreed are feasible but for which emission 
limits could not be assigned.
    For this source category, work practices were also considered 
necessary for another reason. Whereas the emission limits required by 
the standards will control only HAP emissions from wood furniture 
manufacturing operations, the work practices will limit both HAP and 
VOC emissions. Several Committee members were concerned that to comply 
with the proposed rule, sources would replace HAP compounds in 
finishing materials with equally hazardous non-HAP VOC's. By 
implementing work practices, all pollutants will be controlled to some 
extent.
1. Work Practices Selected for the Proposed Standards
    a. Finishing, Gluing, Cleaning, and Washoff Operations. The 
Committee recognized that by implementing work practice standards, HAP 
emissions from finishing and gluing operations could be further 
reduced. To determine the work practices that would be technically 
feasible for the source category, the Committee established a Work 
Practice Work Group. The Work Practice Work Group comprised the EPA and 
State regulators, a State office involved with waste reduction, 
finishing material suppliers, manufacturers, and an environmental group 
representative.
    The Work Practice Work Group identified two areas in which HAP 
emissions from finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff operations 
could be reduced through work practices: HAP storage and HAP transfer; 
and two more areas in which HAP emissions could be reduced from 
finishing operations: finishing material application and selection of 
finishing materials. The work practices proposed by the Work Practice 
Work Group were discussed with the Committee, and a consensus was 
reached that the recommended work practices should be included in the 
proposed rule.
    i. HAP storage. Materials containing HAP are often stored in 
containers that are left open, allowing the volatile HAP to evaporate 
and be emitted through room ventilation to the atmosphere. The Work 
Practice Work Group agreed that a straightforward, inexpensive method 
of reducing emissions from HAP storage would be to cover all containers 
storing finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff materials when not in 
use. In addition to reducing HAP emissions to the atmosphere, this work 
practice has the added benefit of reducing worker exposure to volatile 
HAP.
    ii. HAP transfer. In wood furniture finishing, gluing, and cleaning 
operations, solvent, finishing material, and adhesives are pumped from 
storage containers to the spray gun through piping. In wood furniture 
operations, leaks can occur in equipment used to transfer or apply 
finishing materials, solvents, and adhesives. Therefore, the Work Group 
agreed that requiring sources to check this equipment for leaks was 
reasonable. To implement the leak inspection program, sources will be 
required to develop an I&M plan that requires the inspection of each 
piece of equipment used to transfer or apply finishing materials, 
solvents, and adhesives; a schedule for inspection; reporting of the 
results of the inspection, any repairs that were made to the equipment, 
and the timeframe between identifying the leak and performing repairs.
    The Work Practice Work Group agreed upon the concept of an I&M 
plan, but never discussed whether the proposed rule should require a 
specific inspection frequency and, if so, what the frequency should be. 
In establishing the regulatory framework for the negotiated rule, the 
Agency decided that a monthly inspection frequency is appropriate to 
accomplish the goal of reducing leaks from transfer and application 
equipment. More frequent monitoring was considered burdensome because 
smaller shops would not have the personnel to perform the inspections.
    To ensure that action would be taken if leaks were detected, the 
proposed rule requires that repairs be made within 15 calendar days, 
with a first attempt at repair made within 5 calendar days. The 
Agency's decision is supported by previous regulatory action; the 
hazardous organic NESHAP (HON) and the NESHAP for coke oven batteries 
both require this same repair timeframe. As stated above, the Agency 
used the Committee's conceptual agreement for an I&M plan to address 
equipment leaks as a foundation for the more specific provisions in the 
proposed rule. The Agency requests comment on the specific requirements 
of the proposed rule, and data to suggest that more or less frequent 
monitoring or shorter or longer repair times may be appropriate.
    iii. Finishing material application. Another aspect of wood 
furniture finishing operations that the Committee evaluated was the 
type of finishing material application equipment used. There have been 
numerous studies comparing the transfer efficiency of one type of 
application equipment with that of another type. Transfer efficiency is 
the ratio of the amount of coating solids deposited onto the surface of 
the coated part to the total amount of coating solids used. The higher 
the transfer efficiency, the less finishing material that is used and 
the less that is lost as overspray (sprayed finishing materials that 
miss the piece). Overspray eventually dries, releasing volatile HAP, 
and becomes a solid waste source for the facility. Thus, by increasing 
transfer efficiency, both air emissions and solid waste are reduced.
    The Committee agreed that highly efficient transfer methods are 
desirable. Traditionally, however, the Agency's position on transfer 
efficiency has been one that advocates the use of more efficient 
transfer methods, but contends that emission reductions resulting from 
these methods can not be quantified. For the purposes of the proposed 
rule, the Committee reached a consensus that an equipment standard 
rather than a standard that identified transfer efficiencies for 
specific application methods would be most appropriate. The Committee 
also agreed that data supporting one type of application equipment over 
another were conflicting except in one instance; almost all data 
suggest that conventional air guns are the least efficient transfer 
method. Therefore, the Committee proposed that the rule prohibit the 
use of conventional air spray guns.
    Several Committee members believed that in certain instances the 
use of conventional air guns should be allowed. For example, if a 
source is using low-VOC coatings (less than 1.0 lb VOC/lb solids) or a 
control device, transfer efficiency is not as critical. Also, some 
Committee members pointed out that limited use of air guns for 
specialty operations would have minimal environmental impact as long as 
more efficient application methods were used for the majority of 
finishing. The Committee believed that these were valid claims and 
therefore proposes that conventional air spray guns only be used to 
apply finishing materials under the following circumstances:
    1. To apply finishing materials that have a VOC content no greater 
than 1.0 kg VOC/kg solids (1.0 lb VOC/lb solids), as applied;
    2. For touchup and repair under the following conditions;
    (a) The touchup and repair occurs after completion of the finishing 
operation; or
    (b) The touchup and repair occurs after the application of stain 
and before the application of any other type of finishing material, and 
the materials used for touchup and repair are applied from a container 
that has a volume of no more than 2.0 gallons.
    3. If spray is automated, that is, the spray gun is aimed and 
triggered automatically, not manually;
    4. If emissions from the finishing application station are directed 
to a control device;
    5. The conventional air gun is used to apply finishing materials 
and the cumulative total of that finishing material is less than 5 
percent of the total gallons of finishing material applied during that 
semiannual period; or
    6. The conventional air gun is used to apply stain on a part for 
which it is technically or economically infeasible to use any other 
spray application technology.
    The proposed rule provides guidance on factors to be considered in 
making the determination of technical or economic infeasibility 
required for (6). These factors include: (1) The production speed is 
too high or the part shape is too complex for one operator to coat the 
part and the application station is not large enough to accommodate an 
additional operator; or (2) the excessively large vertical spray area 
of the part makes it difficult to avoid sagging or runs in the stain. 
To demonstrate technical or economic infeasibility, the facility must 
submit a videotape, technical report, or other documentation supporting 
the claim of economic or technical infeasibility.
    The Agency specifically solicits comments on this approach 
including: (1) Does the proposed rule provide sufficient guidance for 
the permitting agency to make a determination of economic or technical 
infeasibility; and (2) are the options for documenting the claim of 
economic or technical infeasibility reasonable and sufficient?
    iv. Selection of finishing materials. As previously stated, several 
Committee members were concerned that the emission limits proposed for 
the finishing operations did not prohibit the use of those VHAP of 
potential concern. These are VHAP that have been classified as high 
concern, unrankable, and nonthreshold under the proposed rulemaking 
pursuant to section 112(g). The emission limit for finishing materials 
allows sources to continue using these materials as long as the overall 
HAP limit does not exceed 1.0 kg VHAP/kg solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb 
solids), as applied (existing sources) or 0.8 kg VHAP/kg solids (0.8 lb 
VHAP/lb solids), as applied (new sources).
    The Committee discussed prohibiting the use of certain HAP, but 
ultimately they agreed that to determine which HAP were necessary for 
which finishing materials would be difficult because it would depend on 
the specific application and/or product. The Committee also discussed 
capping the emissions of certain HAP. Industry argued that a cap could 
limit their production by limiting their use of some finishing 
materials.
    After much discussion, the Committee agreed upon an approach that 
satisfied all members. Under this approach, all affected sources must 
prepare a Formulation Assessment Plan. The Formulation Assessment Plan 
will help ensure that the averaging approach allowed under the proposed 
rule does not circumvent the goals of State air toxics programs.
    The plan must identify all VHAP of potential concern being used by 
the affected source for finishing operations that are on the list of 10 
compounds identified by industry. The list, presented in Table 4, 
Sec. 63.803(1), of the proposed standards, includes those VHAP of 
potential concern that industry indicated were currently in use by the 
wood furniture manufacturing industry. The plan must establish a 
baseline level of usage, based on the highest annual usage from 1994, 
1995, or 1996, for each VHAP of potential concern used by the affected 
source.
    For sources using formaldehyde, the baseline level of usage would 
be based on the free formaldehyde content of the finishing material. 
For styrene, the baseline level of usage would be based on an estimate 
of unreacted styrene, which would be calculated by multiplying the 
amount of styrene monomer in the coating by a factor of 0.16. The free 
formaldehyde content of the finishing material was chosen as a method 
for tracking formaldehyde usage because it is a readily available 
quantity based on known and agreed upon industry test procedures. 
However, there is no data available that directly links the free 
formaldehyde content of a coating to formaldehyde emissions. Therefore, 
the Committee recommended that if data become available that indicated 
that formaldehyde emissions were either more or less than those 
estimated using the free formaldehyde content, the calculation 
procedure in the formulation assessment plan should be re-examined.
    Both ultraviolet (UV) and polyester coatings used by the wood 
furniture industry contain styrene monomer. During curing, styrene 
monomer reacts to form the dried coating. However, some of the styrene 
monomer is emitted during the application of the coating and as the 
coating cures. While EPA has not developed an emission factor for 
styrene for these coatings, they have developed emission factors for 
the fabrication of products from polyester resins. These emission 
factors are presented in Chapter 4 of EPA's ``Compilation of Air 
Pollutant Emission Factors.'' The industry felt that the emission 
factors developed for vapor-suppressed gelcoats were appropriate for 
use in estimating unreacted styrene monomer emissions from UV and 
polyester coatings. The emission factor for vapor-suppressed gelcoats 
ranges from 8 to 25. The industry and EPA agreed to use a midpoint 
value of 16. While a constant emission factor may not be a true measure 
of actual emissions, it would not adversely affect the facility using 
these coatings because both baseline emissions and emissions from later 
years would be estimated on the same basis.
    The source must track usage of each VHAP of potential concern. If, 
after November 1998, usage of the VHAP of potential concern exceeds the 
established baseline levels then the source must provide a written 
notification to the permitting authority that describes the amount of 
increase and explains the reasons for exceedance of the baseline level. 
As long as the source is complying with its State Air Toxics Program or 
any other State rules or requirements affecting that VHAP of potential 
concern, any of the following explanations would relieve the facility 
from further action: (1) The usage level is below the de minimis level, 
based on 70 year exposure levels, that is specified through EPA's 
rulemaking pursuant to section 112(g) of the Clean Air Act for that 
VHAP (for sources using control devices to reduce emissions the usage 
level can be adjusted to account for the overall control efficiency of 
the control system); (2) the increase is no more than 15.0 percent 
above the baseline level; (3) the source is in compliance with its 
State air toxics regulations or guidelines for that VHAP of potential 
concern; or (4) the VHAP is used in a finishing material that has a VOC 
content of no more than 1.0 kg VOC/kg solids (1.0 lb VOC/lb solids), as 
applied.
    If the explanation for the exceedance of the baseline level is not 
one of the four discussed above, the owner or operator must confer with 
the permitting authority to discuss the reasons for the increase and to 
determine if these are practical and reasonable technology-based 
solutions for reducing usage of the VHAP. The evaluation of whether a 
technology is reasonable and practical would be based on cost, quality, 
and marketability of the product; the successful use of the technology 
by other wood furniture manufacturing operations, or other criteria 
agreed upon by the permitting authority and owner or operator. If the 
permitting authority and owner or operator agree there are no practical 
and reasonable solutions, the facility would take no further action.
    If the permitting authority and owner or operator agree that there 
are solutions, the owner or operator must develop a plan to reduce 
usage of the pollutant to the extent feasible. The plan must address 
the approach to be used to reduce usage, provide a timetable for 
implementing the plan, and include a schedule for submitting 
notifications of progress.
    If, after November 1998, the affected source uses a VHAP of 
potential concern for which a baseline level has not been established, 
then the baseline level will be equivalent to the de minimis level, 
based on 70 year exposure levels and data provided in the proposed 
rulemaking pursuant to section 112(g), for that pollutant. Table 5 of 
the proposed rule, Sec. 63.803(d), includes a list of all VHAP of 
potential concern. If the affected source's use of the VHAP of 
potential concern exceeds the de minimis level, then the affected 
source must record the reasons for the exceedance and follow the same 
procedures as those used when an exceedance of the baseline level 
occurs for those VHAP listed in Table 4.
    The de minimis rates for the HAP of potential concern are based on 
the principles involved and some of the supporting data used for the 
proposed rule pursuant to section 112(g). These principles are given in 
detail in Documentation of De Minimis Emission Rates--Proposed 40 CFR 
Part 63, Subpart B Background Document, EPA-453/R-93-035 (this document 
is available on EPA's Technology Transfer Network) and are briefly 
described here.
    For the proposed section 112(g) rulemaking, the basis for the de 
minimis levels is the use of information that is available to determine 
(1) an exposure level which results in a one-per-million cancer risk 
level, or (2) an exposure level which constitutes an ``ample margin of 
safety'' level for noncancer effects. The risk management decisions to 
use these two criteria to determine de minimis emission rates are 
fundamental assumptions in the determination of de minimis levels for 
the section 112(g) rulemaking. Note that the de minimis levels do not 
take into account any additive effects which may result from exposure 
to multiple pollutants.
    For pollutants where insufficient dose-response information is 
available to determine the exposure level associated with either a one-
per-million cancer risk or an ``ample margin of safety'' for noncancer 
effects, the proposed rule contains default values which reflect risk 
management decisions for establishing the de minimis rates.
    An important risk management decision for establishing de minimis 
levels under section 112(g) was to ``cap'' de minimis emission rates at 
10.0 tons per year. For example, if an exposure level associated with a 
one-per-million cancer risk results in a de minimis level greater than 
10.0 tons, the de minimis level, by virtue of the cap, is 10.0 tons. 
The EPA believes that it would be difficult to support the designation 
of a ``trivial'' level of emissions of an air pollutant that is 
considered ``major'' by the guiding legislation.
    The risk management process for establishing de minimis values for 
the proposed rule for section 112(g) gave consideration to the interim 
nature of section 112(g) requirements. For carcinogens with available 
unit risk estimates, the duration of exposure used to set de minimis 
emission rates of such pollutants is the same as the estimated period 
the section 112(g) rulemaking will be in effect before those provisions 
are augmented by the section 112(j) provision. At that time, sources 
will be subject to case-by-case MACT determinations or the national 
MACT standards will have been promulgated for those sources.
    Because the wood furniture MACT standard was not intended to be 
interim in nature, it is important to note that the specific de minimis 
rates listed in section 112(g) are not intended to be used directly by 
the wood furniture MACT standard. Consequently, the rates need to be 
adjusted to take into account a lifetime duration of exposure. This 
adjustment would affect the de minimis levels for pollutants identified 
as nonthreshold for which unit risk estimates are available.
    Some industry members of the committee recommended that EPA request 
comments on the adjustment of the proposed section 112(g) de minimis 
values from 7-year exposure to 70-year exposure values. Therefore, the 
EPA is requesting comment on this issue.
    Because the rule pursuant to section 112(g) is still in the 
proposal stage, any changes made to the proposed rule upon its becoming 
final that affect the wood furniture NESHAP will be made before the 
wood furniture NESHAP is promulgated. For example, if any VHAP of 
potential concern changes in its hazard ranking categorization (e.g., a 
VHAP is recategorized from the high concern list to the threshold list) 
or if information used to determine the exposure level associated with 
either a one-per-million cancer risk or an ``ample margin of safety'' 
for noncancer effects changes the de minimis value, these changes will 
also be made to the formulation assessment plan in the wood furniture 
NESHAP.
    The formulation assessment plan is beneficial to the industry in 
that its inclusion in the MACT standard and potential impact on 
emissions of VHAP of potential concern may reduce health risk to the 
extent that it would alleviate the need for additional risk-based 
Federal air toxics standards to be promulgated for this industry. 
Section 112(f) of the Clean Air Act specifies that additional standards 
may be required for a source category even after a MACT standard is 
promulgated. In particular, under section 112(f), EPA is required to 
promulgate an additional emission standard for a source category within 
8 years after promulgation of the MACT standard depending on the risk 
remaining to the most exposed individual or to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. An additional standard would be required if the 
MACT standard for a source category that emits a pollutant classified 
as a known, probable, or possible human carcinogen does not reduce 
lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed to 
emissions from a source in the category to less than one-in-a-million. 
Because the formulation assessment plan of the MACT standard deals with 
the volatile HAP which likely cause such a risk or other adverse 
environmental effects upfront and in the MACT standard, it provides a 
possibility that the industry would not be subject to future Federal 
risk-based standards under section 112(f).
    b. Cleaning and Washoff Operations. As discussed in section II, 
cleaning operations that occur at wood furniture manufacturing 
operations include cleaning of spray guns, lines conveying solvent, 
finishing materials and adhesives from storage to the spray guns, and 
spray booths. In evaluating work practices that could be implemented to 
reduce emissions from cleaning and washoff operations, the Committee 
considered work practices already in use by some facilities in the 
source category. In addition, the Work Practice Work Group explored 
options used by other industries, in particular, the use of alternate 
cleaning materials with lower vapor pressure or HAP content. This 
option was rejected because it limited the source's ability to reuse 
the cleaning materials elsewhere, such as for thinning finishing 
materials.
    The Work Practice Work Group explored the methods currently being 
used by facilities in the source category to control HAP emissions from 
cleaning and washoff. They used the survey responses collected by the 
EPA and the industry group, the experience of personnel from a State 
Office of Waste Reduction on the Work Group that had worked with wood 
furniture manufacturers, and the experience of those involved in the 
manufacture of products in one or more of the industry segments.
    The Work Practice Work Group concluded (and the Committee 
concurred) that there were work practices in use by existing facilities 
in the source category to limit emissions from washoff operations and 
each major cleaning activity: gun/line cleaning, spray booth cleaning, 
and general cleaning activities.
    i. Gun/line cleaning. The cleaning of spray guns and of lines that 
carry finishing material, solvent, and adhesives from storage to the 
spray guns is a common practice in wood furniture operations. Cleaning 
is necessary so that dried resins or other materials do not build up in 
the lines or spray equipment. The frequency of cleaning varies by plant 
depending on the different types of material sprayed with a given gun, 
the extent to which a gun is used, and other plant-specific factors. 
Typically, a gun is cleaned each time it is used to spray a different 
material. If a gun is dedicated to one type of finishing material 
(e.g., topcoat), cleaning frequency may be reduced. The practice of 
dedicating a gun to a particular coating type is not common, however, 
especially at smaller shops that have fewer spray stations.
    One work practice that the Work Practice Work Group agreed could be 
universally applied was the collection of solvent used for cleaning in 
a container that can be closed. For example, if a line is flushed, the 
cleaning solvent could be collected into a normally closed container. 
Another work practice that the Work Practice Work Group agreed could be 
easily implemented is the covering of cleaning solvent containers when 
not in use. As discussed for storage containers associated with 
finishing and gluing operations, such a practice is straightforward and 
inexpensive.
    ii. Spray booth cleaning. In addition to the emission limits 
identified for strippable spray booth coatings in Table 3, the Work 
Practice Work Group believed that the proposed rule should prohibit the 
use of organic solvents for spray booth cleaning except in limited 
circumstances. Sources subject to this rule could comply by using 
strippable spray booth coatings that meet the VOC limits identified in 
Table 3, thereby reducing the use of organic solvents for this purpose. 
The Work Practice Work Group acknowledged that there were instances in 
which solvent was necessary. Specifically, it was agreed that conveyors 
carrying furniture or furniture components through the spray booth and 
continuous coaters and their enclosures could continue to be cleaned 
with solvent. Likewise, organic solvent can continue to be used to 
clean the metal filters located in the spray booth. Neither the Work 
Practice Work Group members nor the rest of the Committee members were 
aware of substitute materials that could be used for cleaning this 
equipment, or of any strippable coating such as the coating that is 
available for the spray booth walls. Additionally, industry 
representatives pointed out that small tears and holes may be generated 
in the strippable booth coating during the manufacturing process. In 
these cases, some staining of the spray booth walls may occur. The 
Committee agreed that sources could use small quantities of solvent, no 
more than 1.0 gallon per booth, to clean these areas when the 
strippable booth coating was being replaced.
    iii. Furniture washoff. Another area of concern that the Work 
Practice Work Group focused on was a practice known in the industry as 
washoff. Washoff is the practice of removing coating from a piece of 
furniture or a furniture component. The main reason for washoff is that 
the finish does not meet company specifications. By washing off the 
coatings, the substrate can be refinished. Washoff is typically 
accomplished by dipping the furniture into a tank containing organic 
solvent; the same solvents used for cleaning are usually used for 
washoff. The Work Practice Work Group agreed that there were some 
measures that sources could implement at almost no cost that could 
limit emissions from washoff. As with finishing and other cleaning 
operations, the Work Practice Work Group agreed that covering washoff 
tanks when they are not in use would limit emissions. Also, sources 
could minimize dripping by tilting and/or rotating the piece to drain 
as much solvent as possible back into the tank.
    iv. General cleaning/washoff activities. During the Work Practice 
Work Group discussions, it was apparent that cleaning and washoff 
practices are not well documented by sources. For example, most sources 
do not know the quantity of solvent used for cleaning and washoff 
operations, how many pieces are washed off, and the fate of spent 
solvent from cleaning and washoff operations. The Work Practice Work 
Group agreed that one of the first steps in reducing emissions is to 
know the quantity of solvent used for the various operations onsite. 
Only then can a source identify operations that are wasteful or 
inefficient. Therefore, the Work Practice Work Group proposed that the 
work practices in the proposed rule require a cleaning and washoff 
solvent accounting system. Under this system, sources would have to:
    1. Maintain a log of the quantity and type of solvent used for 
washoff and cleaning, the number of pieces washed off, and the reason 
for the washoff;
    2. Record the quantity of spent solvent generated from each 
activity, and its ultimate fate either onsite or offsite;
    3. Document that chemicals that are known or probable human 
carcinogens, the EPA type A and type B1/B2, are not present 
in cleaning or washoff solvents in concentrations subject to MSDS 
reporting as required by OSHA.
    The net cleaning and washoff solvent usage quantities, accounting 
for disposal and recycling of spent solvent, shall be calculated 
monthly. Actual copies of the logs should be made available to the 
Administrator or permitting authority upon request.
    The Committee agreed with the Work Practice Work Group's 
recommendation that an accounting system be implemented by affected 
sources. The Committee believed that once the accounting system was in 
place, the burden of maintaining it would not be too great. The 
Committee also believed that the accounting system would be an 
important first step for facilities to develop a broad-based, 
multimedia pollution prevention plan.
    Some Agency officials have expressed concern that the proposed rule 
only restricts the use of EPA type A and type B1/B2 
carcinogens in cleaning and washoff solvents. They are concerned that 
restricting the use of only these chemicals implies that they are worse 
than other HAP. They are also concerned that the rule draws a clear 
line between type B and C carcinogens, although the scientific evidence 
does not suggest such a clear distinction. For example, some pollutants 
on the HAP list are designated type B/C because the data cannot clearly 
support a designation of type B or C. The proposed rule does not 
address these pollutants. Finally, the Agency is planning to update 
their risk assessment guidelines. Under these revised guidelines, the 
terms type A and type B carcinogens are likely to be meaningless.
    The Committee agreed to restrict the use of type A and type 
B1/B2 carcinogens only, so the EPA is proposing the rule 
using this approach. However, to address the concerns of some Agency 
officials, the EPA is specifically requesting comment on this issue 
including:
    1. Should additional HAP, for example, all VHAP of potential 
concern, be restricted from use in cleaning and washoff solvents;
    2. If the approach proposed in the rule is used, how should 
chemicals designated as type B/C carcinogens be addressed; and
    3. If the approach proposed in the rule is used and the risk 
assessment guidelines are revised so that the terms type A and type B 
become obsolete, how could the rule be revised to maintain the intent 
of the proposed rule?
    c. General Work Practice Requirements. After reviewing the work 
practices to be included, the Committee concluded that in order for the 
proposed work practices to be successfully implemented, employees that 
would actually have to carry them out should be involved in their 
implementation. Therefore, an operator training program is included as 
a proposed work practice. The Committee believed that operator training 
was especially important for new employees and therefore proposed that 
new employees be trained upon hiring. The Committee agreed that the 
proposed rule should be flexible and allow sources to develop programs 
that work best for their facility or that could be coordinated with 
existing training programs. The proposed rule does require that, at a 
minimum, the employee training program address coating application, 
cleaning, and washoff techniques that minimize emissions; appropriate 
equipment operation; methods to reduce solvent usage; and proper 
management of cleanup wastes. The Committee also proposed that the rule 
require retraining of all employees on an annual basis.
    Members of the Work Practice Work Group proposed to the Committee 
that the standards should require affected sources to develop an 
Implementation Plan that describes how sources plan to comply with the 
work practice requirements on an on-going basis. Based on the proposed 
work practices, the Committee believed that any Implementation Plan 
should include, at a minimum, the following:
    1. Checklists to document that:

--all storage containers are covered when not in use;
--solvents are not being used for spray booth cleaning except as 
allowed by the proposed rule;
--conventional air spray guns are not in use except as allowed by the 
proposed rule;
--cleaning solvent from gun/line cleaning has been collected into a 
normally closed container; and
--the washoff tank is covered when not in use;

    2. An I&M plan as discussed in section VI.E.1.a.ii;
    3. A formulation assessment plan as discussed in section 
VI.E.1.a.iv;
    4. An accounting system for washoff and cleaning solvents as 
discussed in section VI.E.1.b.iv; and
    5. The operator training program discussed in section VI.E.1.c.
    The Work Practice Implementation Plan would be followed and 
maintained onsite to demonstrate on-going compliance, and made 
available at the request of the Administrator or permitting authority 
at any time.
2. Other Work Practices Considered
    In developing the work practices for the proposed rule, the Work 
Practices Work Group as well as other Committee members identified 
additional measures that were considered for inclusion in the proposed 
rule. This section identifies those other measures and discusses why 
the Committee did not include these measures in the proposed rule. 
Individual sources and regulators are encouraged to consider this list 
to determine if some measures may be appropriate, or at least 
applicable to some sources within the source category.
    The following measures were identified as possible work practices 
but were not included in the proposed rule:
    1. Facilities should develop a multimedia pollution prevention plan 
that addresses hazardous waste generation, solid waste generation, 
water pollution releases, air emissions, and worker exposure;
    2. Position workpiece to minimize overspray, and position the piece 
to facilitate good spraying techniques by operators;
    3. Whenever practical, use heat instead of solvent to reduce 
coating viscosity;
    4. Optimize spray pattern and technique to the work piece size, 
shape, and orientation;
    5. Use self-contained recycling gun washers;
    6. Whenever practical, schedule colors light to dark to minimize 
extent of cleaning needed, and try to schedule long runs to minimize 
material changeover and associated cleaning;
    7. Reduce the need for cleaning by using dedicated equipment for 
high-volume coatings;
    8. Use the shortest possible lines to reduce solvent needed for 
line cleaning;
    9. Drain lines prior to solvent cleaning and use air pressure, 
pigs/squeegees, or solvent pulse cleaning;
    10. Reuse dirty cleaning and washoff solvents for noncritical uses 
wherever possible, and recycle the solvents once they are too 
contaminated for reuse;
    11. Review the EPA's Alternative Control Techniques Document--
Industrial Cleaning Solvents (EPA No. 453/R-94-015) and incorporate 
reduction techniques identified therein.
    Several of the above practices were not proposed by the Committee 
because the Committee believed that by requiring them, the proposed 
rule would be dictating specific manufacturing techniques that may not 
be appropriate for all situations. Specifically, the Committee believed 
that this eliminated options 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Also, options 
such as 2, 4, 8, 9, and 10 are cost savings techniques that would 
likely be implemented by a facility if they were technically feasible. 
The Committee decided that, for the most part, options 6 and 7 were not 
feasible for this industry because the manufacturing schedule is highly 
dependent on the furniture order that is received in a given week, 
month, etc. Manufacturers that consistently produce the same item are 
most likely using these more efficient techniques.
    Options 1 and 11 would require sources to develop more broad-based 
plans and accounting systems to track not only cleaning solvent usage 
but, specifically in the case of option 1, a plan to address wastes 
from other media. The Committee considered that the proposed rule 
required tracking finishing material usage (to demonstrate compliance 
with the emission limits), cleaning solvent usage, and washoff solvent 
usage; the Committee believed that these requirements were good 
foundations to any multimedia, pollution prevention plan. Therefore, 
the Committee did not recommend that additional plans be required.
    Option 3 was not considered necessary by the Committee because the 
emission limits address the addition of thinner to coatings. Finally, 
option 5, the use of recycling gun washers, was not proposed because 
the Work Practice Work Group did not have data on these systems that 
indicated they were more efficient than other methods of spray gun 
cleaning. Because there are no data on the effectiveness of these 
units, the Committee concluded that industry should not be required to 
purchase them, especially because the proposed work practices already 
require flushing solvent used for gun cleaning into normally closed 
containers.
    The Committee recognized that many work practices are proposed for 
this rule and implementation and compliance could become complicated. 
However, looking at other control techniques feasible for this 
industry, the Committee concluded that work practices would be the most 
technically feasible and least costly. The EPA specifically requests 
comments on the work practice standards: (1) do the work practices (in 
conjunction with the emission limits) adequately reduce HAP emissions; 
and (2) are the work practices overly burdensome to implement or should 
additional work practices be considered? The EPA requests data to 
support or refute a proposed work practice or, for additional work 
practices that are suggested, evidence of its effectiveness in reducing 
emissions.

F. Pollution Prevention Considerations

    The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 establishes the following 
environmental management hierarchy as national policy:
    1. Pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source wherever 
feasible;
    2. Pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an 
environmentally safe manner wherever feasible;
    3. Pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated 
in an environmentally safe manner wherever feasible; and
    4. Disposal or other release into the environment should be 
employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an 
environmentally safe manner.
    The Pollution Prevention Act considers ``source reduction'' a 
fundamental aspect of pollution prevention. Source reduction is any 
practice that reduces the amount of any hazardous substance entering 
the waste stream or otherwise released into the environment prior to 
recycling, treatment, or disposal. Practices such as recycling, energy 
recovery, treatment, and disposal are not considered pollution 
prevention measures under the Pollution Prevention Act. As noted above, 
however, recycling conducted in an environmentally safe manner is still 
desirable.
    The proposed rule not only encourages pollution prevention, but 
even requires certain pollution prevention measures. By expressing the 
proposed emission limit for finishing operations in terms of kg VHAP/kg 
solids (lb VHAP/lb solids), sources are encouraged to reduce the 
quantity of HAP through reformulation measures. Likewise, the emission 
limits for cleaning and gluing operations limit VOC or HAP content and 
sources will likely comply by using reformulated materials.
    The proposed rule allows sources to comply with emission limits 
through other means such as control devices, which would not be 
pollution prevention. The proposed work practices, however, ensure that 
pollution prevention measures will be implemented at all major sources 
using HAP for finishing, gluing, cleaning, or washoff operations. 
Source reduction of HAP from finishing operations is achieved by 
prohibiting the use of conventional air spray guns except in limited 
situations. As previously described, application equipment with a 
higher transfer efficiency than conventional air guns will result in 
lower air emissions and reduced solid waste. Training operators in 
proper application techniques, cleaning and washoff procedures, and 
waste management will reduce emissions from finishing, cleaning, 
gluing, and washoff operations. Source reduction of HAP from cleaning 
operations is achieved by prohibiting the use of solvent for spray 
booth cleaning except in limited situations. Finally, although it 
cannot be assumed that it will actually result in source reduction, the 
cleaning and washoff solvent accounting system may prompt facilities to 
eliminate inefficient uses of solvent.

G. Selection of Compliance and Monitoring Requirements

    During the regulatory negotiation, the Committee discussed general 
compliance measures; e.g., that compliance would be achieved through 
recordkeeping and reporting, the frequency of reporting, and the 
averaging time for compliance for a source choosing to use an averaging 
approach to meet the finishing material emission limits. After the 
regulatory negotiation, the Agency included the general concepts agreed 
to by the Committee into a regulatory framework that would also fulfill 
the requirements of the amended Act.
    For a rule to be effective, an owner or operator of an affected 
source must demonstrate both initial and continuous compliance. The 
initial and continuous compliance measures included in the proposed 
rule account for situations in which either a control device or 
compliant finishing materials, adhesives, and cleaning materials are 
used. (See Table 5 for a summary of the proposed compliance and 
monitoring requirements.) In this industry, it is likely that the 
majority of sources will use compliant materials to comply with the 
proposed emission limits; control devices are likely to be used in 
limited situations.
    The initial and continuous compliance methods for sources using 
control devices are identified in Secs. 63.804(f)(4) and (f)(6) and 
(g)(4) and (g)(6) of the proposed rule and are generally consistent 
with previous regulations developed by the Agency. Therefore, the 
rationale for selection of these requirements is not discussed in great 
detail here. For example, the proposed rule requires the same type of 
monitoring parameters for a source using a thermal incinerator as those 
required by Sec. 63.114 of the HON (57 FR 62608). A source must 
determine the HAP emission rate using EPA Reference Method 18, and 
during the test set the minimum combustion temperature that corresponds 
to compliance with the standards. Subsequent operation at a combustion 
temperature lower than this value constitutes a violation of the rule.
    Special compliance provisions have been included for catalytic 
incinerators equipped with a fluidized bed and for carbon adsorbers. 
The compliance provisions for catalytic incinerators equipped with a 
fluidized bed are consistent with those currently in use by the only 
facility in the source category equipped with such a device. These 
provisions have proven successful in demonstrating compliance for this 
facility, so EPA has agreed to adopt these provisions for this 
category. However, they should not be adopted as compliance measures by 
other source categories without a thorough evaluation.
    In this proposed rule, compliance monitoring is identified only for 
incinerators and carbon adsorbers because other types of control 
devices are not likely to be used for compliance. If an alternate 
control device is used by an affected source, the rule includes 
provisions for proposing appropriate compliance monitoring to the 
Administrator.
    The proposed rule also recognizes that the overall control 
efficiency of a control system does not depend only on the destruction 
efficiency of the device but on the capture efficiency as well. The 
capture efficiency is the ratio of the quantity of pollutants entering 
the control device to the quantity of pollutants emitted from the 
emission source. The overall control efficiency is the product of the 
capture and control efficiency. The proposed rule identifies the 
methods to be used to determine the capture efficiency initially, and 
the monitoring required to demonstrate that this efficiency is 
continuously maintained. The provisions contained in the proposed rule 
are the same as those in the NESHAP for the magnetic tape industry (59 
FR 11662), which was proposed on March 11, 1994. Owners or operators of 
a source to which the capture efficiency provisions apply are 
encouraged to review the magnetic tape preamble and rule to understand 
the rationale for selecting the capture efficiency provisions.
    As previously stated, most affected sources are expected to comply 
with the proposed rule by using compliant materials. Initial and on-
going compliance for these sources are demonstrated through reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.
    The records and reports that the EPA considers necessary for 
demonstrating initial and continuous compliance for this source 
category are summarized in Table 5. (The selection of reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements is further discussed in section VI.H.) 
Reports identified under initial compliance methods in Table 5 are 
required to be submitted in accordance with the requirements of 
Sec. 63.9(h) of subpart A, the General Provisions to part 63. 
Information that should be included in the initial compliance report is 
identified in Table 5. In order to perform the emission calculations, a 
source must by necessity keep records of the quantity of finishing 
material used over each month, and the VHAP and solids content of these 
finishing materials (see Table 6).
    An affected source demonstrates continuous compliance if finishing 
materials, thinners, adhesives, and spray booth materials meeting the 
limits in the proposed rule are used. If a source at any time uses a 
material that does not meet these limits (unless the source is using an 
averaging approach or is subject to the special compliance provisions 
for coatings applied with continuous coaters), the source is out of 
compliance with the rule.
    A source that complies with emission limits for finishing 
operations by achieving an average HAP limit across all finishing steps 
is in compliance if, over each month, the HAP limit required by the 
proposed rule is met. The Committee agreed that a monthly averaging 
period was appropriate for this source category because, at many 
facilities, manufacturing operations change from week-to-week or even 
day-to-day. The compliance timeframe of a month that is identified in 
the proposed rule accounts for this variation, and allows a source 
flexibility in performing manufacturing operations. The Committee did 
not think that there would be any adverse environmental impact by 
choosing a monthly compliance period. It was agreed that throughout the 
month, a source would not be likely to exceed the HAP limit by a 
considerable amount. If it did, they would have difficulty in meeting 
the monthly limit. If a source does not meet the HAP limit over any 
monthly period, it is out of compliance with the rule for each 
operating day of the month unless the source can demonstrate through 
records that the violation of the monthly average can be attributed to 
a particular day or days of operation. Further, periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction should be included when determining 
compliance when methods other than control devices are used to meet the 
emission limits. Startup, shutdown, and malfunction periods are 
included because the use of compliant coatings should not be affected 
during these periods.
    Semiannual reporting, in addition to recordkeeping, is necessary to 
document the compliance status of the affected source. A source using 
compliant finishing materials, thinners, adhesives, or strippable spray 
booth coatings must submit a semiannual compliance certification that 
states compliant materials are being used. A source using an averaging 
approach must provide copies of each month's emission calculation and 
submit a semiannual compliance certification that states that the value 
of (E), as calculated by Equation 1 of Sec. 63.804, is no greater than 
1.0 for existing sources or 0.8 for new sources.
    The Agency has identified semiannual reporting for this source 
category, except for sources that experience excess emissions and are 
using a control device to comply with the proposed rule. For these 
sources, continuous monitoring system data are used directly for 
determining compliance. Sources with a control device that experience 
excess emissions must follow a quarterly reporting format for at least 
1 year after the excess emissions occur and until a request to reduce 
reporting frequency is approved. This is consistent with guidance 
provided in the General Provisions, subpart A, 63.10(e)(3). In 
addition, if the Administrator finds significant industry-wide 
noncompliance with the rule, the Administrator may require that 
semiannual reporting be changed to quarterly reporting. The Agency 
considered small business impacts when developing the compliance and 
monitoring provisions and decided that more frequent reporting for 
those sources that are routinely complying with the rule would not be 
necessary for small businesses.
    The Agency also believed it necessary to identify compliance 
provisions for the work practice standards because significant emission 
reductions will be achieved through the work practice standards. 
Obviously, direct measurement of emissions is not appropriate because 
emission points being controlled by work practices are not point 
sources that emit through a stack. All of the recordkeeping associated 
with work practices is required by the proposed rule to be included in 
the Work Practice Implementation Plan. The Agency believed that the 
least complicated way to ensure continuous compliance would be to 
require a semiannual compliance certification that states that the Work 
Practice Implementation Plan is being followed.
    Compliance certifications submitted on a semiannual basis are 
required for a source that uses compliant materials or an averaging 
approach, and for a source demonstrating compliance with the Work 
Practice Implementation Plan. These compliance certifications are 
analogous to the compliance certification required by the parts 70 and 
71 operating permit programs. Therefore, the compliance certification 
required by these proposed standards are consistent with other 
regulatory actions that may also apply to the affected source.

H. Selection of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    In discussing the reporting and recordkeeping requirements, the 
Committee agreed on the types of records required and the reporting 
frequency it considered appropriate for this source category. As with 
the compliance and monitoring requirements, the Committee focused 
solely on the general information that should form the basis of the 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The Agency has developed a 
specific regulatory framework identifying reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements that builds on the general principles agreed to by the 
Committee.
    The General Provisions (subpart A) to part 63 include general 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements that apply to sources for 
which a NESHAP has been developed, or will be developed, pursuant to 
section 112 of the Act. The requirements of the General Provisions, in 
conjunction with the Committee's decisions, form the basis for the 
reporting and recordkeeping provisions of the proposed rule. A summary 
of these provisions is provided in Table 6.
    For sources using control devices, all of the reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements of the General Provisions apply. The General 
Provisions are particularly directed to sources that are using a 
control device, and that will therefore be conducting an initial 
performance test and performing traditional emission or process 
parameter monitoring. As such, for sources that are using compliant 
coatings or an averaging approach to demonstrate compliance with the 
proposed rule, some sections of the General Provisions do not apply. 
Table 6 summarizes those sections of the General Provisions requiring 
reporting or recordkeeping and identifies whether all sources are 
subject to the section or just sources using control devices. (For a 
discussion of the relationship between the proposed rule and the 
General Provisions in their entirety, see section VI.K.) Sources using 
compliant materials or an averaging approach to comply with the 
proposed standards must keep records of finishing material usage, the 
VHAP content, in kg VHAP/kg solids (lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied, of 
each finishing material, thinner, and adhesive subject to the emission 
limits in Sec. 63.802; the VOC content, in kg VOC/kg solids (lb VOC/lb 
solids), as applied, of each strippable booth coating; and the CPDS for 
finishing materials, cleaning materials, adhesives, thinners, and 
strippable booth coatings subject to regulation.

I. Small Business Considerations

    Because of the large number of small businesses that could 
potentially be impacted by regulation of the wood furniture industry, 
the Committee considered carefully the impact of each aspect of the 
proposed standards on small businesses. The Committee included two 
small wood furniture manufacturers and a representative of a trade 
association consisting primarily of small businesses. A Small Business 
Work Group was formed to specifically address small business issues.
    In evaluating options that the industry could use to comply with 
the proposed standards, the Committee tried to ensure that the 
compliance options would impose a minimum burden on small businesses. 
For example, the proposed standards do not require the use of control 
devices that require a significant capital investment and impose an 
unfair burden on small businesses that typically have trouble raising 
capital. Small businesses can meet the emission limits for finishing 
materials and adhesives through the use of compliant materials. The 
Committee tried to ensure that the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements of the proposed standards were not beyond the resources of 
small businesses.
    The Committee also evaluated whether the proposed work practice 
standards presented any particular problems to small businesses. Some 
members felt that developing an operator training program might pose 
some problems to small businesses. Rather than exempt small businesses 
from what the Committee feels is a key work practice, the Committee 
decided to recommend that small businesses work together to develop a 
training program. The Committee also suggested that large businesses 
that already have training programs in place could share the key 
components of those programs with small businesses. Finally, the 
Committee recommended that State small businesses assistance programs 
assist small businesses in developing their training program.
    The Small Business Work Group made several recommendations to the 
Committee, including a recommendation that the EPA draft a document 
that would provide guidance to small businesses on how to obtain a 
Federally-enforceable limit on their potential to emit and 
recordkeeping requirements that might be associated with the limit. In 
addition, small business representatives proposed that the EPA draft a 
memorandum responding to questions developed by the Small Business Work 
Group pertaining to area sources that become major sources.
    The Small Business Work Group also recommended that the EPA discuss 
in the preamble the benefits of general permits for small businesses 
and encourage their use where appropriate. The Agency agreed and a 
discussion of general permits is included in section VI.L. The Small 
Business Work Group also recommended that the EPA, in conjunction with 
the State of North Carolina Small Business Ombudsman Office, develop an 
information outreach program to serve as a resource for small wood 
furniture manufacturers. The Agency has agreed to work with the North 
Carolina Small Business Ombudsman Office to develop this program.

J. Selection of Definition of Source

    The choice of an affected source influences possible reconstruction 
and modification impacts of the proposed standards. It also determines 
the point at which the addition or replacement of individual emission 
sources (i.e., a spray booth, or a finishing line) results in a new 
source. Section 112(a)(3) of the Act defines ``stationary source'' as 
having the same meaning as that given in section 111(a) of the Act, 
where ``stationary source'' is defined as ``any building, structure, 
facility, or installation which emits or may emit any air pollutant.'' 
Most industrial plants consist of numerous pieces or groups of 
equipment that emit HAP and that may be viewed as ``sources.'' The EPA, 
therefore, uses the term ``affected source'' to designate the equipment 
within a particular facility that is chosen as the source covered by a 
given rule. The definition of source may be broad and include all 
emission points within a facility, or may be narrow and include only an 
individual piece of equipment.
1. Reconstruction Considerations
    Reconstruction is defined by Sec. 63.5 as the replacement of the 
components of a stationary source to such an extent that: (1) the fixed 
capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed 
capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable new 
source, and (2) it is technologically and economically feasible for the 
reconstructed source to meet the promulgated emission standards 
established by the Administrator pursuant to section 112 of the Act. 
Upon reconstruction, a stationary source is subject to relevant 
standards for new sources, including compliance dates, irrespective of 
any change in emissions of HAP from that source. Major affected sources 
constructed or reconstructed after the effective date of a rule 
promulgated under this part are also subject to the preconstruction and 
review requirements in Sec. 63.5 (d) and (e).
    If, for example, an entire plant is designated as the affected 
source, the new source MACT would cover no part of the plant unless 
replacement of equipment or a group of equipment causes the entire 
plant to be reconstructed. On the other hand, if each individual piece 
of equipment (e.g., each spray booth) is designated as an affected 
source, then that individual piece of equipment can be subject to the 
reconstruction provisions. A narrow definition of source, such as this 
one, results in new source MACT applying to each piece of new 
equipment.
2. Modification Considerations
    According to section 112(a)(5), modification means any physical 
change in, or change in the method of operation of, a major source that 
increases the actual emissions of any HAP emitted by such source by 
more than a de minimis amount or that results in the emission of any 
HAP not previously emitted by more than a de minimis amount. Subpart B 
of part 63 addresses modifications and identifies the de minimis 
quantities for each HAP that would trigger the modification provisions. 
Subpart B requires modified major sources to implement the MACT 
emission limit for existing sources established pursuant to section 
112(d). If a MACT rule for an affected major source has not been 
promulgated, existing source MACT is established on a case-by-case 
basis.
    For this source category, the modification provisions are not a 
primary consideration in selecting the affected source designation. 
Modifications of existing sources would mean that the existing source 
MACT standards continue to apply. The only modification that would 
occur in this industry that would affect a source's control 
requirements would be one that causes an area source to become a major 
source. If an area source becomes major due to a modification, it is 
subject to existing source MACT. If an area source becomes major due to 
a reconstruction, it is subject to new source MACT. The affected source 
definition, however, has no effect on the major source designation 
because that designation is based on emissions from all emission points 
located in a contiguous area under common control, even if the affected 
source is narrowly defined.
3. Affected Source Definitions
    The Committee did not discuss the affected source definition for 
the proposed rule. The Agency, therefore, is proposing the affected 
source definition that it believes is consistent with the Committee's 
other decisions. To determine the appropriate affected source 
definition, the Agency focused on the proposed standards for finishing 
operations as the driving force for choosing an affected source 
definition. The Agency did this because the finishing operation is the 
primary emission source at the majority of sources, and the proposed 
MACT standards differ depending on whether the source is existing or 
new. The Agency concluded that there are three possible affected source 
definitions for finishing operations: each finishing step, each 
finishing line, or each facility.
    The Agency first considered the implications of defining the source 
as each finishing step. With this affected source definition, if a new 
application station (e.g., a spray booth) was added to a finishing 
line, the finishing material used in this step would have to meet the 
MACT standards for new sources. The Agency agreed that this was not 
feasible because the proposed rule allows for averaging within and 
across finishing steps. If a source is subject to new source MACT for 
one step and not for others, this step could not be incorporated into 
the averaging and the facility's flexibility would be limited. This 
runs counter to the Committee's previous decision to allow sources the 
maximum flexibility possible in complying with the proposed rule.
    The second possible affected source definition would be to define a 
finishing line as the affected source. New source MACT would apply if a 
facility installed a new finishing line, or if an existing line was 
reconstructed, as reconstruction is defined in Sec. 63.5. With this 
affected source definition, new source MACT is considered technically 
feasible by the Agency because all of the finishing materials applied 
would have to meet the same HAP limit. The same problems with averaging 
arise, however, as arise if a finishing step is the affected source. 
For example, if a facility operates multiple finishing lines, including 
one that is subject to new source MACT, the new line could not be 
included in the averaging calculation because the HAP limit that 
applies to it is different than the limit that applies to the other 
lines. Because this limits a facility's flexibility, the Agency did not 
select the finishing line as the affected source. Also, it is sometimes 
difficult to define the finishing line within a plant. For example, an 
owner or operator may add or remove pieces to or from a finishing line 
at any stage of the finishing. For all of these reasons, the Agency, by 
default, chose the entire facility to be the affected source.

K. Relationship Between General Provisions and Proposed Rule

    The General Provisions (subpart A) to part 63 apply to any source 
that emits or has the potential to emit any HAP and is subject to any 
rule promulgated under part 63. Thus, all major sources performing wood 
furniture manufacturing are subject to subpart A.
    Major sources subject to the proposed standards are subject to 
subpart A. However, some of the provisions of subpart A are applicable 
only to sources using control devices to comply with a rule established 
under part 63. As such, sources complying with this proposed rule by 
using compliant finishing materials, adhesives, thinners, and spray 
booth coatings are not subject to the following sections of subpart A.
1. Section 63.6(e)(3)
    This section requires the submittal of a startup, shutdown, 
malfunction plan. For sources complying with the proposed rule through 
the use of compliant materials or an averaging approach at all times, 
periods of startup and shutdown have no relevance and should be 
included in the compliance determination. Likewise, a malfunction would 
not cause an increase in emissions because emission reduction is 
achieved through source reduction. Even if equipment malfunctions, the 
reformulated materials would still be in use.
2. Section 63.7
    This section specifies procedures for conducting a performance test 
and therefore would not apply. The performance demonstration for 
sources complying using compliant materials or an averaging approach 
involves submitting the information required by Sec. 63.804(f)(1), (2), 
(3), (5), (7), and (8) of the proposed rule. This information must be 
submitted within 60 days because the compliance status information 
report is required by Sec. 63.807(b) to be submitted within 60 days 
after the compliance date.
3. Section 63.8
    This section specifies monitoring requirements. The compliance 
provisions of Sec. 63.804(g)(1), (2), (3), (5), (7), and (8) of the 
proposed rule supersede Sec. 63.8 for sources using compliant materials 
or an averaging approach.
4. Section 63.9(e), (g), and (h)(2)(ii)
    Sections 63.9(e) and 63.9(g) do not apply to sources using 
compliant materials or an averaging approach because they pertain to 
sources conducting performance tests and using continuous monitoring 
systems, respectively.
    Section 63.9(h)(2)(ii) specifies that the compliance status 
information report be submitted within 60 days after the performance 
test. This requirement is relevant to sources using compliant 
materials, but is clarified by Sec. 63.807(b) of the proposed rule, 
which requires that the compliance status information report be 
submitted within 60 days after the compliance date, not 60 days after 
the compliance determination, for sources using compliant materials. As 
written, Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii) is not applicable for sources using 
compliant materials because no performance test is being required.
5. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i-vi, viii-xi, xiii)
    These sections do not apply to sources using compliant materials 
because they specifically pertain to the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan; performance tests; or continuous monitoring systems. 
Sections 63.10(b)(2)(vii, xii, and xiv) apply because they are more 
generic. Paragraph (2)(vii) requires that a source maintain records of 
all required measurements needed to demonstrate compliance. Paragraph 
(2)(xii) is related to the request for a waiver of reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, which some sources subject to the proposed 
standards may pursue. Paragraph (2)(xiv) requires that a source 
maintain records to support initial notifications and notification of 
compliance status.
6. Section 63.10(c), (d)(2) and (d)(5), and (e)
    These sections do not apply to sources using compliant materials or 
an averaging approach because they pertain to continuous monitoring 
systems, performance testing, or startup, shutdown, malfunction 
reports.
    The General Provisions do not specify the reporting requirements 
for sources not operating continuous monitoring systems. Therefore, the 
reporting requirements in Sec. 63.807(c) of the proposed rule apply. In 
lieu of the above monitoring requirements, the proposed rule contains 
continuous compliance provisions in Sec. 63.804(g) for sources 
complying through the use of reformulated materials.

L. Relationship Between Operating Permit Program and Proposed Rule

    Under the operating permit regulations codified at 40 CFR part 70, 
any source that is a major source under the Act, or any nonmajor source 
subject to standards under sections 111 or 112 of the Act, must obtain 
an operating permit (see Sec. 70.3(a)(1).). Therefore, all major 
sources subject to these proposed standards must obtain an operating 
permit. Area sources in this source category are not regulated by the 
proposed standards and would therefore not be required to obtain an 
operating permit, unless a State with an approved operating permit 
program chooses to permit all nonmajor sources.
    There are many major sources in this source category that are major 
based solely on their potential to emit. Such sources may choose to 
obtain a Federally enforceable limit on their potential to emit such 
that they are no longer considered major sources and not subject to the 
proposed rule. Sources that opt to limit their potential to emit are 
referred to by the EPA as ``synthetic area'' sources. The limiting of a 
source's potential to emit is identified as Federally enforceable by 
Sec. 70.6(b) of part 70.
    The Committee agreed that this source category was one that could 
benefit from the development of a general permit. Under part 70, State 
permitting authorities are allowed to develop general permits for 
categories of sources containing numerous similar sources. In deciding 
which source should be covered by general permits, State regulators 
must consider three primary criteria: (1) source categories covered by 
general permits should contain similar operations and emit pollutants 
with similar characteristics; (2) sources should not be subject to 
case-by-case standards; and (3) sources should be subject to the same 
or substantially similar requirements governing operation, emissions, 
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping. General permits were 
developed primarily to alleviate some of the permitting burden to area 
sources that are subject to section 112 standards and therefore 
required to obtain a title V permit. However, the preamble to part 70 
states that general permits may be issued to cover any category of 
numerous similar sources, including major sources. Therefore, the 
Committee recommends that State permitting agencies pursue a general 
permit for wood furniture operations.
    There are several benefits to a general permit. If a general permit 
developed by a permitting authority has been approved after public 
participation, and the EPA and affected State review, the permitting 
authority may then grant or deny a general permit to a source without 
further public participation or the EPA and affected State review. The 
action of granting or denying a general permit is also not subject to 
judicial review. Another benefit of a general permit that would be 
particularly advantageous for the wood furniture industry is that 
sources may use general permits strictly for the purposes of becoming 
synthetic area sources; i.e., limiting the potential to emit. Finally, 
for owners and operators with sources in multiple source categories 
located in a contiguous area, a general permit can be issued to a 
discrete affected source at an industrial complex.

M. Solicitation of Comments

    This section was drafted as the EPA developed the proposed 
standards. It lists issues the Agency is soliciting comments on. The 
preamble requests comments on:
    1. Exempting sources that commit to using no more than a total of 
250 gallons of finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff materials per 
month, or 3,000 gallons per rolling 12-month period, from the proposed 
standards as long as the source maintains records of their usage 
including specific comments on:
    a. Whether an alternative to the 250/3,000 gallon level would be 
appropriate;
    b. The level and type of reporting needed to document the owner's 
commitment; and
    c. The frequency and nature of the recordkeeping requirement.
    2. Adding language to the final rule that would provide a mechanism 
for sources using more than 250 gallons per month that may emit less 
than 10 tons per year of a single HAP or 25 tons per year of a 
combination of HAP to accept case-by-case operating restrictions 
including specific comments on:
    a. Whether such language should be added;
    b. The type of reporting and process required to establish the 
case-by-case commitment (in particular, how to establish throughput and 
content limitations that could ensure area source status); and
    c. The type of records that should be maintained to document 
compliance with the restriction.
    3. The potential impact of the proposed rule on water pollution 
including any data that may support or refute the Agency's position 
that the proposed standards will have no impact on water pollution.
    4. Modifying the MACT floor so that only one source with an 
incinerator was included.
    5. Interpretation of average as either the arithmetic mean or the 
median (MACT floor).
    6. The approach for establishing MACT for contact adhesives 
including:
    a. The need for exemptions from the proposed emission limitations 
for contact adhesives used on non-porous substrates and for aerosol 
adhesives;
    b. The appropriateness of excluding adhesives used in amounts less 
than 200 gallons from calculation of the MACT floor;
    c. Calculating the MACT floor based on the average of the best 
performing 12 percent when the data set is limited; and
    d. The appropriateness of setting MACT for foam adhesives for 
existing sources based on the type of testing required for the product.
    7. Is the monitoring/repair frequency in the I&M plan appropriate?
    8. Guidance on exemption to the use of conventional air spray guns 
based on technical or economic infeasibility.
    9. The use of 70-year exposure levels versus 7-year exposure levels 
in assigning de minimis values to VHAP of potential concern.
    10. Should additional pollutants be restricted from use in cleaning 
and washoff solvents?
    11. Adequacy of the work practice standards--are they too 
burdensome, or should there be more?

VII. Other Considerations

    In addition to establishing emission limits and work practice 
standards for the industry, several members of the Committee were also 
interested in establishing a mechanism for tracking the impact of the 
standards on emissions of HAP and other pollutants, collecting 
information on technologies being used to meet the standards, and 
providing a forum for dissemination of information on evolving 
technologies. The Committee members felt that it was important to 
verify the proposed standards were achieving the reductions in 
emissions and hazards that were expected and to provide information on 
the technologies and substances being used to achieve those reductions. 
Because the emission limits for finishing materials can be met through 
substitution of non-HAP VOC's for HAP, and some non-HAP's can be as 
hazardous as the listed HAP's, they felt it was important to track 
emissions of other pollutants from the industry to ensure that 
materials of equal or greater toxicity were not being substituted for 
HAP, and that appropriate action would be taken if this should occur. 
Throughout the regulatory negotiation, there was discussion of new, 
lower emitting (both VOC and HAP) technologies that are reportedly on 
the threshold of demonstration. The Committee members felt that as 
these technologies are demonstrated, the information should be made 
available to the public.
    After some discussion among Committee members concerning the 
logistics of collecting and disseminating the information, the 
Committee decided that the preamble to the NESHAP should call for a 
trends report. The report would be developed by the industry. The 
report would be made available to the EPA, who would disseminate it to 
all interested parties.
    In compiling a trends report, the Committee agreed that industry 
will survey a sample of the industry that is determined to be 
representative of the entire industry. This industry-collected data 
will initially establish a baseline for this report and will, in 
subsequent years, be used to determine whether there have been 
increases and/or decreases in overall industry use of VHAP's and VOC's, 
and will include data on increases and/or decreases in the use of 
individual VHAP's or VOC's. Individual facility or company data would 
be collected and assembled by industry sources. As the individual data 
submissions will reflect confidential business practices and/or trade 
secrets, such individual submissions are prohibited from public 
disclosure except pursuant to court order or other legal requirement.
    This agreement to compile a trends report begins with the report 
submitted for the baseline year, 1994, which industry will compile and 
submit to the Agency in 1995. Reports thereafter will be compiled every 
2 years, beginning with a trends report for 1996. This agreement to 
submit a trends report will terminate 1 year after EPA is required to 
complete the review of this standard prescribed by 42 U.S.C. section 
7412(f)(2), which mandates EPA to review NESHAP for residual risk.
    In addition to the above data, the Committee agreed that the trends 
report would include a brief discussion of technologies being used by 
the industry to reduce emissions, and a discussion of evolving 
technologies including new finishing materials, adhesives, and improved 
application equipment. This discussion would not be an attempt to 
explain the emission trends, but rather it would be an independent 
review from industry experts on new technologies that are coming into 
increased use or that may be developing. The Committee also recommended 
a working group be formed from interested Committee members to provide 
further input on the details of the scope of the report.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

    A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the 
proposed standards in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Clean 
Air Act. Persons wishing to make an oral presentation on the proposed 
standards for wood furniture manufacturing should contact the EPA at 
the address given in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Oral 
presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the 
public may file a written statement before, during, or within 30 days 
after the hearing. Written statements should be addressed to the Air 
Docket Section address given in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 
and should refer to Docket No. A-93-10.
    A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will be 
available for public inspection and copying during normal working hours 
at the EPA's Air Docket Section in Washington, DC (see ADDRESSES 
section of this preamble).

B. Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information 
submitted to or otherwise considered by the EPA in the development of 
this proposed rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket are:
    1. To allow interested parties to identify and locate documents 
readily so that they can participate intelligently and effectively in 
the rulemaking process; and
    2. To serve as the record in case of judicial review (except for 
interagency review material [section 307(d)(7)(a) of the Clean Air 
Act]).

C. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    1. Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    2. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    3. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order 12866, the EPA has 
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action.'' 
Therefore, the EPA has determined that it will not be sent to OMB for 
review.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 
Information Collection Request document has been prepared by the EPA 
(ICR No. 1716.01), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, 
Information Policy Branch, EPA, 401 M Street, SW. (2136), Washington, 
DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740. The public burden for this 
collection of information is estimated to average 187 hours per 
respondent annually for recordkeeping and reporting. This includes time 
for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, conducting 
performance tests, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and reviewing the collection of information.
    Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of 
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 
burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2136, U. S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, and to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for the 
EPA.'' The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the 
EPA to consider potential impacts of proposed regulations on small 
entities. It is currently the EPA policy to perform a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of the potential impacts of proposed regulations 
on small entities whenever it is anticipated that any small entities 
may be adversely impacted. Because it was anticipated that some small 
wood furniture manufacturers could be adversely impacted from 
implementation of the proposed standards, a regulatory flexibility 
analysis was performed. A copy of the Economic Impact Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis is included in the docket.
    While the majority of the approximately 11,000 wood furniture 
operations are small businesses, the vast majority of the smaller 
operations would not be directly affected by this proposed standard. 
Only approximately 7 percent of the 11,000 manufacturers are expected 
to be directly impacted. The estimate of 7 percent is based on EPA's 
estimate of the number of sources that are major based on actual 
emissions. It is anticipated that the remainder of the industry will 
take a Federally enforceable limit on their emissions.
    As discussed under the summary of impacts (section IV.C of the 
preamble), the economic analysis predicted a slight increase in wood 
furniture prices. Therefore, the vast majority of small manufacturers, 
which will not be subject to the proposed rule may benefit from these 
slightly increased prices. If these costs are not offset by newer, less 
expensive technologies in the future, this benefit may be sustained.
    For the smaller facilities that would be directly impacted by 
implementation of the proposed standards, an analysis of the potential 
impact of this proposed standard by plant size was performed. The 
results from this analysis indicate that implementation of this 
proposed rule would generally have a small impact on the net revenues 
of facilities of all size groups and that smaller plants would not be 
systematically impacted more severely than larger operations.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify 
that this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities.

F. Miscellaneous

    In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this 
proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory 
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies 
within the framework of a regulatory negotiation. The Administrator 
will welcome comments on all aspects of the proposed regulation, 
including health, economic and technological issues, and on the 
proposed test methods.
    This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of 
promulgation. This review will include an assessment of such factors as 
evaluation of the residual health risks, any overlap with other 
programs, the existence of alternative methods, enforceability, 
improvements in emission control technology and health data, and the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

G. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections 
101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 
7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 21, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-29194 Filed 12-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P