[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 21, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80220-80258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31091]



[[Page 80219]]

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

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 
Coating); National Emission Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturing 
Operations; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 80220]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786; FRL-9237-1]
RIN 2060-AQ42


National Emission Standards for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 
(Surface Coating); National Emission Standards for Wood Furniture 
Manufacturing Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes how EPA will address the residual risk 
and technology review conducted for two industrial source categories 
regulated by separate national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants. It also proposes to address provisions related to emissions 
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before February 22, 
2011. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information 
collection provisions are best assured of having full effect if the 
Office of Management and Budget receives a copy of your comments on or 
before January 20, 2011.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by January 5, 2011, a public hearing will be held on 
January 20, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0786, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: [email protected], Attention Docket ID Number 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786.
     Facsimile: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0786.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket 
Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0786, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of 
two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the 
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer 
for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 
West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 
DC 20004. Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0786. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line 
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
confidential business information or other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider 
to be confidential business information or otherwise protected through 
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov 
Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not 
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the 
body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA 
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address 
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that 
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If 
you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your 
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with 
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786. All documents in the docket are 
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential 
business information or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available 
either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 
the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the 
telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10 
a.m. on January 20, 2011 and will be held at EPA's campus in Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate facility nearby. For 
information on the status of the public hearing, go to http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. Persons interested in presenting 
oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a public hearing is to be 
held should contact Ms. Joan Rogers, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and 
Commerce Group (E143-01), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 
541-4487.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Ms. J. Kaye Whitfield, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone (919) 541-2509; facsimile number: (919) 541-3470; and 
e-mail address: [email protected]. For specific information 
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Ms. Elaine Manning, 
Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 
541-5499; facsimile number: (919) 541-0840; and e-mail address: 
[email protected]. For information about the applicability of 
these two National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants to 
a particular entity, contact the appropriate person listed in Table 1 
to this preamble.

[[Page 80221]]



 Table 1--List of EPA Contacts for the National Emissions Standards for
   Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Addressed in this Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         NESHAP for:            OECA Contact \1\      OAQPS Contact \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair  Mr. Leonard Lazarus,  Ms. J. Kaye
 (Surface Coating).            (202) 564-6369,       Whitfield, (919)
                               lazarus.leonard@epa   541-2509,
                               .gov.                 [email protected]
Wood Furniture Manufacturing  Mr. Leonard Lazarus,  Ms. J. Kaye
 Operations.                   (202) 564-6369,       Whitfield, (919)
                               lazarus.leonard@epa   541-2509,
                               .gov.                 [email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OECA stands for EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance
  Assurance.
\2\ OAQPS stands for EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations

    Several acronyms and terms used to describe industrial processes, 
data inventories, and risk modeling are included in this preamble. 
While this may not be an exhaustive list, to ease the reading of this 
preamble and for reference purposes, the following terms and acronyms 
are defined here:

ACA American Coatings Association
ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
ADAF Age-dependent Adjustment Factors
AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
AERMOD The air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
AHFA American Home Furnishings Alliance
ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
APA Administrative Procedure Act
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BIFMA Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturer's 
Association
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CEEL Community Emergency Exposure Levels
CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring System
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CIIT Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
DGBE Diethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether
EGME Ethylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether
EJ Environmental Justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guidelines
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants
HI Hazard Index
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model version 3
HON Hazardous Organic National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants
HQ Hazard Quotient
ICR Information Collection Request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
KCMA Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturing Association
Kg Kilogram
Km Kilometer
LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MACT Code Code within the NEI used to identify processes included in 
a source category
MIR Maximum Individual Risk
MRL Minimum Risk Level
NAC/AEGL Committee National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure 
Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NIOSH National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health
NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effects Level
NOX Nitrous Oxide
NRC National Research Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP Hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
POM Polycyclic Organic Matter
PPRTV Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
REL CalEPA Reference Exposure Level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC Reference Concentration
RfD Reference Dose
RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
RTR Residual Risk and Technology Review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SBA Small Business Administration
SCC Source Classification Codes
SF3 2000 Census of Population and Housing Summary File 3
SOP Standard Operating Procedures
SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
TOSHI Target Organ-Specific Hazard Index
TPY Tons Per Year
TRIM Total Risk Integrated Modeling System
TRIM.FaTE A spatially explicit, compartmental mass balance model 
that describes the movement and transformation of pollutants over 
time, through a user-defined, bounded system that includes both 
biotic and abiotic compartments
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UF Uncertainty Factor
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE Unit Risk Estimate
VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards
VHAP Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
VOHAP Volatile Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants
WWW Worldwide Web

    Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to 
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations
II. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
III. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. How did we consider the risk results in making decisions for 
this proposal?
    C. What other actions are we addressing in this proposal?
IV. Analyses Performed
    A. How did we estimate risks posed by the source categories?
    B. How did we perform the technology review?
V. Analyses Results and Proposed Decisions
    A. What are the results and proposed decisions for the 
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category?
    B. What are the results and proposed decisions for the Wood 
Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category?
VI. Proposed Action
    A. What actions are we proposing as a result of the technology 
review?
    B. What actions are we proposing as a result of the residual 
risk review?
    C. What other actions are we proposing?
VII. Request for Comments
VIII. Submitting Data Corrections
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

[[Page 80222]]

    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

II. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated industrial source categories that are the subject of 
this proposal are listed in Table 2 of this preamble. Table 2 is not 
intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers 
regarding entities likely to be affected by the proposed action for the 
source categories listed. These standards, and any changes considered 
in this rulemaking, would be directly applicable to sources as a 
federal program. Thus, federal, state, local, and tribal government 
entities are not affected by this proposed action. The regulated 
categories affected by this proposed action are shown in Table 2.

                TABLE 2--NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         NESHAP and source category                            NAICS code \1\                     MACT code \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface         336611..........................................            0715-2
 Coating).
Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations.....  3371, 3372, 3379................................              0716
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this proposal will also be available on the WWW through the EPA's TTN. 
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this proposed 
action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly 
proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN provides information and 
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
    Additional information is available on the RTR web page at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes the 
most recent version of the rule, source category descriptions, detailed 
emissions, and other data that were used as inputs to the risk 
assessments.

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA 
through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or 
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on 
a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or 
CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD 
ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. If 
you submit a CD ROM or disk that does not contain CBI, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information 
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's 
electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as 
CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI 
only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control 
Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786.

III. Background

    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first 
stage, after EPA has identified categories of sources emitting one or 
more of the HAP listed in section 112(b) of the CAA, section 112(d) of 
the CAA calls for us to promulgate NESHAP for those sources. ``Major 
sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 TPY or 
more of a single HAP or 25 TPY or more of any combination of HAP. For 
major sources, these technology-based standards must reflect the 
maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after 
considering cost, energy requirements, and nonair quality health and 
environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as MACT standards.
    MACT standards must reflect application of measures, processes, 
methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited to, 
measures which, (A) Reduce the volume of or eliminate pollutants 
through process changes, substitution of materials or other 
modifications; (B) enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; 
(C) capture or treat pollutants when released from a process, stack, 
storage, or fugitive emissions point; (D) are design, equipment, work 
practice, or operational standards (including requirements for operator 
training or certification); or (E) are a combination of the above. CAA 
section 112(d)(2)(A)-(E). The MACT standards may take the form of 
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards where EPA 
first determines either that, (A) a pollutant cannot be emitted through 
a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture the 
pollutants, or that any requirement for, or use of, such a conveyance 
would be inconsistent with law; or (B) the application of measurement 
methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to 
technological and economic limitations. CAA sections 112(h)(1)-(2).
    The MACT ``floor'' is the minimum control level allowed for MACT 
standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(3) and may not be based 
on cost considerations. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the 
best-controlled similar source. The MACT floors for existing sources 
can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be 
less stringent than the average emissions limitation achieved by the 
best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent 
than the floor

[[Page 80223]]

based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions 
reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and 
energy requirements.
    The EPA is required to review these technology-based standards and 
to revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently 
than every 8 years, under CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting this 
review, EPA is not obliged to completely recalculate the prior MACT 
determination. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (DC Cir. 2008).
    The second stage in standard-setting focuses on reducing any 
remaining ``residual'' risk according to CAA section 112(f). This 
provision requires, first, that EPA prepare a Report to Congress 
discussing (among other things) methods of calculating the risks posed 
(or potentially posed) by sources after implementation of the MACT 
standards, the public health significance of those risks, the means and 
costs of controlling them, the actual health effects to persons in 
proximity of emitting sources, and the recommendations regarding 
legislation of such remaining risk. EPA prepared and submitted this 
report (Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA-453/R-99-001) in March 
1999. Congress did not act in response to the report, thereby 
triggering EPA's obligation under CAA section 112(f)(2) to analyze and 
address residual risk.
    Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires us to determine, for source 
categories subject to certain MACT standards, whether the emissions 
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. 
If the MACT standards for HAP ``classified as a known, probable, or 
possible human carcinogen, do not reduce lifetime excess cancer risks 
to the individual most exposed to emissions from a source in the 
category or subcategory to less than 1-in-1 million,'' EPA must 
promulgate residual risk standards for the source category (or 
subcategory) as necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health. In doing so, EPA may adopt standards equal to 
existing MACT standards if EPA determines that the existing standards 
are sufficiently protective. As stated in NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 
1083 (DC Cir. 2008), ``If EPA determines that the existing technology-
based standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is 
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk rulemaking.'' 
CAA section 112(f)(2) further states that EPA must also adopt more 
stringent standards if required, ``to prevent, taking into 
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an 
adverse environmental effect.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Adverse environmental effect'' is defined in CAA section 
112(a)(7) as any significant and widespread adverse effect, which 
may be reasonably anticipated to wildlife, aquatic life, or natural 
resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or 
threatened species or significant degradation of environmental 
qualities over broad areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA was enacted in 1990, it expressly 
preserved our use of the two-step process for developing standards to 
address any residual risk and our interpretation of ``ample margin of 
safety'' developed in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, 
Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment 
Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 
38044, September 14, 1989). The first step in this process is the 
determination of acceptable risk. The second step provides for an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health, which is the level at which 
the standards are set (unless a more stringent standard is required to 
prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other 
relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect).
    The terms ``individual most exposed,'' ``acceptable level,'' and 
``ample margin of safety'' are not specifically defined in the CAA. 
However, CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) preserves the interpretation set out 
in the Benzene NESHAP, and the Court (in NRDC v. EPA) concluded that 
EPA's interpretation of subsection 112(f)(2) is a reasonable one. See 
NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 2008), which says 
``[S]ubsection 112(f)(2)(B) expressly incorporates EPA's interpretation 
of the Clean Air Act from the Benzene standard, complete with a 
citation to the Federal Register.'' See also, A Legislative History of 
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, volume 1, p. 877 (Senate debate 
on Conference Report). We notified Congress in the Residual Risk Report 
to Congress that we intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in 
making CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA-453/R-99-
001, p. ES-11).
    In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated as an overall objective:

    * * * in protecting public health with an ample margin of 
safety, we strive to provide maximum feasible protection against 
risks to health from hazardous air pollutants by (1) protecting the 
greatest number of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk 
level no higher than approximately 1-in-1 million; and (2) limiting 
to no higher than approximately 1-in-10 thousand [i.e., 100-in-1 
million] the estimated risk that a person living near a facility 
would have if he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant 
concentrations for 70 years.

    The EPA also stated that, ``The EPA also considers incidence (the 
number of persons estimated to suffer cancer or other serious health 
effects as a result of exposure to a pollutant) to be an important 
measure of the health risk to the exposed population. Incidence 
measures the extent of health risk to the exposed population as a 
whole, by providing an estimate of the occurrence of cancer or other 
serious health effects in the exposed population.'' The EPA went on to 
conclude, ``estimated incidence would be weighed along with other 
health risk information in judging acceptability.'' As explained more 
fully in our Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA does not define 
``rigid line[s] of acceptability,'' but considers rather broad 
objectives to be weighed with a series of other health measures and 
factors (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The determination of what 
represents an ``acceptable'' risk is based on a judgment of ``what 
risks are acceptable in the world in which we live'' (Residual Risk 
Report to Congress, p. 178, quoting the Vinyl Chloride decision at 824 
F.2d 1165) recognizing that our world is not risk-free.
    In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated that ``EPA will generally presume 
that if the risk to [the maximum exposed] individual is no higher than 
approximately 1-in-10 thousand, that risk level is considered 
acceptable.'' 54 FR 38045. We discussed the maximum individual lifetime 
cancer risk as being ``the estimated risk that a person living near a 
plant would have if he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant 
concentrations for 70 years.'' Id. We explained that this measure of 
risk ``is an estimate of the upper bound of risk based on conservative 
assumptions, such as continuous exposure for 24 hours per day for 70 
years.'' Id. We acknowledge that maximum individual lifetime cancer 
risk ``does not necessarily reflect the true risk, but displays a 
conservative risk level which is an upper-bound that is unlikely to be 
exceeded.'' Id.
    Understanding that there are both benefits and limitations to using 
maximum individual lifetime cancer risk as a metric for determining 
acceptability, we acknowledged in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP that 
``consideration of maximum individual risk * * * must take into account 
the strengths and weaknesses of this measure of risk.'' Id. 
Consequently, the

[[Page 80224]]

presumptive risk level of 100-in-1 million (1-in-10 thousand) provides 
a benchmark for judging the acceptability of maximum individual 
lifetime cancer risk, but does not constitute a rigid line for making 
that determination.
    The EPA also explained in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP the following: 
``In establishing a presumption for MIR [maximum individual cancer 
risk], rather than a rigid line for acceptability, the Agency intends 
to weigh it with a series of other health measures and factors. These 
include the overall incidence of cancer or other serious health effects 
within the exposed population, the numbers of persons exposed within 
each individual lifetime risk range and associated incidence within, 
typically, a 50-km exposure radius around facilities, the science 
policy assumptions and estimation uncertainties associated with the 
risk measures, weight of the scientific evidence for human health 
effects, other quantified or unquantified health effects, effects due 
to co-location of facilities, and co-emission of pollutants.'' Id.
    In some cases, these health measures and factors taken together may 
provide a more realistic description of the magnitude of risk in the 
exposed population than that provided by maximum individual lifetime 
cancer risk alone. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, ``[e]ven though 
the risks judged ``acceptable'' by EPA in the first step of the Vinyl 
Chloride inquiry are already low, the second step of the inquiry, 
determining an ``ample margin of safety,'' again includes consideration 
of all of the health factors, and whether to reduce the risks even 
further.'' In the ample margin of safety decision process, the EPA 
again considers all of the health risks and other health information 
considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional 
factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be 
considered, including costs and economic impacts of controls, 
technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant 
factors. Considering all of these factors, the EPA will establish the 
standard at a level that provides an ample margin of safety to protect 
the public health, as required by CAA section 112(f). 54 FR 38046.

B. How did we consider the risk results in making decisions for this 
proposal?

    As discussed in section III.A of this preamble, we apply a two-step 
process for developing standards to address residual risk. In the first 
step, EPA determines if risks are acceptable. This determination 
``considers all health information, including risk estimation 
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR \2\ of 
approximately 1-in-10 thousand [i.e., 100-in-1 million].'' 54 FR 38045. 
In the second step of the process, EPA sets the standard at a level 
that provides an ample margin of safety ``in consideration of all 
health information, including the number of persons at risk levels 
higher than approximately 1-in-1 million, as well as other relevant 
factors, including costs and economic impacts, technological 
feasibility, and other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' 
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers 
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is 
the estimated risk were an individual exposed to the maximum level 
of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In past residual risk determinations, EPA presented a number of 
human health risk metrics associated with emissions from the category 
under review, including: The MIR; the numbers of persons in various 
risk ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum non-cancer HI; and the 
maximum acute non-cancer hazard (72 FR 25138, May 3, 2007; 71 FR 42724, 
July 27, 2006). EPA also discussed and considered risk estimation 
uncertainties. In our most recent proposal (75 FR 65068), EPA also 
presented and considered additional measures of health information to 
support our decision-making, including: Estimates of ``total facility'' 
risks (risks from all HAP emissions from the facility at which the 
source category is located); \3\ demographic analyses (analyses of the 
distributions of HAP-related risks across different social, 
demographic, and economic groups living near the facilities); and 
estimates of the risks associated with emissions allowed by the MACT 
standards (75 FR 65068, October 21, 2010). EPA is providing this same 
type of information in support of the proposed actions described in 
this Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA previously provided estimates of total facility risk in 
a residual risk proposal for coke oven batteries (69 FR 48338, 
August 9, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is considering all available health information to inform 
our determinations of risk acceptability and ample margin of safety 
under CAA section 112(f). Specifically, as explained in the Benzene 
NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to 
any single factor'' and thus ``[t]he Administrator believes that the 
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of 
a broad set of health risk measures and information.'' 54 FR 38044, 
38046 (Sept. 14, 1989). Similarly, with regard to making the ample 
margin of safety determination, as stated in the Benzene NESHAP ``[I]n 
the ample margin decision, the EPA again considers all of the health 
risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond 
that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level 
of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts 
of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other 
relevant factors.'' Id.
    The EPA acknowledges that flexibility is provided by the Benzene 
NESHAP regarding what factors EPA might consider in making 
determinations and how they might be weighed for each source category. 
In responding to comment on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP, EPA 
explained that: ``The policy chosen by the Administrator permits 
consideration of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR 
figure be considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer 
health effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this 
way, the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well 
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed 
in each individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride 
mandate that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to 
the public by employing [her] expertise to assess available data. It 
also complies with the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did 
not exclude the use of any particular measure of public health risk 
from the EPA's consideration with respect to CAA section 112 
regulations, and, thereby, implicitly permits consideration of any and 
all measures of health risk which the Administrator, in [her] judgment, 
believes are appropriate to determining what will `protect the public 
health.' '' 54 FR 38057.
    For example, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed 
in determining acceptability of risks. It is explained in the Benzene 
NESHAP ``an MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand should ordinarily be 
the upper end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above 
this benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA 
section 112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures 
and information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the 
EPA may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes MIR less 
than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of 
other health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. Similarly, with regard to 
the ample margin of safety analysis, it is stated in the Benzene NESHAP 
that: ``* * * EPA believes the relative weight of the many

[[Page 80225]]

factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety 
can only be determined for each specific source category. This occurs 
mainly because technological and economic factors (along with the 
health-related factors) vary from source category to source category.'' 
Id. at 38061.
    EPA wishes to point out that certain health information has not 
been considered in these decisions. In assessing risks to populations 
in the vicinity of the facilities in each category, we present 
estimates of risk associated with HAP emissions from the source 
category alone (source category risk estimates) and HAP emissions from 
the entire facilities at which the covered source categories are 
located (facility-wide risk estimates). We do not attempt to 
characterize the risks associated with all HAP emissions impacting the 
populations living near the sources in these categories. That is, we 
have not presented estimates of total HAP inhalation risks from all 
sources in the vicinity of the covered sources (e.g., the sum of the 
risks from ambient levels, emissions from the source category, 
facility-wide emissions, and emissions from other facilities nearby), 
nor have we attempted to include estimates of total HAP inhalation 
risks from indoor sources such as from cooking or degassing from 
consumer products.
    The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an 
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure 
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. While such 
considerations are relevant to both cancer and non-cancer risk 
assessments, they can be particularly important when assessing 
cumulative non-cancer risks, where pollutant-specific risk-based 
exposure levels (e.g., RfC) are based on the assumption that thresholds 
exist for adverse health effects. For example, the EPA recognizes that, 
although exposures attributable to emissions from a source category or 
facility alone may not indicate the potential for increased risk of 
adverse non-cancer health effects in a population, the exposures 
resulting from emissions from the facility in combination with 
emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to 
which an individual is exposed, may be sufficient to result in 
increased risk of adverse non-cancer health effects. In May 2010, the 
SAB advised us ``* * * that RTR assessments will be most useful to 
decision makers and communities if results are presented in the broader 
context of aggregate and cumulative risks, including background 
concentrations and contributions from other sources in the area.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA's responses to this and all other key recommendations of 
the SAB's advisory on RTR risk assessment methodologies (which is 
available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf) 
are outlined in a memo to this rulemaking docket from David Guinnup 
entitled, EPA's Actions in Response to the Key Recommendations of 
the SAB Review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risks in the context of total HAP risks from all sources 
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the 
uncertainties of doing so. At this point, we believe that such 
estimates of total HAP risks will have significantly greater associated 
uncertainties than for the source category or facility-wide estimates, 
hence compounding the uncertainty in any such comparison. This is 
because we have not conducted a detailed technical review of HAP 
emissions data for source categories and facilities that have not 
previously undergone a RTR review or are not currently undergoing such 
review. We are requesting comment on whether and how best to estimate 
and evaluate total HAP exposure from outdoor sources in our 
assessments, and, in particular, on whether and how it might be 
appropriate to use information from EPA's NATA to support such 
estimates. We also request comment whether and how to estimate total 
HAP exposure from indoor sources in the context of these assessments. 
We are also seeking comment on how best to consider various types and 
scales of risk estimates when making our acceptability and ample margin 
of safety determinations under CAA section 112(f). Additionally, we are 
seeking comments and recommendations for any other comparative measures 
that may be useful in the assessment of the distribution of HAP risks 
across potentially affected demographic groups.

C. What other actions are we addressing in this proposal?

    We are also proposing to revise requirements in these MACT 
standards related to emissions during periods of SSM. The United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated portions 
of two provisions in EPA's CAA section 112 regulations governing the 
emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 
1019 (DC Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). 
Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 
63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are part of a regulation, 
commonly referred to as the General Provisions Rule, that EPA 
promulgated under section 112 of the CAA. When incorporated into CAA 
section 112(d) regulations for specific source categories, these two 
provisions exempt sources from the requirement to comply with the 
otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standard during 
periods of SSM.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in both of 
the MACT standards addressed in this proposal. Consistent with Sierra 
Club v. EPA, EPA is proposing standards in these rules that apply at 
all times. In proposing the standards in these rules, EPA has taken 
into account startup and shutdown periods, and, because operations and 
emissions do not differ from normal operations during these periods, 
has not proposed different standards for these periods. We are also 
proposing several revisions to the General Provisions Applicability 
table in both of the MACT standards. For example, we are proposing to 
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that 
the source develop a SSM plan. We are also proposing to eliminate or 
revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the 
SSM exemption. EPA has attempted to ensure that we have not included in 
the proposed regulatory language any provisions that are inappropriate, 
unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are 
specifically seeking comment on whether there are any such provisions 
that we have inadvertently incorporated or overlooked.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by 
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not 
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or 
usual manner * * *'' (40 CFR 63.2). EPA has determined that 
malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct operating mode and, 
therefore, any emissions that occur at such times do not need to be 
factored into development of CAA section 112(d) standards, which, once 
promulgated, apply at all times. In Mossville Environmental Action Now 
v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1242 (DC Cir. 2004), the Court upheld as 
reasonable standards that had factored in variability of emissions 
under all operating conditions. However, nothing in CAA section 112(d) 
or in case law requires that EPA anticipate and

[[Page 80226]]

account for the innumerable types of potential malfunction events in 
setting emission standards. See Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 
1058 (DC Cir. 1978), (``In the nature of things, no general limit, 
individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset 
situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory 
limits caused by ``uncontrollable acts of third parties,'' such as 
strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 
other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise 
of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification in 
advance by regulation.''). Further, it is reasonable to interpret CAA 
section 112(d) as not requiring EPA to account for malfunctions in 
setting emissions standards. For example, we note that CAA section 112 
uses the concept of ``best performing'' sources in defining MACT, the 
level of stringency that major source standards must meet. Applying the 
concept of ``best performing'' to a source that is malfunctioning 
presents significant difficulties. The goal of best performing sources 
is to operate in such a way as to avoid malfunctions of their units. 
Moreover, even if malfunctions were considered a distinct operating 
mode, we believe it would be impracticable to take malfunctions into 
account in setting CAA section 112(d) standards for shipbuilding and 
ship repair (surface coating) and wood furniture manufacturing 
operations. As noted above, by definition, malfunctions are sudden and 
unexpected events, and it would be difficult to set a standard that 
takes into account the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 
occur across all sources in each source category. Malfunctions can also 
vary in frequency, degree, and duration, further complicating standard 
setting.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, EPA would 
determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the 
good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as 
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. 
EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the 
CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor 
maintenance or careless operation.'' 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of 
malfunction).
    Finally, EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly 
designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can 
sometimes cause or contribute to an exceedance of the relevant emission 
standard. (See, e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding 
Excessive Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown 
(September 20, 1999); Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, 
Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions (February 15, 1983)). EPA is, 
therefore, proposing to add to the final rule an affirmative defense to 
civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are caused by 
malfunctions in both of the MACT standards addressed in this proposal. 
See 40 CFR 63.782 for sources subject to the Shipbuilding and Repair 
(Surface Coating) MACT standards, or 40 CFR 63.801 for sources subject 
to the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT standards (defining 
``affirmative defense'' to mean, in the context of an enforcement 
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding 
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which 
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding). We also are proposing other regulatory 
provisions to specify the elements that are necessary to establish this 
affirmative defense; a source subject to the Shipbuilding and Ship 
Repair (Surface Coating) MACT standards must prove by a preponderance 
of the evidence that it has met all of the elements set forth in 40 CFR 
63.781(d) and a source subject to the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 
Operations MACT standards must prove by a preponderance of the evidence 
that it has met all of the elements set forth in 40 CFR 63.800(h). (See 
40 CFR 22.24.) The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is 
available only where the event that causes an exceedance of the 
emission limit meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 
63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused by 
poor maintenance and or careless operation). For example to 
successfully assert the affirmative defense, the source must prove by a 
preponderance of evidence that excess emissions ``[w]ere caused by a 
sudden, short, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution 
control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to 
operate in a normal or usual manner. * * *'' The criteria also are 
designed to ensure that steps are taken to correct the malfunction, to 
minimize emissions in accordance with 40 CFR 63.783(b)(1) for sources 
subject to the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) MACT 
standards, or 40 CFR 63.802(c) for sources subject to the Wood 
Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT standards, and to prevent 
future malfunctions. For example the source must prove by a 
preponderance of evidence that ``[r]epairs were made as expeditiously 
as possible when the applicable emission limitations were being 
exceeded* * *'' and that ``[a]ll possible steps were taken to minimize 
the impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the 
environment and human health* * *'' In any judicial or administrative 
proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the assertion of the 
affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not met its burden of 
proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate 
penalties may be assessed in accordance with section 113 of the CAA 
(see also 40 CFR 22.77).

IV. Analyses Performed

    As discussed above, in this notice, we are taking the following 
actions: (1) we are proposing action to address the RTR requirements of 
CAA sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) for both the Shipbuilding and Ship 
Repair (Surface Coating) and the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 
Operations MACT standards; and, (2) we are proposing to revise the 
provisions in both of these MACT standards to address SSM to ensure 
that the SSM provisions are consistent with the Court decision in 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019. In this section, we describe the 
analyses performed to support the proposed decisions for the RTRs for 
each of these source categories.

A. How did we estimate risks posed by the source categories?

    The EPA conducted risk assessments that provided estimates of the 
MIR posed by the HAP emissions from each source in a category, and, by 
each source category, the distribution of cancer risks within the 
exposed populations, cancer incidence, HI for chronic exposures to HAP 
with the potential to cause non-cancer health effects, HQ for acute 
exposures to HAP with the potential to cause non-cancer health effects, 
and an evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental effects. 
The risk assessments consisted of seven primary steps, as discussed 
below. The docket for this rulemaking contains the following documents 
which provide more information on the risk assessment inputs and 
models: Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the Wood Furniture 
Manufacturing Operations Source Category, and Draft Residual Risk 
Assessment for the

[[Page 80227]]

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Source Category.
1. Establishing the Nature and Magnitude of Actual Emissions and 
Identifying the Emissions Release Characteristics
    For the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source 
category, we compiled preliminary datasets using readily-available 
information, reviewed the data, made changes where necessary, and 
shared these data with the public via an ANPRM. 72 FR 29287, March 29, 
2007. The preliminary dataset was based on data in the 2002 National 
Emissions Inventory (NEI) Final Inventory, Version 1 (made publicly 
available on February 26, 2006).\5\ The preliminary dataset was updated 
with information received in response to the ANPRM; data from the 2005 
NEI, when that data became available; and additional data gathered by 
EPA. For more information see the Memoranda Documenting Changes to the 
RTR Dataset for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) 
Source Category, dated November 22, 2010, which is available in the 
docket for this action. The updated dataset contains 85 facilities and 
was used to conduct the risk assessments and other analyses that form 
the basis for the proposed actions for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 
(Surface Coating) source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The NEI is a database that contains information about 
sources that emit criteria air pollutants and their precursors, and 
HAP. The database includes estimates of annual air pollutant 
emissions from point, non-point, and mobile sources in the 50 
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin 
Islands. The EPA collects this information and releases an updated 
version of the NEI database every three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category, we 
compiled preliminary datasets using the best data available, reviewed 
the data, and made changes where necessary. For this source category, 
we compiled the preliminary datasets using data in the 2005 NEI. After 
incorporation of changes to the dataset based on additional information 
gathered by EPA, an updated dataset was created. This updated dataset 
contains 385 facilities and was used to conduct the risk assessments 
and other analyses that form the basis for the proposed actions for the 
Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category.
2. Establishing the Relationship Between Actual Emissions and MACT-
Allowable Emissions Levels
    The available emissions data in the NEI and from other sources 
typically represent the estimates of mass of emissions actually emitted 
during the specified annual time period. These ``actual'' emission 
levels are often lower than the emission levels that a facility might 
be allowed to emit and still comply with the MACT standards. The 
emissions level allowed to be emitted by the MACT standards is referred 
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions level. This represents the 
highest emissions level that could be emitted by the facility without 
violating the MACT standards.
    We discussed the use of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in 
the final Coke Oven Batteries residual risk rule (70 FR 19998-19999, 
April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and final HON residual risk rules 
(71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, 
respectively). In those previous actions, we noted that assessing the 
risks at the MACT-allowable level is inherently reasonable since these 
risks reflect the maximum level sources could emit and still comply 
with national emission standards. But we also explained that it is 
reasonable to consider actual emissions, where such data are available, 
in both steps of the risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene 
NESHAP. (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.) It is reasonable to consider 
actual emissions because sources typically seek to perform better than 
required by emission standards to provide an operational cushion to 
accommodate the variability in manufacturing processes and control 
device performance.
    As described above, the actual emissions data were compiled based 
on the NEI, information gathered from companies, individual facilities, 
industry trade associations, states, and information received in 
response to the ANPRM. To estimate emissions at the MACT-allowable 
level, we developed a ratio of MACT-allowable to actual emissions for 
each emissions source type in each source category, based on the level 
of control required by the MACT standards compared to the level of 
reported actual emissions and available information on the level of 
control achieved by the emissions controls in use. For example, if 
there was information to suggest several facilities in the Shipbuilding 
and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category were using coatings 
that contain only 1 Kg of VOHAP compounds per Kg of coating solids (kg 
VOHAP/kg solids) while the MACT standards required coatings to contain 
no more than 2 kg VOHAP/kg solids, we would estimate that MACT-
allowable emissions from emission points using these coatings could be 
as much as 2 times higher (VOHAP content of 2 kg/kg solids allowed 
compared with VOHAP content of 1 kg/kg solids actually used), and the 
ratio of MACT-allowable to actual would be 2:1 for the emission points 
using these coatings at the facilities in this source category. After 
developing these ratios for each emission point type in each source 
category, we next applied these ratios on a facility-by-facility basis 
to the maximum chronic risk estimates from the inhalation risk 
assessment to obtain facility-specific maximum risk estimates based on 
MACT-allowable emissions. The estimates of MACT-allowable emissions for 
the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations and Shipbuilding and Ship 
Repair (Surface Coating) source categories are described in section V 
of this preamble.
3. Conducting Dispersion Modeling, Determining Inhalation Exposures, 
and Estimating Individual and Population Inhalation Risks
    Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations 
and health risks from each of the source categories addressed in this 
proposal were estimated using the HEM (Community and Sector HEM-3 
version 1.1.0). The HEM-3 performs three of the primary risk assessment 
activities listed above: (1) Conducting dispersion modeling to estimate 
the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term and 
short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing within 50 km of 
the modeled sources, and (3) estimating individual and population-level 
inhalation risks using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-
response information.
    The dispersion model used by HEM-3 is AERMOD, which is one of EPA's 
preferred models for assessing pollutant concentrations from industrial 
facilities.\6\ To perform the dispersion modeling and to develop the 
preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data libraries. The 
first is a library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion 
calculations. This library includes one year of hourly surface and 
upper air observations for 130 meteorological stations, selected to 
provide coverage of the United States and Puerto Rico. A second library 
of United States Census Bureau census block \7\ internal point

[[Page 80228]]

locations and populations provides the basis of human exposure 
calculations (Census, 2000). In addition, for each census block, the 
census library includes the elevation and controlling hill height, 
which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library of 
pollutant unit risk factors and other health benchmarks is used to 
estimate health risks. These risk factors and health benchmarks are the 
latest values recommended by EPA for HAP and other toxic air 
pollutants. These values are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html and are discussed in more detail later in this 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: 
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) 
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 
2005).
    \7\ A census block is generally the smallest geographic area for 
which census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we used 
the estimated annual average ambient air concentration of each of the 
HAP emitted by each source for which we have emissions data in the 
source category. The air concentrations at each nearby census block 
centroid were used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure 
concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. We 
calculated the MIR for each facility as the cancer risk associated with 
a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and 52 weeks 
per year for a 70-year period) exposure to the maximum concentration at 
the centroid of an inhabited census block. Individual cancer risks were 
calculated by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the 
ambient concentration of each of the HAP (in micrograms per cubic 
meter) by its URE, which is an upper bound estimate of an individual's 
probability of contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a 
concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. 
For residual risk assessments, we generally use URE values from EPA's 
IRIS. For carcinogenic pollutants without EPA IRIS values, we look to 
other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using 
CalEPA URE values, where available. In cases where new, scientifically 
credible dose-response values have been developed in a manner 
consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer review process 
similar to that used by EPA, we may use such dose-response values in 
place of, or in addition to, other values, if appropriate.
    Formaldehyde is a unique case. In 2004, EPA determined that the 
CIIT dose-response value for formaldehyde (5.5 x 10-9 [mu]g/
m\3\) was based on better science than the IRIS dose-response value 
(1.3 x 10-5 [mu]g/m\3\), and we switched from using the IRIS 
value to the CIIT value in risk assessments supporting regulatory 
actions. This determination was based on a substantial body of research 
on the inhalation dosimetry for formaldehyde in rodents and primates by 
the CIIT Centers for Health Research (formerly the CIIT), with a focus 
on use of rodent data for refinement of the quantitative cancer dose-
response assessment.8 9 10 The CIIT's risk assessment of 
formaldehyde incorporated mechanistic and dosimetric information on 
formaldehyde. However, recent research published by EPA indicates that, 
when the CIIT's two-stage modeling assumptions are varied, resulting 
dose-response estimates can vary by several orders of 
magnitude.11 12 13 14 These findings are not supportive of 
interpreting the CIIT model results as providing a conservative 
(health-protective) estimate of human risk.\15\ The recent EPA research 
also examined the contribution of the two-stage modeling for 
formaldehyde towards characterizing the relative weights of key events 
in the mode-of-action of a carcinogen. For example, in the EPA 
research, the model-based inference in the published CIIT study that 
formaldehyde's direct mutagenic action is not relevant to the 
compound's tumorigenicity was found not to hold under variations of 
modeling assumptions.\16\ As a result of these findings, we no longer 
considered the CIIT URE value health protective, and we are again using 
the EPA's current value on IRIS, which was last revised in 1991, and 
which is more than 2000 times greater than the CIIT value. We note that 
a new IRIS re-assessment has been drafted and sent to the NAS for 
review. The NAS review is expected to be completed by March of 2011. We 
also note that POM, a carcinogenic HAP with a mutagenic mode of action, 
is emitted by some of the facilities in these two categories.\17\ For 
this compound group,\18\ the ADAF described in EPA's Supplemental 
Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to 
Carcinogens \19\ were applied. This adjustment has the effect of 
increasing the estimated lifetime risks for POM by a factor of 1.6. In 
addition, although only a small fraction of the total POM emissions 
were not reported as individual compounds, EPA expresses carcinogenic 
potency for compounds in this group in terms of benzo[a]pyrene 
equivalence, based on evidence that carcinogenic POM has the same 
mutagenic mechanism of action as benzo[a]pyrene. For this reason, EPA's 
Science Policy Council \20\ recommends applying the Supplemental 
Guidance to all carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons for which 
risk estimates are based on relative potency. Accordingly, we have 
applied the ADAF to the benzo[a]pyrene equivalent portion of all POM 
mixtures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Conolly, RB, Kimbell, JS, Janszen, D, Schlosser, PM, 
Kalisak, D, Preston, J, and Miller, FJ. 2003. Biologically Motivated 
Computational Modeling of Formaldehyde Carcinogencity in the F344 
Rat. Tox Sci 75: 432-447.
    \9\ Conolly, RB, Kimbell, JS, Janszen, D, Schlosser, PM, 
Kalisak, D, Preston, J, and Miller, FJ. 2004. Human Respiratory 
Tract Cancer Risks of Inhaled Formaldehyde: Dose-Response 
Predictions Derived from Biologically-Motivated Computational 
Modeling of a Combined Rodent and Human Dataset. Tox Sci 82: 279-
296.
    \10\ Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (CIIT). 1999. 
Formaldehyde: Hazard Characterization and Dose-Response Assessment 
for Carcinogenicity by the Route of Inhalation. CIIT, September 28, 
1999. Research Triangle Park, NC.
    \11\ U.S. EPA. Analysis of the Sensitivity and Uncertainty in 2-
Stage Clonal Growth Models for Formaldehyde with Relevance to Other 
Biologically-Based Dose Response (BBDR) Models. U.S. EPA, 
Washington, D.C., EPA/600/R-08/103, 2008.
    \12\ Subramaniam, R; Chen, C; Crump, K; et al. (2008). 
Uncertainties in Biologically-Based Modeling of Formaldehyde-Induced 
Cancer Risk: Identification of Key Issues. Risk Anal 28 (4):907-923.
    \13\ Subramaniam RP; Crump KS; Van Landingham C; White P; Chen 
C; Schlosser PM (2007). Uncertainties in the CIIT model for 
formaldehyde-induced carcinogenicity in the rat: A limited 
sensitivity analysis-I. Risk Anal, 27: 1237-1254.
    \14\ Crump, K; Chen, C; Fox, J; et al. (2008). Sensitivity 
Analysis of Biologically Motivated Model for Formaldehyde-Induced 
Respiratory Cancer in Humans. Ann Occup Hyg 52:481-495.
    \15\ Crump, K; Chen, C; Fox, J; et al. (2008). Sensitivity 
Analysis of Biologically Motivated Model for Formaldehyde-Induced 
Respiratory Cancer in Humans. Ann Occup Hyg 52:481-495.
    \16\ Subramaniam RP; Crump KS; Van Landingham C; White P; Chen 
C; Schlosser PM (2007). Uncertainties in the CIIT model for 
formaldehyde-induced carcinogenicity in the rat: A limited 
sensitivity analysis-I. Risk Anal, 27: 1237-1254.
    \17\ U.S. EPA, 2005. Performing risk assessments that include 
carcinogens described in the Supplemental Guidance as having a 
mutagenic mode of action. Science Policy Council Cancer Guidelines 
Implementation Work Group Communication II: Memo from W.H. Farland, 
dated October 4, 2005.
    \18\ See the Risk Assessment for Source Categories document 
available in the docket for a list of HAP with a mutagenic mode of 
action.
    \19\ U.S. EPA, 2005. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Early-
Life Exposure to Carcinogens. EPA/630/R-03/003F. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/childrens_supplement_final.pdf.
    \20\ U.S. EPA, 2006. Science Policy Council Cancer Guidelines 
Implementation Workgroup Communication II: Memo from W.H. Farland, 
dated June 14, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Incremental individual lifetime cancer risks associated with 
emissions from the source category were estimated as the sum of the 
risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP (including those classified as 
carcinogenic to humans, likely to be carcinogenic to humans, and 
suggestive evidence of carcinogenic

[[Page 80229]]

potential \21\) emitted by the modeled source. Cancer incidence and the 
distribution of individual cancer risks for the population within 50 km 
of any source were also estimated for the source category as part of 
these assessments by summing individual risks. A distance of 50 km is 
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP 
(54 FR 38044) and the limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, 
including AERMOD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ These classifications also coincide with the terms ``known 
carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible carcinogen,'' 
respectively, which are the terms advocated in the EPA's previous 
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51 FR 
33992, September 24, 1986). Summing the risks of these individual 
compounds to obtain the cumulative cancer risks is an approach that 
was recommended by the EPA's SAB in their 2002 peer review of EPA's 
NATA entitled, NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics 
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at: http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess risk of non-cancer health effects from chronic exposures, 
we summed the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ 
system to obtain the HI for that target organ system (or target organ-
specific HI, TOSHI). The HQ for chronic exposures is the estimated 
chronic exposure divided by the chronic reference level, which is 
either the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate (with uncertainty spanning 
perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to 
the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to 
be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a 
lifetime,'' or, in cases where an RfC from EPA's IRIS database is not 
available, EPA will utilize the following prioritized sources for our 
chronic dose-response values: (1) The ATSDR MRL, which is defined as 
``an estimate of daily human exposure to a substance that is likely to 
be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects (other than cancer) 
over a specified duration of exposure''; (2) the CalEPA Chronic REL, 
which is defined as ``the concentration level at or below which no 
adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure 
duration;'' and (3) as noted above, in cases where scientifically 
credible dose-response values have been developed in a manner 
consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer review process 
similar to that used by EPA, we may use those dose-response values in 
place of, or in concert with other values.
    Screening estimates of acute exposures and risks were also 
evaluated for each of the HAP at the point of highest off-site exposure 
for each facility (i.e., not just the census block centroids) assuming 
that a person is located at this spot at a time when both the peak 
(hourly) emission rate and hourly dispersion conditions (1991 calendar 
year data) occur. The acute HQ is the estimated acute exposure divided 
by the acute dose-response value. In each case, acute HQ values were 
calculated using best available, short-term dose-response values. These 
acute dose-response values, which are described below, include the 
acute REL, AEGL, and ERPG for 1-hour exposure durations. As discussed 
below, we used conservative assumptions for emission rates, 
meteorology, and exposure location for our acute analysis.
    As described in the CalEPA's Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk 
Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute Reference 
Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, an acute REL value (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) is defined as ``the 
concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are 
anticipated for a specified exposure duration.'' Acute REL values are 
based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported 
in the medical and toxicological literature. Acute REL values are 
designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population by 
the inclusion of margins of safety. Since margins of safety are 
incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the 
acute REL does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact.
    Acute Exposure Guideline Levels values were derived in response to 
recommendations from the NRC. As described in Standing Operating 
Procedures (SOP) of the National Advisory Committee on Acute Exposure 
Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/aegl/pubs/sop.pdf),\22\ ``the NRC's previous name for acute exposure 
levels--community emergency exposure levels (CEEL)-- was replaced by 
the term AEGL to reflect the broad application of these values to 
planning, response, and prevention in the community, the workplace, 
transportation, the military, and the remediation of Superfund sites.'' 
This document also states that AEGL values ``represent threshold 
exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to emergency 
exposures ranging from 10 minutes to eight hours.'' The document lays 
out the purpose and objectives of AEGL by stating (page 21) that ``the 
primary purpose of the AEGL program and the NAC/AEGL Committee is to 
develop guideline levels for once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures 
to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.'' 
In detailing the intended application of AEGL values, the document 
states (page 31) that ``[i]t is anticipated that the AEGL values will 
be used for regulatory and nonregulatory purposes by United States 
Federal and State agencies, and possibly the international community in 
conjunction with chemical emergency response, planning, and prevention 
programs. More specifically, the AEGL values will be used for 
conducting various risk assessments to aid in the development of 
emergency preparedness and prevention plans, as well as real-time 
emergency response actions, for accidental chemical releases at fixed 
facilities and from transport carriers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ National Academies of Science, 2001. Standing Operating 
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous 
Chemicals, page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AEGL-1 value is then specifically defined as ``the airborne 
concentration of a substance above which it is predicted that the 
general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience 
notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory 
effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and 
reversible upon cessation of exposure.'' The document also notes (page 
3) that, ``Airborne concentrations below AEGL-1 represent exposure 
levels that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient 
and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain 
asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.'' Similarly, the document defines 
AEGL-2 values as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/
m\3\) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general 
population, including susceptible individuals, could experience 
irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or 
an impaired ability to escape.''
    Emergency Response Planning Guidelines values are derived for use 
in emergency response, as described in the American Industrial Hygiene 
Association's document entitled, Emergency Response Planning Guidelines 
(ERPG) Procedures and Responsibilities (http://www.aiha.org/1documents/committees/ERPSOPs2006.pdf), which states that, ``Emergency Response 
Planning Guidelines were developed for emergency planning and are 
intended as health based guideline concentrations

[[Page 80230]]

for single exposures to chemicals.'' \23\ The ERPG-1 value is defined 
as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that 
nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without 
experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or 
without perceiving a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Similarly, 
the ERPG-2 value is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration 
below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed 
for up to one hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or 
other serious health effects or symptoms which could impair an 
individual's ability to take protective action.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ ERP Committee Procedures and Responsibilities. 1 November, 
2006. American Industrial Hygiene Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be seen from the definitions above, the AEGL and ERPG values 
include the similarly-defined severity levels one and 2. For many 
chemicals, a severity level one value AEGL or ERPG has not been 
developed; in these instances, higher severity level AEGL-2 or ERPG-2 
values are compared to our modeled exposure levels to screen for 
potential acute concerns.
    Acute REL values for one hour exposure durations are typically 
lower than their corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1 values. Even though 
their definitions are slightly different, AEGL-1 values are often the 
same as the corresponding ERPG-1 values, and AEGL-2 values are often 
equal to ERPG-2 values. Maximum HQ values from our acute screening risk 
assessments typically result when basing them on the acute REL value 
for a particular pollutant. In cases where our maximum acute HQ value 
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ value based on the next highest acute 
dose-response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1 value).
    To develop screening estimates of acute exposures, we developed 
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the average 
actual annual hourly emission rates by a factor to cover routinely 
variable emissions. We chose the factor based on process knowledge and 
engineering judgment and with awareness of a Texas study of short-term 
emissions variability, which showed that most peak emission events, in 
a heavily-industrialized 4-county area (Harris, Galveston, Chambers, 
and Brazoria Counties, Texas) were less than twice the annual average 
hourly emission rate. The highest peak emission event was 74 times the 
annual average hourly emission rate, and the 99th percentile ratio of 
peak hourly emission rate to the annual average hourly emission rate 
was 9.\24\ This analysis is provided in Appendix 4 of the Draft 
Residual Risk Assessment for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations, 
and Draft Residual Risk Assessment for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 
(Surface Coating) which are available in the docket for this action. 
Considering this analysis, unless specific process knowledge or data 
are available to provide an alternate value, to account for more than 
99 percent of the peak hourly emissions, we apply a conservative 
screening multiplication factor of 10 to the average annual hourly 
emission rate in these acute exposure screening assessments. For the 
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category, this 
factor of 10 was applied. For the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 
Operations source category, a factor of 4 was applied, based on 
emissions data provided by industry. More information supporting the 
use of this factor for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations is 
presented in the memorandum, Acute Effects Factor for Wood Furniture 
Manufacturing Operations, dated November 23, 2010, which is available 
in the docket for this action. We solicit comment on this factor and 
the data used to calculate it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/field_ops/eer/index.html or docket to access the source of these data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In cases where all acute HQ values from the screening step were 
less than or equal to 1, acute impacts were deemed negligible and no 
further analysis was performed. In the cases where an acute HQ from the 
screening step was greater than 1, additional site-specific data were 
considered to develop a more refined estimate of the potential for 
acute impacts of concern. The data refinements employed for these 
source categories consisted of using the site-specific facility layout 
to distinguish facility property from an area where the public could be 
exposed. These refinements are discussed in the draft risk assessment 
documents, which are available in the docket, for each of these source 
categories. Ideally, we would prefer to have continuous measurements 
over time to see how the emissions vary by each hour over an entire 
year. Having a frequency distribution of hourly emission rates over a 
year would allow us to perform a probabilistic analysis to estimate 
potential threshold exceedances and their frequency of occurrence. Such 
an evaluation could include a more complete statistical treatment of 
the key parameters and elements adopted in this screening analysis. 
However, we recognize that having this level of data is rare, hence our 
use of the multiplier approach.
4. Conducting Multi-Pathway Exposure and Risk Modeling
    The potential for significant human health risks due to exposures 
via routes other than inhalation (i.e., multi-pathway exposures) and 
the potential for adverse environmental impacts were evaluated in a 
three-step process. In the first step, we determined whether any 
facilities emitted any HAP known to be PB-HAP. There are 14 PB-HAP 
compounds or compound classes identified for this screening in EPA's 
Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_vol1.html). They are cadmium compounds, chlordane, 
chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, 
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, 
hexachlorocyclohexane, lead compounds, mercury compounds, methoxychlor, 
polychlorinated biphenyls, POM, toxaphene, and trifluralin.
    Since one or more of these PB-HAP are emitted by facilities in both 
source categories, we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation. 
In this step, we determined whether the facility-specific emission 
rates of each of the emitted PB-HAP were large enough to create the 
potential for significant non-inhalation risks. To facilitate this 
step, we have developed emission rate thresholds for each PB-HAP using 
a hypothetical screening exposure scenario developed for use in 
conjunction with the EPA's TRIM.FaTE model. The hypothetical screening 
scenario was subjected to a sensitivity analysis to ensure that its key 
design parameters were established such that environmental media 
concentrations were not underestimated (i.e., to minimize the 
occurrence of false negatives, or results that suggest that risks might 
be acceptable when, in fact, actual risks are high), and to also 
minimize the occurrence of false positives for human health endpoints. 
We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model TRIM-Screen. The 
facility-specific emission rates of each of the PB-HAP in each source 
category were compared to the emission threshold values for each of the 
PB-HAP identified in the source category datasets.
    For all of the facilities in the source categories addressed in 
this proposal, all of the PB-HAP emission rates were less than the 
emission threshold values. As a result of this, multi-pathway exposures 
and environmental risks were

[[Page 80231]]

deemed negligible and no further analysis was performed. If the 
emission rates of the PB-HAP had been above the emission threshold 
values, the source categories would have been further evaluated for 
potential non-inhalation risks and adverse environmental effects in a 
third step through site-specific refined assessments using EPA's 
TRIM.FaTE model.
    For further information on the multi-pathway analysis approach, see 
the residual risk documentation as referenced in section IV.A of this 
preamble.
5. Assessing Risks Considering Emissions Control Options
    In addition to assessing baseline inhalation risks and screening 
for potential multi-pathway risks, where appropriate, we also estimated 
risks considering the potential emission reductions that would be 
achieved by the particular control options under consideration. In 
these cases, the expected emissions reductions were applied to the 
specific HAP and emissions sources in the source category dataset to 
develop corresponding estimates of risk reductions.
6. Conducting Other Risk-Related Analyses, Including Facility-Wide 
Assessments and Demographic Analyses
a. Facility-Wide Risk
    To put the source category risks in context, we also examined the 
risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all 
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common 
control. In other words, for each facility that includes one or more 
sources from one of the source categories under review, we examined the 
HAP emissions, not only from the source category of interest, but also 
emissions of HAP from all other emission sources at the facility. The 
emissions data for generating these ``facility-wide'' risks were 
obtained from the 2005 NATA emissions inventory (available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005). We estimated the risks due to the 
inhalation of HAP that are emitted ``facility-wide'' for the 
populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the 
methods used for the source category analysis described above. For 
these facility-wide risk analyses, the modeled source category risks 
were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of 
facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source categories 
addressed in this proposal. We specifically examined the facilities 
associated with the highest estimates of risk and determined the 
percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of 
interest. The risk documentation available through the docket for this 
action provides all the facility-wide risks and the percentage of 
source category contribution for all source categories assessed.
    The methodology and the results of the facility-wide analyses for 
each source category are included in the residual risk documentation as 
referenced in section IV.A of this preamble, which is available in the 
docket for this action.
b. Demographic Analysis
    To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated 
with each source category, we evaluated the distributions of HAP-
related cancer and non-cancer risks across different social, 
demographic, and economic groups within the populations living near the 
facilities where these source categories are located. The development 
of demographic analyses to inform the consideration of EJ issues in EPA 
rulemakings is an evolving science. The EPA offers the demographic 
analyses in this rulemaking to inform the consideration of potential EJ 
issues, and invites public comment on the approaches used and the 
interpretations made from the results, with the hope that this will 
support the refinement and improve the utility of such analyses for 
future rulemakings.
    For the demographic analyses, we focus on the populations within 50 
km of any facility estimated to have exposures to HAP which result in 
cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater, or non-cancer HI of 1 or 
greater (based on the emissions of the source category or the facility, 
respectively). We examine the distributions of those risks across 
various demographic groups, comparing the percentages of particular 
demographic groups to the total number of people in those demographic 
groups nationwide. The results, including other risk metrics, such as 
average risks for the exposed populations, are documented in source 
category-specific technical reports in the docket for both source 
categories covered in this proposal.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ For example, the report pertaining to the Shipbuilding and 
Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category is entitled Risk and 
Technology Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for 
Populations Living Near Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 
Coating) Operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The basis for the risk values used in these analyses were the 
modeling results based on actual emissions levels obtained from the 
HEM-3 model described above. The risk values for each census block were 
linked to a database of information from the 2000 Decennial census that 
includes data on race and ethnicity, age distributions, poverty status, 
household incomes, and education level. The Census Department 
Landview[reg] database was the source of the data on race and 
ethnicity, and the data on age distributions, poverty status, household 
incomes, and education level were obtained from the SF3 Long Form. 
While race and ethnicity census data are available at the census block 
level, the age and income census data are only available at the census 
block group level (which includes an average of 26 blocks or an average 
of 1,350 people). Where census data are available at the block group 
level but not the block level, we assumed that all census blocks within 
the block group have the same distribution of ages and incomes as the 
block group.
    For each source category, we focused on those census blocks where 
source category risk results show estimated lifetime inhalation cancer 
risks above 1-in-1 million or chronic non-cancer indices above 1, and 
determined the relative percentage of different racial and ethnic 
groups, different age groups, adults with and without a high school 
diploma, people living in households below the national median income, 
and for people living below the poverty line within those census 
blocks. The specific census population categories studied include:
     Total population
     White
     African American (or Black)
     Native Americans
     Other races and multiracial
     Hispanic or Latino
     Children 18 years of age and under
     Adults 19 to 64 years of age
     Adults 65 years of age and over
     Adults without a high school diploma
     Households earning under the national median income
     People living below the poverty line
    It should be noted that these categories overlap in some instances, 
resulting in some populations being counted in more than one category 
(e.g., other races and multiracial and Hispanic). In addition, while 
not a specific census population category, we also examined risks to 
``Minorities,'' a classification which is defined for these purposes as 
all race population categories except white.
    For further information about risks to the populations located near 
the facilities in these source categories, we also evaluated the 
estimated distribution of inhalation cancer and chronic non-cancer 
risks associated

[[Page 80232]]

with the HAP emissions from all the emissions sources at the facility 
(i.e., facility-wide). This analysis used the facility-wide RTR 
modeling results and the census data described above.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analyses for 
each source category are included in a source category-specific 
technical report for each of the categories, which are available in the 
docket for this action.
7. Considering Uncertainties in Risk Assessment
    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk 
assessments, including those performed for the source categories 
addressed in this proposal. Although uncertainty exists, we believe 
that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions, 
ensures that our decisions are health-protective. A brief discussion of 
the uncertainties in the emissions datasets, dispersion modeling, 
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows 
below. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is included in 
the risk assessment documentation (referenced earlier) available in the 
docket for this action.
a. Uncertainties in the Emissions Datasets
    Although the development of the RTR datasets involved quality 
assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values 
will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data 
are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to 
complete the datasets are inaccurate, errors in estimating emissions 
values, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this 
analysis generally are annual totals for certain years that do not 
reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or 
variations from year to year. Additionally, we are aware of a potential 
impact on emissions from a chemical reaction during the curing and 
gluing of parts in this source category,\26\ which may not be reflected 
in our emissions inventory. For example, we believe formaldehyde may be 
formed during the chemical process of curing of some coatings 
formulations, such as conversion varnishes, which are commonly used at 
some wood furniture manufacturing operations. Currently, there are no 
EPA-approved methods for estimating formaldehyde emissions from wood 
furniture coatings that could potentially be formed as a result of the 
curing process. This is an uncertainty that could potentially bias the 
risk estimates; however, the extent of this bias is unknown. We request 
comment on the extent to which wood furniture coatings covered by this 
source category, including but not limited to conversion varnishes, 
undergo a chemical reaction during the curing process that yields 
formaldehyde, and associated methods for quantifying the resultant 
impact on emission levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Howard et al. (1998). Indoor Emissions from Conversion 
Varnishes. A[igrave]r & Waste Management Assoc. 48:924-930.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects 
screening assessment were based on multiplication factors applied to 
the average annual hourly emission rates (the default factor of 10 was 
used for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) and a factor of 
4 was used for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations), which are 
intended to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility 
operations. Additionally, although we believe that we have data for 
most facilities in these two source categories in our RTR dataset, our 
dataset may not include data for all existing facilities. Moreover, 
there are significant uncertainties with regard to the identification 
of sources as major or area in the NEI for these source categories. 
While we published an ANPRM for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 
Coating) and received additional data, we did not publish an ANPRM for 
Wood Furniture Manufacturing due to time constraints.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
    While the analysis employed EPA's recommended regulatory dispersion 
model, AERMOD, we recognize that there is uncertainty in ambient 
concentration estimates associated with any model, including AERMOD. In 
circumstances where we had to choose between various model options, 
where possible, model options (e.g., rural/urban, plume depletion, 
chemistry) were selected to provide an overestimate of ambient air 
concentrations of the HAP rather than underestimates. However, because 
of practicality and data limitation reasons, some factors (e.g., 
meteorology, building downwash) have the potential in some situations 
to overestimate or underestimate ambient impacts. For example, 
meteorological data were taken from a single year (1991), and facility 
locations can be a significant distance from the site where these data 
were taken. Despite these uncertainties, we believe that at off-site 
locations and census block centroids, the approach considered in the 
dispersion modeling analysis should generally yield overestimates of 
ambient HAP concentrations.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure
    The effects of human mobility on exposures were not included in the 
assessment. Specifically, short-term mobility and long-term mobility 
between census blocks in the modeling domain were not considered.\27\ 
As a result, this simplification will likely bias the assessment toward 
overestimating the highest exposures. In addition, the assessment 
predicted the chronic exposures at the centroid of each populated 
census block as surrogates for the exposure concentrations for all 
people living in that block. Using the census block centroid to predict 
chronic exposures tends to over-predict exposures for people in the 
census block who live further from the facility, and under-predict 
exposures for people in the census block who live closer to the 
facility. Thus, using the census block centroid to predict chronic 
exposures may lead to a potential understatement or overstatement of 
the true maximum impact, but is an unbiased estimate of average risk 
and incidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Short-term mobility is movement from one microenvironment 
to another over the course of hours or days. Long-term mobility is 
movement from one residence to another over the course of a 
lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The assessments evaluate the cancer inhalation risks associated 
with continuous pollutant exposures over a 70-year period, which is the 
assumed lifetime of an individual. In reality, both the length of time 
that modeled emissions sources at facilities actually operate (i.e., 
more or less than 70 years), and the domestic growth or decline of the 
modeled industry (i.e., the increase or decrease in the number or size 
of United States facilities), will influence the risks posed by a given 
source category. Depending on the characteristics of the industry, 
these factors will, in most cases, result in an overestimate both in 
individual risk levels and in the total estimated number of cancer 
cases. However, in rare cases, where a facility maintains or increases 
its emission levels beyond 70 years, residents live beyond 70 years at 
the same location, and the residents spend most of their days at that 
location, then the risks could potentially be underestimated. Annual 
cancer incidence estimates from exposures to emissions from these 
sources would not be affected by uncertainty in the length of time 
emissions sources operate.
    The exposure estimates used in these analyses assume chronic 
exposures to ambient levels of pollutants. Because

[[Page 80233]]

most people spend the majority of their time indoors, actual exposures 
may not be as high, depending on the characteristics of the pollutants 
modeled. For many of the HAP, indoor levels are roughly equivalent to 
ambient levels, but for very reactive pollutants or larger particles, 
these levels are typically lower. This factor has the potential to 
result in an overstatement of 25 to 30 percent of exposures.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996. 
(EPA 453/R-01-003; January 2001; page 85.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are 
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that should 
be highlighted. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment 
depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may 
vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and human 
activity patterns. In this assessment, we assume that individuals 
remain for one hour at the point of maximum ambient concentration as 
determined by the co-occurrence of peak emissions and worst-case 
meteorological conditions. These assumptions would tend to overestimate 
actual exposures since it is unlikely that a person would be located at 
the point of maximum exposure during the time of worst-case impact.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
    There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from 
chronic exposures and non-cancer effects from both chronic and acute 
exposures. Some uncertainties may be considered quantitatively, and 
others generally are expressed in qualitative terms. We note as a 
preface to this discussion a point on dose-response uncertainty that is 
brought out in EPA's 2005 Cancer Guidelines; namely, that ``the primary 
goal of EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly, as an 
Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default options 
that are used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary, should 
be health protective.'' (EPA 2005 Cancer Guidelines, pages 1-7.) This 
is the approach followed here as summarized in the next several 
paragraphs. A complete detailed discussion of uncertainties and 
variability in dose-response relationships is given in the residual 
risk documentation as referenced in section IV.A of this preamble, 
which is available in the docket for this action.
    Cancer URE values used in our risk assessments are those that have 
been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk. 
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of 
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical 
confidence limit).\29\ In some circumstances, the true risk could be as 
low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could also be 
greater.\30\ When developing an upper bound estimate of risk and to 
provide risk values that do not underestimate risk, health-protective 
default approaches are generally used. To err on the side of ensuring 
adequate health-protection, EPA typically uses the upper bound 
estimates rather than lower bound or central tendency estimates in our 
risk assessments, an approach that may have limitations for other uses 
(e.g., priority-setting or expected benefits analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/help_gloss.htm).
    \30\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is 
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is 
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum 
likelihood estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chronic non-cancer reference (RfC and RfD) values represent chronic 
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. 
Specifically, these values provide an estimate (with uncertainty 
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of daily oral exposure (RfD) or 
of a continuous inhalation exposure (RfC) to the human population 
(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an 
appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. To derive 
values that are intended to be ``without appreciable risk,'' the 
methodology relies upon an UF approach (U.S. EPA, 1993, 1994) which 
includes consideration of both uncertainty and variability. When there 
are gaps in the available information, UF are applied to derive 
reference values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk 
of deleterious effects. The UF are commonly default values,\31\ e.g., 
factors of 10 or 3, used in the absence of compound-specific data; 
where data are available, UF may also be developed using compound-
specific information. When data are limited, more assumptions are 
needed and more UF are used. Thus, there may be a greater tendency to 
overestimate risk in the sense that further study might support 
development of reference values that are higher (i.e., less potent) 
because fewer default assumptions are needed. However, for some 
pollutants, it is possible that risks may be underestimated. While 
collectively termed ``UF,'' these factors account for a number of 
different quantitative considerations when using observed animal 
(usually rodent) or human toxicity data in the development of the RfC. 
The UF are intended to account for: (1) Variation in susceptibility 
among the members of the human population (i.e., inter-individual 
variability); (2) uncertainty in extrapolating from experimental animal 
data to humans (i.e., interspecies differences); (3) uncertainty in 
extrapolating from data obtained in a study with less-than-lifetime 
exposure (i.e., extrapolating from sub-chronic to chronic exposure); 
(4) uncertainty in extrapolating the observed data to obtain an 
estimate of the exposure associated with no adverse effects; and (5) 
uncertainty when the database is incomplete or there are problems with 
the applicability of available studies. Many of the UF used to account 
for variability and uncertainty in the development of acute reference 
values are quite similar to those developed for chronic durations, but 
they more often use individual UF values that may be less than 10. 
Uncertainty factors are applied based on chemical-specific or health 
effect-specific information (e.g., simple irritation effects do not 
vary appreciably between human individuals, hence a value of 3 is 
typically used), or based on the purpose for the reference value (see 
the following paragraph). The UF applied in acute reference value 
derivation include: (1) Heterogeneity among humans; (2) uncertainty in 
extrapolating from animals to humans; (3) uncertainty in lowest 
observed adverse effect (exposure) level to no observed adverse effect 
(exposure) level adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in accounting for an 
incomplete database on toxic effects of potential concern. Additional 
adjustments are often

[[Page 80234]]

applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations 
at one exposure duration (e.g., four hours) to derive an acute 
reference value at another exposure duration (e.g., one hour).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ According to the NRC report, Science and Judgment in Risk 
Assessment (NRC, 1994) ``[Default] options are generic approaches, 
based on general scientific knowledge and policy judgment, that are 
applied to various elements of the risk assessment process when the 
correct scientific model is unknown or uncertain.'' The 1983 NRC 
report, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the 
Process, defined default option as ``the option chosen on the basis 
of risk assessment policy that appears to be the best choice in the 
absence of data to the contrary'' (NRC, 1983a, p. 63). Therefore, 
default options are not rules that bind the Agency; rather, the 
Agency may depart from them in evaluating the risks posed by a 
specific substance when it believes this to be appropriate. In 
keeping with EPA's goal of protecting public health and the 
environment, default assumptions are used to ensure that risk to 
chemicals is not underestimated (although defaults are not intended 
to overtly overestimate risk). See EPA, 2004, An Examination of EPA 
Risk Assessment Principles and Practices, EPA/100/B-04/001 available 
at:
    http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Not all acute reference values are developed for the same purpose, 
and care must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute 
assessment of human health effects relative to the reference value or 
values being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the 
lack of short-term dose-response values at different levels of severity 
should be factored into the risk characterization as potential 
uncertainties.
    Although every effort is made to identify peer-reviewed reference 
values for cancer and non-cancer effects for all pollutants emitted by 
the sources included in this assessment, some HAP continue to have no 
reference values for cancer or chronic non-cancer or acute effects. 
Since exposures to these pollutants cannot be included in a 
quantitative risk estimate, an understatement of risk for these 
pollutants at environmental exposure levels is possible. For a group of 
compounds that are either unspeciated or do not have reference values 
for every individual compound (e.g., glycol ethers), we conservatively 
use the most protective reference value to estimate risk from 
individual compounds in the group of compounds.
    Additionally, chronic reference values for several of the compounds 
included in this assessment are currently under EPA IRIS review, and 
revised assessments may determine that these pollutants are more or 
less potent than the current value. We may re-evaluate residual risks 
for the final rulemaking if, as a result of these reviews, a dose-
response metric changes enough to indicate that the risk assessment 
supporting this notice may significantly understate human health risk.
e. Uncertainties in the Multi-Pathway and Environmental Effects 
Assessment
    We generally assume that when exposure levels are not anticipated 
to adversely affect human health, they also are not anticipated to 
adversely affect the environment. For each source category, we 
generally rely on the site-specific levels of PB-HAP emissions to 
determine whether a full assessment of the multi-pathway and 
environmental effects is necessary. Because site-specific PB-HAP 
emission levels were so far below levels which would trigger a refined 
assessment of multi-pathway impacts, we are confident that these types 
of impacts are insignificant for these source categories.
f. Uncertainties in the Facility-Wide Risk Assessment
    Given that the same general analytical approach and the same models 
were used to generate facility-wide risk results as were used to 
generate the source category risk results, the same types of 
uncertainties discussed above for our source category risk assessments 
apply to the facility-wide risk assessments. Additionally, the degree 
of uncertainty associated with facility-wide emissions and risks is 
likely greater because we generally have not conducted a thorough 
engineering review of emissions data for source categories not 
currently undergoing an RTR review.
g. Uncertainties in the Demographic Analysis
    Our analysis of the distribution of risks across various 
demographic groups is subject to the typical uncertainties associated 
with census data (e.g., errors in filling out and transcribing census 
forms), as well as the additional uncertainties associated with the 
extrapolation of census-block group data (e.g., income level and 
education level) down to the census block level.

B. How did we perform the technology review?

    Our technology review is focused on the identification and 
evaluation of ``developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies'' since the promulgation of the existing MACT standard. If 
a review of available information identifies such developments, then we 
conduct an analysis of the technical feasibility of requiring the 
implementation of these developments, along with the impacts (costs, 
emission reductions, risk reductions, etc.). We then make a decision on 
whether it is necessary to amend the regulation to require these 
developments.
    Based on specific knowledge of each source category, we began by 
identifying known developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies. For the purpose of this exercise, we considered any of 
the following to be a ``development'':
     Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was 
not identified and considered during MACT development;
     Any improvements in add-on control technology or other 
equipment (that was identified and considered during MACT development) 
that could result in significant additional emission reduction;
     Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 
identified and considered during MACT development; and
     Any process change or pollution prevention alternative 
that could be broadly applied that was not identified and considered 
during MACT development.
    In addition to looking back at practices, processes, or control 
technologies reviewed at the time we developed the MACT standards, we 
reviewed a variety of sources of data to aid in our evaluation of 
whether there were additional practices, processes, or controls to 
consider. One of these sources of data was subsequent air toxics rules. 
Since the promulgation of the MACT standards for the source categories 
addressed in this proposal, EPA has developed air toxics regulations 
for a number of additional source categories. We reviewed the 
regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses associated with these 
subsequent regulatory actions to identify any practices, processes, and 
control technologies considered in these efforts that could possibly be 
applied to emission sources in the source categories under this current 
RTR review.
    We also consulted EPA's RBLC. The terms ``RACT,'' ``BACT,'' and 
``LAER'' are acronyms for different program requirements under the CAA 
provisions addressing the national ambient air quality standards. 
Control technologies classified as RACT, BACT, or LAER apply to 
stationary sources depending on whether the source is existing or new, 
and on the size, age, and location of the facility. Best Available 
Control Technology and LAER (and sometimes RACT) are determined on a 
case-by-case basis, usually by state or local permitting agencies. EPA 
established the RBLC to provide a central database of air pollution 
technology information (including technologies required in source-
specific permits) to promote the sharing of information among 
permitting agencies and to aid in identifying future possible control 
technology options that might apply broadly to numerous sources within 
a category or apply only on a source-by-source basis. The RBLC contains 
over 5,000 air pollution control permit determinations that can help 
identify appropriate technologies to mitigate many air pollutant 
emission streams. We searched this database to determine whether any 
practices, processes, or control technologies are included for the 
types of processes used for emission

[[Page 80235]]

sources (e.g., spray booths) in the source categories under 
consideration in this proposal.
    We also requested information from industry regarding developments 
in practices, processes, or control technology. Finally, we reviewed 
other information sources, such as state or local permitting agency 
databases and industry-supported databases.

V. Analyses Results and Proposed Decisions

    This section of the preamble provides background information on the 
MACT standards and source categories, the results of our RTR for each 
source category, and our proposed decisions concerning the SSM 
provisions in each MACT standard.

A. What are the results and proposed decisions for the Shipbuilding and 
Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category?

1. Overview of the Source Category and MACT Standards
    The National Emission Standards for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 
(Surface Coating) were promulgated on December 15, 1995 (60 FR 64330) 
and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart II. The Shipbuilding and Ship 
Repair (Surface Coating) MACT standards (i.e., Shipbuilding MACT 
standards) apply to shipbuilding and ship repair operations at any 
facility that is a major source of HAP. We estimate that there are 
approximately 85 shipbuilding and ship repair facilities currently 
subject to the Shipbuilding MACT standards.
    The shipbuilding and ship repair industry consists of 
establishments that build, repair, repaint, convert, and alter ships, 
which are marine or fresh-water vessels used for military or commercial 
operations. In general, activities and processes involved in ship 
repair and new ship construction are relatively similar. Operations 
include fabrication of basic components from raw materials, welding 
components and parts together, painting and repainting, overhauls, ship 
conversions, and other alterations. Nearly all shipyards that construct 
new ships also perform ship repairs. The source category covered by 
this MACT standard only includes the surface coating operations that 
occur at these facilities during shipbuilding and ship repair.
    Emissions of VOHAP from surface coating operations at shipbuilding 
and ship repair facilities result from the application of coatings and 
the use of cleaning solvents containing VOHAP during ship repair and 
shipbuilding operations. To reduce VOHAP emissions, the Shipbuilding 
MACT standards limit the coatings that can be used to those with as-
applied VOHAP content less than or equal to the applicable level 
specified in Table 2 to Subpart II of Part 63--Volatile Organic HAP 
Limits for Marine Coatings. This table contains as-applied VOHAP 
content limits of a variety of marine surface coatings categories, 
including a general use category and 22 specialty coatings categories. 
The Shipbuilding MACT standards also specify work practice standards 
that minimize evaporative emissions and spills from the handling, 
transfer, and storage of VOHAP-containing materials such as organic 
thinning solvents and paint wastes.
2. What data were used in our risk analyses?
    We initially created a preliminary dataset for the source category 
using data in the 2002 NEI Final Inventory, Version 1 (made publicly 
available on February 26, 2006). We reviewed the NEI dataset and made 
changes where necessary to ensure that the proper facilities were 
included and that the proper processes were allocated to the 
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category. We also 
reviewed the emissions and other data to identify data anomalies that 
could affect risk estimates. On March 29, 2007, we published an ANPRM 
(72 FR 29287) for the express purpose of requesting comments and 
updates to this dataset, as well as to the datasets for the other 
source categories addressed in that ANPRM. Approximately 20 comments, 
received in response to the ANPRM, were reviewed and considered, and we 
made adjustments to the dataset where we concluded the comments 
supported such adjustment. Adjustments were also made to the dataset to 
reflect updates made to the data in the 2005 NEI and to remove 
emissions from the dataset that were from sources that are not part of 
the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category, as 
determined through further engineering review. Based on the data 
collection and review process, we developed model input files to be 
used in the risk analysis for 71 facilities. As mentioned previously, 
there are a total of approximately 85 facilities subject to the 
Shipbuilding MACT standards. Therefore, we developed model input files 
for about 84 percent of the total facilities.
    Nevertheless, after the adjustments described above were made to 
the dataset, approximately 40 facilities included in our list of 85 
facilities still had some missing or incomplete HAP emissions data, 
based on NEI and EPA's Toxics Release Inventory searches. Thus, a HAP 
profile was developed to populate the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 
(Surface Coating) dataset with representative data for these 40 
facilities, using several assumptions and decisions. For more 
information see Memoranda Documenting Changes to the RTR Dataset for 
the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) Source Category, 
dated November 22, 2010, which includes the memorandum Default 
Emissions Assumptions for Shipbuilding RTR Dataset. For three 
facilities that provided VOC emissions data, but did not provide HAP 
emissions data, we speciated the VOC emissions into specific HAP 
emissions, making the worst-case assumption that all the VOC were HAP. 
The HAP profile we developed and applied to the VOC emissions for these 
three facilities was based on the top three solvents reported by the 
other facilities in the source category, which accounted for more than 
90 percent of the total HAP emissions at those facilities. This HAP 
speciation profile was: Xylene (all isomers)--78 percent; ethyl 
benzene--15 percent; and toluene--7 percent.
    There were also 44 facilities subject to the Shipbuilding MACT 
standards with no available emissions data, and we decided to assign 
them to one of two possible categories based on available information 
from company Web sites, operating permits, previous MACT project 
information, or similar facilities. The first category included 11 
facilities that emitted greater than or equal to 25 TPY of total HAP. 
The second category included 33 facilities that emitted less than 25 
TPY. Based on a small number of available operating permits and 
industry information collected for the original MACT rule, we 
determined which facilities belonged in each category. We then used the 
available emissions data reported for those facilities to calculate 
average total HAP emissions for each source type. The average HAP 
emissions level for facilities in the first category was estimated to 
be about 25 TPY, and the average HAP emissions level for facilities in 
the second category was estimated to be 7 TPY. Thus, the 11 facilities 
in the first category with no emissions data were assigned emissions of 
25 tons total HAP per year, and 33 facilities in the second category 
with no emissions data were assigned emissions of 7 tons total HAP per 
year. The same default HAP solvent profile discussed above was used to 
speciate the HAP emissions for these facilities. For a more complete 
description of the default

[[Page 80236]]

assumptions used to populate the dataset, see Default Emissions 
Assumptions for Shipbuilding RTR Dataset memorandum, dated August 30, 
2010, which is available in the docket for this action. These updated 
data were used to conduct the risk assessments and other analyses that 
form the basis for this proposed action.
    Mixed xylenes and ethyl benzene account for the majority of the HAP 
emissions from the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) 
source category (approximately 855 TPY, or 90 percent of the total HAP 
emissions by mass). These estimates are based on actual reported 
emissions data. These facilities also reported relatively small 
emissions of 33 other HAP. For more detail, see the memorandum in the 
docket for this action describing the risk assessment inputs and models 
for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category.
    We estimate that MACT-allowable emissions from this source category 
could be up to 2 times greater than the actual emissions for some types 
of coatings, based on information obtained for the highest usage 
coating categories at several major source facilities. However, we do 
not have facility-specific information for all facilities or all 
coatings, and we request comment on this estimate. For more detail 
about how this estimate of the ratio of actual to MACT-allowable 
emissions was derived, see the Maximum Achievable Control Technology 
(MACT) Allowable Emission Estimates memorandum, dated August 5, 2010, 
in the docket for this action describing the estimation of MACT-
allowable emission levels and associated risks and impacts. For the 
``facility-wide'' risk analysis, facility-specific emissions data from 
the 2005 NEI were used.
3. What are the results of the risk assessments and analyses?
    We conducted an inhalation risk assessment for the Shipbuilding and 
Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category. We also conducted an 
assessment of facility-wide risk and performed a demographic analysis 
of population risks. Details of the risk assessments and analyses can 
be found in the residual risk documentation referenced in section IV.A 
of this preamble, which is available in the docket for this action.
a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 3 provides an overall summary of the results of the 
inhalation risk assessment.

                               Table 3--Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum individual cancer                  Estimated   Maximum chronic non-cancer
                                            risk (in 1 million) \2\     Estimated      annual              TOSHI \3\
                                         ----------------------------  population      cancer    ---------------------------- Maximum off-site acute non-
        Number of  facilities \1\            Actual       Allowable   at risk >= 1-   incidence      Actual       Allowable          cancer HQ \4\
                                            emissions     emissions   in-1 million   (cases per     emissions     emissions
                                              level         level                       year)         level         Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
85......................................           10            20         4,000         0.003           0.5             1   HQREL = 0.1 glycol ethers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category is the reproductive
  system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term dose-response values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ
  values shown use the lowest available acute dose-response value, which, in most cases, is the REL. See section IV.A of this preamble for explanation
  of acute dose-response values.

    As shown in Table 3, the results of the inhalation risk assessment 
performed using actual emissions data indicate the maximum lifetime 
individual cancer risk could be as high as 10-in-1 million, due to 
ethyl benzene emissions; the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value 
could be as high as 0.5, due to mixed xylenes emissions; and the 
maximum off-site acute HQ value could be as high as 0.1, based on the 
REL value for glycol ethers. The total estimated cancer incidence from 
these facilities based on actual emission levels is 0.003 excess cancer 
cases per year, or 1 in every 333 years.
    As explained above, our analysis of potential differences between 
actual emission levels and emissions allowable under the Shipbuilding 
MACT standards indicate that MACT-allowable emission levels may be up 
to 2 times greater than actual emission levels. Considering this 
difference, the risk results from the inhalation risk assessment 
indicate the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk could be as high 
as 20-in-1 million, and the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value 
could be as high as 1 at the MACT-allowable emissions level.
 Facility-wide Risk Assessment Results
    A facility-wide risk analysis was also conducted based on actual 
emissions levels. Table 4 displays the results of the facility-wide 
risk assessment. For detailed facility-specific results, see Table 2 of 
Appendix 6 of the ``Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the Shipbuilding 
and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) Source Category in the docket for 
this rulemaking.

  Table 4. Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) Facility-Wide
                         Risk Assessment Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of facilities analyzed                                         85
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer Risk...................  Estimated maximum facility-wide      200
                                 individual cancer risk (in 1
                                 million).
                                Number of facilities with              4
                                 estimated facility-wide
                                 individual cancer risk of 100-
                                 in-1 million or more.
                                Number of facilities at which          0
                                 the shipbuilding and ship
                                 repair (surface coating) source
                                 category contributes 50 percent
                                 or more to the facility-wide
                                 individual cancer risks of 100-
                                 in-1 million or more.
                                Number of facilities with             41
                                 facility-wide individual cancer
                                 risk of 1-in-1 million or more.
                                Number of facilities at which         15
                                 the shipbuilding and ship
                                 repair (surface coating) source
                                 category contributes 50 percent
                                 or more to the facility-wide
                                 individual cancer risk of 1-in-
                                 1 million or more.
Chronic Non-cancer Risk.......  Maximum facility-wide chronic         10
                                 non-cancer TOSHI.
                                Number of facilities with              6
                                 facility-wide maximum non-
                                 cancer TOSHI greater than 1.

[[Page 80237]]

 
                                Number of facilities at which          0
                                 the shipbuilding and ship
                                 repair (surface coating) source
                                 category contributes 50 percent
                                 or more to the facility-wide
                                 maximum non-cancer TOSHI of 1
                                 or more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The maximum individual cancer risk from all HAP emissions at any 
facility that contains sources subject to the Shipbuilding MACT 
standards is estimated to be 200-in-1 million based on actual 
emissions. Of the 85 facilities included in this analysis, four have 
facility-wide maximum individual cancer risks of 100-in-1 million or 
greater. At these shipbuilding and ship repair facilities, surface 
coating operations account for about 1 percent of the total facility-
wide risk. There are 41 facilities with facility-wide maximum 
individual cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater. Of these 41 
facilities, 15 have shipbuilding and ship repair (surface coating) 
operations that contribute greater than 50 percent to the facility-wide 
risks. The facility-wide cancer risks at these 41 facilities, and at 
the four facilities with risks of 100-in-a million or more, are 
primarily driven by emissions of hexavalent chromium from welding and 
abrasive blasting operations. However, we note that there are 
uncertainties in the amount and form of chromium emitted from these 
facilities. For many of the facilities, the emissions inventory used 
for the risk assessment included estimates for the two main forms of 
chromium (i.e., hexavalent and trivalent chromium). However, for other 
facilities, we only had estimates of total chromium emitted. For those 
facilities, we applied a default assumption that 34 percent of the 
total chromium emissions were hexavalent and 66 percent were trivalent 
chromium,\32\ based on the best judgment of EPA. Chromium speciation 
profiles can be found on the EPA Technology Transfer Network Web site 
for emissions inventories \33\ under the ``Point Sources'' section. 
Although, hexavalent chromium is toxic and is a known human carcinogen, 
trivalent chromium is less toxic and is currently ``not classified as 
to its human carcinogenicity.'' Therefore, the relative emissions of 
these two forms can have a significant effect on the cancer risk 
estimates. We request comment on the distribution of the default 
emissions assumptions for chromium emissions applied to the 
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/nettables.pdf.
    \33\ http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2005inventory.html#inventorydata.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The facility-wide maximum individual chronic non-cancer TOSHI is 
estimated to be 10 based on actual emissions. Of the 85 facilities 
included in this analysis, 6 have facility-wide maximum chronic non-
cancer TOSHI values greater than 1 (the facility-specific TOSHI values 
are 2,2,2,3,4, and 10). Of these 6 facilities, none had shipbuilding 
and ship repair (surface coating) operations that contributed greater 
than 50 percent to these facility-wide risks. The chronic non-cancer 
risks at these 6 facilities are primarily driven by manganese emissions 
from welding and abrasive blasting operations.
    Finally, as discussed previously, the welding and abrasive blasting 
operations that occur during shipbuilding and ship repair are sources 
of HAP at these major source facilities, and could involve different 
types of metals (welding) and minerals (abrasive blasting and welding). 
We therefore intend to list welding and blasting operations that occur 
at shipbuilding and ship repair facilities as a major source category 
under Section 112(c)(5) of the CAA. We request additional information 
on the HAP emitted by these activities. Once we have this information, 
we will be in a better position to identify the appropriate scope of 
the major source category to be listed.
c. Demographic Risk Analysis Results
    The results of the demographic analyses performed to investigate 
the distribution of cancer risks at or above 1-in-1 million among the 
surrounding population are summarized in Table 5 below. These results, 
for various demographic groups, are based on actual emissions levels 
for the population living within 50 km of the facilities.

                     Table 5--Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Population with cancer risk greater
                                                                              than 1 in a million due to . . .
                                                             Nationwide    -------------------------------------
                                                                             Source category   Facility-wide HAP
                                                                              HAP emissions        emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total population.......................................      285,000,000              4,000            392,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White..................................................               75                 54                 71
All Other Races........................................               25                 46                 29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White..................................................               75                 54                 71
African American.......................................               12                 42                 20
Native American........................................                0.9                0.4                0.6
Other and Multiracial..................................               12                  4                  8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Ethnicity by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic...............................................               14                  3                  9
Non-Hispanic...........................................               86                 97                 91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 80238]]

 
                                                Income by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below poverty level....................................               13                 24                 16
Above poverty level....................................               87                 76                 84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without high school diploma................               13                 15                 13
Over 25 and with a high school diploma.................               87                 85                 87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) 
source category demographic analysis indicate that there are 
approximately 4,000 people exposed to a cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 
million due to emissions from the source category. Of this population, 
an estimated 46 percent can be classified as a minority (listed as 
``All Other Races'' in the table above), including 42 percent in the 
``African American'' demographic group. Of the 4,000 people with 
estimated cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from the source category, 
24 percent are in the ``Below Poverty'' demographic group, and 15 
percent are in the ``Over 25 Without High School Diploma'' demographic 
group, results which are 11 and two percentage points higher, 
respectively, than the respective percentages for these demographic 
groups across the United States. The percentages for the other 
demographic groups are lower than their respective nationwide 
percentages. The table also shows that there are approximately 392,000 
people exposed to an estimated cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million 
due to facility-wide emissions. Of this population, an estimated 29 
percent can be classified as a minority, including 20 percent in the 
``African American'' demographic group. Of the 392,000 with estimated 
cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million from the source category, 16 
percent are in the ``Below Poverty'' demographic group, a result which 
is three percentage points higher than the respective percentage for 
this demographic group across the United States. The percentages for 
the other demographic groups are equal to, or lower than their 
respective nationwide percentages.
4. What are our proposed decisions on risk acceptability and ample 
margin of safety?
a. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section III.B of this preamble, we weigh all health 
risk factors and measures in our risk acceptability determination, 
including cancer risks to the individual most exposed, risk estimation 
uncertainty, and other health information. For the Shipbuilding and 
Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category, the risk analysis we 
performed indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most 
exposed could be as high as 10-in-1 million due to actual emissions and 
as high as 20-in-1 million due to MACT-allowable emissions. These risks 
are considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive 
limit of acceptability. The risk analysis also shows low cancer 
incidence (1 case in every 333 years), no potential for adverse 
environmental effects or human health multi-pathway effects, and that 
chronic and acute non-cancer health impacts are unlikely. While our 
additional analysis of facility-wide risks showed that there are four 
facilities with maximum facility-wide cancer risk of 100-in-1 million 
or greater and 6 facilities with a maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI 
greater than 1 and less than or equal to 10, it also showed that 
shipbuilding and ship repair (surface coating) operations did not drive 
these risks. Our additional analysis of the demographics of the exposed 
population indicates that disparities in risks between demographic 
groups may exist; however, the number of people exposed to cancer risks 
of 1-in-1 million or greater due to emissions from the source category 
is relatively low (4,000). Considering these factors and the 
uncertainties discussed in section IV.A.7 of this preamble, we propose 
that the risks from the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) 
source category are acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety
    Although we are proposing that the risks from the Shipbuilding and 
Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category are acceptable, risk 
estimates for 4,000 individuals in the exposed population are above 1-
in-1 million. Consequently, we considered whether the MACT standard 
provides an ample margin of safety. In this analysis, we investigated 
available emissions control options that might reduce the risk 
associated with emissions from the source category and considered this 
information along with all of the health risks and other health 
information considered in the risk acceptability determination.
    One option we considered was to require the use of marine coatings 
with lower overall VOHAP content or lower toxicity VOHAP content. 
However, we have not identified any data regarding the availability, 
use, performance, and emissions associated with the use of any such 
marine coating. We are soliciting comment on the availability of such 
coatings and any issues related to the use and performance of those 
coatings.
    We also considered requiring the enclosure of some or all of the 
coating operations and requiring emissions to be routed to a control 
device, such as a regenerative thermal oxidizer. However, because these 
facilities repair and repaint ships, as well as perform new 
construction painting operations, any enclosures would need to be large 
enough to accommodate the entire ship or a large portion (i.e., half) 
of a ship at one time. We determined that this is not practicable or 
technically feasible in many cases, would not be cost-effective, and we 
are not aware of any facility using an enclosure of this size. 
Additional information on the feasibility and costs of controls is 
discussed in the Technology Review section (section 5) of this preamble 
and

[[Page 80239]]

in the memorandum Cost Analyses for Add-on Controls for Surface Coating 
Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Facilities, dated September 
2, 2010, in the docket for this action.
    In accordance with the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP, 
EPA weighed all health risk measures and information considered in the 
risk acceptability determination, along with the costs and economic 
impacts of emissions controls, technological feasibility, 
uncertainties, and other relevant factors, in making our ample margin 
of safety determination. Considering the health risk information, the 
uncertainty and lack of data associated with one potential risk 
reduction option identified, and the technological infeasibility of the 
other option identified, we propose that the existing MACT standards 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Thus, we 
are proposing to re-adopt the existing MACT standards to satisfy 
section 112(f) of the CAA.
    While we are proposing that the emissions covered by the 
Shipbuilding MACT standards provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health, we are concerned about the estimated facility-
wide risks identified through these screening analyses. As described 
previously, the estimated cancer risks are due to emissions of chromium 
compounds and are largely dependent on the estimates of the fraction of 
total chromium that is in the hexavalent form. Welding and abrasive 
blasting operations (which are not part of this source category) that 
occur during shipbuilding and ship repair are sources of HAP at these 
major source facilities, and could involve different types of metals 
(welding) and minerals (abrasive blasting and welding).
5. What are the results and proposed decisions from the technology 
review?
    We evaluated developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies potentially applicable to the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 
(Surface Coating) source category. This included a search of the RBLC 
Clearinghouse, the California BACT Clearinghouse, the Internet, and 
correspondence with state agencies and industry. We found an advance in 
add-on control technology since the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair MACT 
standards were originally developed in 1995, and we have determined 
that there are more stringent VOC-based coating limits for certain 
marine coating categories for shipbuilding and ship repair facilities 
in some areas of California.
    We identified an add-on control device, a concentrator/RTO, 
recently installed (2009) at one shipbuilding and ship repair facility 
in California. The control device consisted of rotary concentrators 
followed by RTOs on five large, custom-built spray booths to control 
volatile organic emissions from some of the coating operations. The 
system is capable of achieving 95 percent control efficiency for the 
VOHAP emissions captured by the spray booths (which are estimated to 
capture 90 percent of the VOHAP emissions). For this type of add-on 
control to be effective, a facility must perform regular or continuous 
modular (ship sections or components) coating operations, a process 
that is normally performed at large shipyards during new ship 
construction. Due to the size of the booths required to handle large 
ship modules, a facility would also require a large physical land space 
to build or retrofit the spray booths. Such spray booths must be 
located near the final ship assembly area (e.g., dry-dock or graving 
dock) to facilitate the logistics of moving the ship modules into place 
and attaching them to other modules. Large coating booths would not be 
effective at shipyards that perform repairs on finished vessels or 
during dockside coating, since only a small amount of the total coating 
could be applied in such spray booths.
    Nationwide, based on recently awarded contracts for new ship 
construction, we estimate that fewer than 20 facilities have 
significant new ship construction business, are large enough to adopt 
this type of technology, and are able to retrofit existing spray 
booths. We estimate cost-effectiveness of the concentrator/RTO system 
to be $305,000 per ton of VOHAP, with an estimated industry-wide 
emission reduction of 48 tons of VOHAP per year (if installed at the 
approximately 20 facilities large enough to use the technology). Based 
on facility level sales, we determined that this option is not 
affordable. The cost as a percent of revenues was estimated to be 42 
percent or greater. Additional information on the affordability of 
controls is discussed in the memorandum Affordability of Add-on 
Controls for Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 
Facilities, dated October 28, 2010, in the docket for this action. The 
large add-on controls also require a substantial amount of fuel, which 
produces NOX emissions, a byproduct of combustion. The extra 
fuel use and emissions of NOX would be negative consequences 
of the use of such add-on controls. Moreover, we believe the costs of 
these controls would be disproportionate to the emission reduction that 
would be achieved. Thus, we are proposing that it is not necessary to 
revise the existing MACT standards to require this technology pursuant 
to section 112(d)(6) of the CAA.
    In our review of developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies, we also identified four California air quality districts 
that have adopted more stringent VOC marine coating emission limits 
than those specified in the 1995 Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 
Coating) MACT Standard. Based on information from major source 
facilities, when the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair MACT standards were 
originally developed, the relationship between VOC content and VOHAP 
content in marine coatings was approximately 3:1, where approximately 
30 percent of all solvents used for painting and thinning were VOHAP 
solvents. For more information on the relationship between VOC and 
VOHAP, see the Background Information Document for the Shipbuilding and 
Ship Repair (Surface Coating) proposed rule, dated February, 1994. 
However, we note that the California limits are not uniformly applied 
across each coating category or in each of the four districts. 
Furthermore, the 1995 MACT standard includes cold weather VOHAP limits 
such that, if the temperature is below 4.5 [deg]C (40 [deg]F) at the 
time the coating is applied and the source needs to thin that coating 
beyond the applicable VOHAP limit, the applicable cold-weather VOHAP 
limit may be used. Since the California limits do not have similar 
allowances for cold weather, and California generally has a more 
temperate climate than many parts of the country, the ability to apply 
coatings effectively could be compromised in areas of the country with 
colder climates if the more stringent California limits were required 
nationwide. We currently do not have data to determine whether these 
lower-VOC content coatings could be applied nationwide. Considering the 
technical feasibility uncertainties associated with the use of lower-
VOHAP coatings, we are proposing that it is not necessary to revise the 
existing MACT standards to require lower-VOHAP coatings pursuant to 
section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. However, we solicit comment and data on 
low-VOHAP marine coatings that may be available for use at these 
facilities and that could be applied at facilities nationwide.

[[Page 80240]]

6. What other actions are we proposing?
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in the 
Shipbuilding (Surface Coating) MACT Standards. Consistent with Sierra 
Club v. EPA, EPA is proposing standards in this rule that apply at all 
times. We are proposing several revisions to subpart II. Specifically, 
we are proposing to revise Table 1 to Subpart II of Part 63--General 
Provisions of Applicability to Subpart II to indicate that the 
requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) of the General Provisions do not 
apply, including at facilities complying with the standards by using an 
add-on control device. The 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) requires owners or 
operators to act according to the general duty to ``operate and 
maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution 
control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with 
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions.'' We are separately proposing to incorporate this general 
duty to minimize into 40 CFR 63.783(b)(1). The 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) 
requires the owner or operator of an affected source to develop a 
written SSM plan. We are proposing to remove the SSM plan requirement. 
We are also proposing to: (1) Add 40 CFR 63.786(e) to specify the 
conditions for performance tests; (2) revise the SSM-associated 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.788 to require 
reporting and recordkeeping for periods of malfunction; (3) revise 
Table 1 to Subpart II of Part 63--General Provisions of Applicability 
to Subpart II to specify that 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and (ii), 
63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1); 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and 
(iii), and the last sentence of 63.8(d)(3); 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i),(ii), 
(iv), and (v); 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10), (11), and (15); and, 40 CFR 
63.10(d)(5) of the General Provisions do not apply. In addition, as 
explained above, we are proposing to add an affirmative defense to 
civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits caused by 
malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing the affirmative 
defense.
    EPA has attempted to ensure that we have neither overlooked nor 
failed to propose to remove from the existing text any provisions that 
are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM 
exemption, nor included any such provisions in the proposed new 
regulatory language. We are specifically seeking comment on whether 
there are any such provisions that we have inadvertently overlooked or 
incorporated.
    Finally, we intend to list welding and blasting operations that 
occur at shipbuilding and ship repair facilities as a major source 
category under section 112(c)(5) of the CAA and are requesting 
additional information on the HAP emitted by these activities. Once we 
have this information, we will be in a better position to identify the 
appropriate scope of the major source category to be listed.

B. What are the results and proposed decisions for the Wood Furniture 
Manufacturing Operations source category?

1. Overview of the Source Category and MACT Standard
    The National Emission Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturing 
Operations were promulgated on December 7, 1995 (60 FR 62930) and 
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ. The Wood Furniture 
Manufacturing Operations MACT standards (i.e., Wood Furniture MACT 
standards) apply to wood furniture manufacturing operations at any 
facility that is a major source of HAP. We estimate that there are 
approximately 406 wood furniture manufacturing facilities subject to 
the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT standards. In some 
instances, wood furniture manufacturing operations may be located at 
facilities that also have operations regulated by the NESHAP for 
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR), the 
NESHAP for Surface Coating of Wood Building Products (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart QQQQ), or NESHAP for Plywood and Composite Wood Products 
(Subpart DDDD).
    The Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category 
includes operations related to the production of a range of wood 
products, including wood kitchen cabinets, wood residential furniture, 
upholstered residential and office furniture, wood office furniture and 
fixtures, partitions, shelving, lockers, and other wood furniture not 
included in one of the other categories listed above.
    Finishing, gluing, cleaning, and wash-off operations are processes 
that take place during wood furniture manufacturing that result in VHAP 
emissions, and are regulated by the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 
Operations MACT standards.
    Finishing materials include, but are not limited, to stains, 
basecoats, washcoats, sealers, enamels, and topcoats. All of these 
finishing materials may contain VHAP that would be emitted during 
application. After a finishing material is applied, the wood substrate 
typically enters a flash-off area where the more volatile solvents in 
the finishing materials (including VHAP) evaporate, and the finishing 
material begins to cure. Then, the wood substrate enters an oven where 
curing of the finishing material and evaporation of the volatile 
solvents continues.
    The only gluing operations that occur at wood furniture 
manufacturing facilities that are part of the Wood Furniture 
Manufacturing Operations source category are contact adhesives.
    Cleaning activities include the use of solvents to dissolve resins 
into the coating mix and to remove dried coatings. These industrial 
solvents sometimes contain VHAP which evaporate when the solvent is 
exposed to the air and subsequently discharged to the atmosphere via 
ventilation air.
    To meet the requirements of the Wood Furniture MACT Standards, 
facilities typically use compliant coatings, finishing materials that 
meet the individual VHAP content requirements by material type, and 
work practice standards. Work practice standards include inspection and 
maintenance plans to prevent leaks, as well as using covers on tanks.
    Another option, installing destructive control devices such as 
thermal oxidizers, is allowed by the Wood Furniture MACT standards as 
an alternative to using compliant coatings, but is not often used by 
the industry. For more information see memorandum Developments in 
Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies for the Wood Furniture 
Manufacturing Operations, dated August 24, 2010.
2. What data were used in our risk analyses?
    For the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category, we 
compiled preliminary datasets using data in the 2005 NEI. We reviewed 
and verified these data and made changes where necessary. In this 
review and verification process, we contacted several facilities to 
verify existing information on emissions of several different 
pollutants, including speciated glycol ether emissions, as reported in 
the NEI. We obtained updated emissions data and process information 
(generally 2008 or 2009 data), found that some plants had closed, and 
that others no longer manufacture wood furniture. For more detail, see 
the memorandum Wood Furniture Manufacturing--Updated Data for Modeling 
File, dated June 8, 2010, in the docket for this action.
    In addition to contacting individual facilities, we consulted with 
four trade

[[Page 80241]]

associations that are heavily involved in wood furniture manufacturing 
operations. We asked KCMA, the AHFA, the BIFMA, and the ACA to verify 
existing information in the NEI database. Specifically, we asked the 
trade associations to verify addresses, operational status (i.e., 
operational or shut down), and whether the facilities belonged in the 
Wood Furniture Manufacturing source category. With their assistance, we 
were able to update the facility status for another 85 facilities. For 
more detail, see the memo Review and Verification of Wood Furniture 
Facilities in NEI Database, dated October 22, 2010, in the docket for 
this action.
    A speciation profile was created and applied to the generically-
reported glycol ethers in the NEI data set. A total of 66 wood 
furniture manufacturing facilities in the RTR dataset reported generic 
glycol ethers that totaled 70 TPY. For more information about glycol 
ethers and the glycol ether speciation profile, see the memorandum 
Review of Glycol Ether Emissions Associated with Wood Furniture 
Manufacturing Source Category, dated October 22, 2010, in the docket 
for this action.
    This updated dataset was used to conduct the risk assessments and 
other analyses that form the basis for this proposed action. Toluene 
and mixed xylenes account for the majority of the VHAP emissions from 
the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category 
(approximately 3,500 TPY and 62 percent of the total VHAP emissions by 
mass). Lower levels of emissions of 68 other VHAP were also reported 
from facilities in the source category. For more detail, see the 
memorandum Wood Furniture Manufacturing--Updates for Modeling File, 
dated June 8, 2010, in the docket for this action describing the risk 
assessment inputs and models for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 
Operations source category.
    We estimate that MACT-allowable emissions from this source category 
could be up to 2 times greater than the actual emissions, as the 
compliant coatings used typically have lower VHAP content than required 
by the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Standards to allow for operational 
and market variability. However, we do not have facility-specific 
information for all facilities or all coatings, and we request comment 
on this estimate. For more detail about how we estimated this ratio of 
actual-to-MACT-allowable emissions, see the memorandum Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Allowable Emission Estimates, 
dated September 9, 2010, in the docket for this action.
3. What are the results of the risk assessments and analyses?
    We have conducted an inhalation risk assessment for the Wood 
Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category. We have also 
conducted an assessment of facility-wide risks and performed a 
demographic analysis of population risks. Details of the risk 
assessments and analyses can be found in the residual risk 
documentation referenced in section IV.A of this preamble, which is 
available in the docket for this action.
a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 6 provides an overall summary of the inhalation risk 
assessment results for the source category.

                                   Table 6--Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum individual cancer                  Estimated      Maximum chronic  non-
                                            risk (in 1 million) \2\     Estimated      annual          cancer TOSHI \3\
                                         ----------------------------  population      cancer    ---------------------------- Maximum off-site acute non-
        Number of facilities \1\             Actual       Allowable   at risk >= 1-   incidence      Actual       Allowable          cancer HQ \4\
                                            emissions     emissions   in-1 million   (cases per     emissions     emissions
                                              level         level                       year)         level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
385.....................................           20            40        20,000         0.005           0.4           0.8   HQREL = 10 (propyl
                                                                                                                               cellosolve) \5\
                                                                                                                              HQREL = 7 (formaldehyde)
                                                                                                                              HQAEGL	1= 0.35
                                                                                                                               (formaldehyde)
                                                                                                                              HQREL = 2 (toluene)
                                                                                                                              HQERPG	1 = 0.35 (toluene)
                                                                                                                              HQAEGL	1 = 0.09 (toluene)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. We note that the MIR values would be reduced by 50 percent, and the cancer incidence would
  be reduced by 30 percent if the CIIT URE for formaldehyde were used instead of the IRIS URE.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category is the nervous system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term dose-response values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ
  values shown use the lowest available acute dose-response value, which in most cases is the REL. Note that the REL for EGME was used to evaluate
  propyl cellosolve. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. See section IV.A of this
  preamble for explanation of acute dose-response values.
\5\ Note the HQ value for propyl cellosolve is the maximum acute pollutant HQ of all speciated glycol ethers modeled. The REL for EGME was used to
  evaluate propyl cellosolve and all speciated glycol ethers that do not have an acute dose response value. There are no AEGL or ERPG values available
  for glycol ethers to aid in further interpretation of potential acute risks.

    The inhalation risk modeling was performed using actual emissions 
data. As shown in Table 6, the results of the inhalation risk 
assessment indicate the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk could 
be as high as 20-in-1 million due to emissions of formaldehyde.\34\ The 
total estimated cancer incidence due to actual emissions from the 
source category is 0.005 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in 
every 200 years. The maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value could be up 
to 0.4, due to emissions of hexane; and the maximum acute HQ value 
could be up to 10 for propyl cellosolve with propyl cellosolve 
representing the maximum acute HQ among all the speciated glycol ethers 
using the REL value for EGME as a surrogate. We estimate that emissions 
of glycol ethers (mainly propyl cellosolve)

[[Page 80242]]

from eight facilities (or about two percent of the total facilities) 
result in maximum acute HQs greater than 1. Additionally, the maximum 
acute HQ for formaldehyde could be up to 7 based on the REL value for 
formaldehyde. We estimate that emissions of formaldehyde from 11 
facilities (about three percent of the total facilities) result in 
maximum acute HQs between 1 and 7 (the actual maximum HQ values for 
these 11 facilities are 7, 7, 6, 6, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, and 2). The 
maximum acute level of formaldehyde did not exceed the one hour AEGL-1 
for formaldehyde; the estimated maximum HQ using the AEGL-1 was 0.35. 
We also identified one facility with a potential to exceed the acute 
REL for toluene (with a maximum estimated acute HQREL of 2, 
a maximum estimated acute HQAEGL-1 of 0.09, and a maximum 
estimated acute HQERPG-1 of 0.35.). It is important to note, 
as described earlier in this preamble, the acute assessment includes 
multiple conservative assumptions. For example, the modeling approach 
assumes that peak emissions occur at the same time as worst case one 
hour meteorology and that a person is located directly downwind at that 
time. Moreover, for glycol ethers, we used the lowest acute REL of any 
of the glycol ethers with such health values (i.e., EGME) to assess the 
other glycol ethers without such values. There are no AEGL or ERPG 
values available for any glycol ethers; this limits our ability to 
further interpret the potential acute impacts of propyl cellosolve. 
Nonetheless, overall, we believe it is unlikely that HAP emissions from 
this source category pose significant acute health risks. Nevertheless, 
we are seeking comments and data to refine the risk assessment and 
resolve the uncertainties that led to the use of conservative 
assumptions. Some of the specific information and data that we are 
seeking are described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ We note that this MIR value would be reduced by 50 percent 
if the CIIT URE for formaldehyde were used instead of the IRIS URE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, our analysis of potential differences between 
actual emission levels and emissions allowable under the MACT standards 
indicates that MACT-allowable emission levels may be up to 2 times 
greater than actual emission levels. Considering this difference, the 
risk results from the inhalation risk assessment indicate the maximum 
lifetime individual cancer risk could be as high as 40-in-1 million, 
and the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.8 at 
the MACT-allowable emissions level.
    The risk assessment for chronic non-cancer risks was performed 
consistent with the approach taken in previous risk and technology 
review for other source categories, i.e., we used our existing 
hierarchy of reference values (EPA 1999--Residual Risk Report to 
Congress), which favors the use of an IRIS value when available, and 
favors using values which have been developed and peer-reviewed using 
processes similar to the IRIS process under the sponsorship of a state 
or federal government agency, the documentation of which can be easily 
accessed by the public (such as those from ATSDR or the California EPA) 
when IRIS values are not available. The use of a surrogate reference 
value for chemicals in a chemical group (e.g., glycol ethers) is part 
of this approach when specific chemicals in the group do not have 
available reference values, and/or emissions are reported generically 
for the chemical group and not specific chemicals. In this case, the 
IRIS RfC for EGME is the lowest (i.e., most health protective) of the 
available reference values for glycol ethers from our hierarchy of 
reference values. Using the surrogate approach described above, the 
maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI for the source category could be as 
high as 0.4 (based on actual emissions) and 0.8 (based on allowable 
emissions), with emissions of n-hexane dominating.
    In reviewing data sources for this residual risk assessment, we 
identified a PPRTV for assessing chronic noncancer health risks from 
inhalation of DGBE, which is emitted by some facilities in this source 
category. PPRTV are reference values, developed by EPA for use 
specifically in EPA's Superfund Program when an acceptable reference 
value, such as those found in EPA's IRIS database, is not otherwise 
available.
    The DGBE PPRTV was prepared for EPA's Superfund Program in 2009. 
Inhalation toxicity information for DGBE is essentially limited to the 
results of a single 5-week study in rats (Gushow et al., 1984), which 
resulted in slight vacuolization of the liver cells consistent with 
fatty change. An uncertainty factor of 3000 was applied in deriving the 
PPRTV, and confidence in the provisional RfC (p-RfC) value is low.
    Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values differ from IRIS values 
in that PPRTVs do not receive the multiprogram review provided for IRIS 
values. As stated in the DGBE PPRTV document, this is because ``* * * 
IRIS values are generally intended to be used in all U.S. EPA programs, 
while PPRTVs are developed specifically for the Superfund Program.'' 
The EPA's Superfund Program uses PPRTVs in conjunction with assessments 
to support site-specific clean-up decisions. PPRTVs are applied to high 
quality exposure data developed for each Superfund site using 
measurements of the specific chemical for which the PPRTV was 
developed. Each final cleanup decision, as memorialized in a Record of 
Decision, is subject to public notice and comment, and it is at this 
stage of the process that a public review of how a PPRTV was used in 
that site-specific context may occur, which may include consideration 
of comments on the development of the PPRTV itself (i.e., the PPRTV 
development document is not explicitly the subject of a separate public 
review or comment period). The current process for development of the 
reference values used to support these proposed decisions includes a 
public comment period prior to a final external peer review of the 
assessment. This more rigorous review process prior to the release of 
the values enables immediate use of the derived values across multiple 
EPA Program Offices, including providing support for national 
regulatory decisions (e.g., RTR).
    Contrasting the site-specific Superfund application of PPRTVs and 
related Records of Decision, the Wood Furniture RTR proposal is of 
national scope and will not be subject to ongoing review related to 
each application to a facility. Based on the foregoing discussion, EPA 
has determined that reliance on the DGBE PPRTV value in this RTR rule 
is beyond the specific purpose for which it was developed, and would 
exacerbate the cumulative uncertainty in the baseline Wood Furniture 
risk assessment stemming from limitations in the underlying exposure 
and toxicity data. Accordingly, EPA has not used the DGBE PPRTV value 
in the risk assessment supporting this proposed action, noting that a 
suitable alternative value (in this case, it is the RfC for EGME from 
IRIS) is available to represent the toxicity of glycol ethers without 
hierarchically based non-cancer reference values in the assessment.
    In characterizing the potential cancer and non-cancer risks, it is 
important to consider the uncertainties related to the risk 
assessments, particularly for formaldehyde and glycol ethers. Some of 
the general uncertainties with health values and the modeling approach 
were described earlier in this preamble. With regard to emissions, 
there are various areas of potential uncertainty for these HAP. First, 
only about 23 percent of the facilities reported glycol ether emissions 
and about half reported formaldehyde. We recognize that not all 
facilities necessarily emit these HAP. Nevertheless, we believe the 
actual number of facilities with emissions of glycol ethers and 
formaldehyde could

[[Page 80243]]

possibly be higher than the number we have in our data set because of 
the uncertainties in the NEI database, including the lack of quantified 
emissions from curing and gluing. Second, most facilities reporting 
glycol ether emissions reported them generically as the class ``glycol 
ethers'' and not as particular species. We developed a profile to 
speciate these generic glycol ethers, which was generated from a 
composite of reported speciated glycol ethers emissions data from 
facilities across the source category; however, there is uncertainty 
regarding how representative this profile is for the other facilities 
in the source category since the profile is based on limited data. 
Additionally, as previously discussed, a limited number of the glycol 
ether compounds have non-cancer reference values and therefore a 
surrogate value was used. For the acute assessment, glycol ethers were 
assessed individually and not as a combined group. Third, the reported 
levels of formaldehyde in the NEI are likely derived from coatings and 
contact adhesives content and may not account for curing or other types 
of gluing operations that may create and emit VHAP (including 
formaldehyde). Recognizing that there is no approved method for 
estimating formaldehyde emissions from curing, this is an uncertainty 
that could possibly bias the risk estimates low, but the extent of 
underestimation, if any, is unknown.
    With regard to the acute inhalation assessment, the maximum acute 
non-cancer HQs of 7 for formaldehyde with the REL and 0.35 with the 
AEGL and 10 for propyl cellosolve were derived partly based on using an 
acute multiplier of 4 from the annual average hourly emissions. The 
factor of 4 is based on readily available information for the emissions 
driving the risk. The information we have may not be representative of 
all sources in the category. For more information on this factor, see 
the memorandum Acute Effects Factor for Wood Furniture Manufacturing 
Operations, dated November 23, 2010, in the docket for this action.
    Thus, because of the uncertainties described above, we solicit 
additional data and comments that would improve our emissions 
estimates. Specifically, we solicit data on glycol ethers (speciated to 
the extent known) and formaldehyde used in coatings at wood furniture 
manufacturing facilities. We solicit data regarding facilities that use 
coatings that may form formaldehyde or other VHAP during the curing 
process and data on VHAP emissions related to gluing operations. We 
solicit comment on the emissions estimates and assumptions we have used 
in this proposal and whether there are scientifically credible methods 
to estimate curing and gluing emissions, based on known coatings or 
other methods. We also solicit comment on potential options for 
reducing the use in this source category of specific glycol ethers 
which are known to have (or are suspected to have) higher toxicity than 
other compounds in the class. Moreover, we request that comments 
include, if possible, the following types of data and information that 
might help reduce the uncertainties: (1) Ranges of the VHAP content in 
coating products and variability between product runs for different 
types of facilities; (2) ranges within the annual averages of VHAP per 
pound of coating solids; (3) information regarding whether control 
devices are used and, if so, what types and at how many facilities.
b. Facility-wide Risk Assessment Results
    Table 7 displays the results of the facility-wide risk assessment. 
This assessment was conducted based on actual emission levels. For 
detailed facility-specific results, see Table 2 of Appendix 6 of the 
``Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 
Source Category'' in the docket for this rulemaking.

   Table 7--Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations Facility-Wide Risk
                           Assessment Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of facilities analyzed                                        385
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer Risk...................  Estimated maximum facility-wide      100
                                 individual cancer risk (in 1
                                 million).
                                Number of facilities with              1
                                 estimated facility-wide
                                 individual cancer risks of 100-
                                 in-1 million or more.
                                Number of wood furniture               0
                                 manufacturing operations
                                 contributing 50 percent or more
                                 to facility-wide individual
                                 cancer risk of 100-in-1 million
                                 or more.
                                Number of facilities with             74
                                 facility-wide individual cancer
                                 risk of 1-in-1 million or more.
                                Number of wood furniture              64
                                 manufacturing operations
                                 contributing 50 percent or more
                                 to facility-wide individual
                                 cancer risk of 1-in-1 million
                                 or more.
Chronic Non-cancer Risk.......  Maximum facility-wide chronic          3
                                 non-cancer TOSHI.
                                Number of facilities with              2
                                 facility-wide maximum non-
                                 cancer TOSHI greater than 1.
                                Number of wood furniture               0
                                 manufacturing operations
                                 contributing 50 percent or more
                                 to facility-wide maximum non-
                                 cancer TOSHI of 1 or more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The maximum individual cancer risk from all HAP emissions at a 
facility that contains sources subject to the Wood Furniture 
Manufacturing MACT standards is estimated to be 100-in-1 million. Of 
the 385 facilities included in this analysis, one has a facility-wide 
maximum individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or greater. At this 
facility, the wood furniture manufacturing operations contribute 
approximately one percent to these facility-wide risks. Based on the 
data we have, the emissions source driving this higher cancer risk is a 
boiler, which is subject to the proposed Boiler NESHAP (see 75 FR 
32006, June 4, 2010) which is scheduled to be finalized in the near 
future.
    There are 74 facilities with facility-wide maximum individual 
cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater. Of these 74 facilities, 64 
have wood furniture manufacturing operations that contribute 50 percent 
or greater to the facility-wide risks. The facility-wide cancer risks 
at most of these 74 facilities are primarily driven by emissions of 
ethyl benzene from wood furniture manufacturing operations.
    The facility-wide maximum individual chronic non-cancer TOSHI is 
estimated to be 3. Of the 385 facilities included in this analysis, two 
have facility-wide maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI values between 1 
and 3 (the individual TOSHI values are 2 and 3); all the rest are 1 or 
below. Of these three facilities, no facility had wood furniture 
manufacturing operations that contributed 50 percent or greater to 
these facility-wide risks. The chronic non-cancer risks at these 
facilities are primarily driven by emissions of manganese and acrolein 
from boilers.

[[Page 80244]]

c. Demographic Risk Analysis Results
    The results of the demographic analyses performed to investigate 
the distribution of cancer risks at or above 1-in-1 million to the 
surrounding population are summarized in Table 8 below. These results, 
for various demographic groups, are based on actual emissions levels 
for the population living within 50 km of the facilities.

               Table 8--Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Population with cancer risk greater
                                                                                 than 1 in a million due to
                                                             Nationwide    -------------------------------------
                                                                             Source category   Facility-wide HAP
                                                                              HAP emissions        emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total population.......................................      285,000,000             20,000             26,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White..................................................               75                 63                 65
All Other Races........................................               25                 37                 35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White..................................................               75                 63                 65
African American.......................................               12                 13                 17
Native American........................................                0.9                0.7                0.6
Other and Multiracial..................................               12                 23                 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Ethnicity by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic...............................................               14                 34                 24
Non-Hispanic...........................................               86                 66                 76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below poverty..........................................               13                 16                 16
Above poverty..........................................               87                 84                 84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without high school diploma................               13                 19                 19
Over 25 and with a high school diploma.................               87                 81                 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source 
category demographic analysis indicate that there are 20,000 people 
exposed to a cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million based 
on HAP emissions from the source category. Of this population, an 
estimated 37 percent can be classified as a minority (listed as ``All 
Other Races'' in the table above), including 13 percent in the 
``African American'' demographic group, and 23 percent in the ``Other 
and Multiracial'' demographic group). Of the 20,000 people with 
estimated cancer risks above 1-in-1-million from the source category, 
34 percent are in the ``Hispanic'' demographic group, 16 percent are in 
the ``Below Poverty'' demographic group, and 19 percent are in the 
``Over 25 and Without High School Diploma'' demographic group; these 
percentages are higher than their respective percentages for these 
demographic groups across the United States by 20, 3, and 6 percentage 
points. The percentages for the other demographic groups are lower than 
their respective nationwide values. The table also shows that there are 
approximately 26,000 people exposed to an estimated cancer risk greater 
than or equal to 1-in-1 million based on facility-wide emissions. Of 
this population, the results of the facility-wide demographic analysis 
indicate that the percentages are higher than nationwide percentages 
for those included in the ``African American,'' ``Other and 
Multiracial,'' ``Hispanic,'' ``Below Poverty'' level,'' and the ``Over 
25 and Without High School Diploma'' demographic groups, by 5, 5, 10, 
3, and 6 percentage points, respectively. The percentages for the other 
demographic groups are lower than their respective nationwide values.
4. What are our proposed decisions on risk acceptability and ample 
margin of safety?
a. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section III.B of this preamble, we weigh all health 
risk factors and measures in our risk acceptability determination, 
including cancer risks to the individual most exposed, risk estimation 
uncertainty, and other health information. For the Wood Furniture 
Manufacturing Operations source category, the risk analysis we 
performed indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most 
exposed could be up to 20-in-1 million due to actual emissions and up 
to 40-in-1 million due to MACT-allowable emissions.\35\ These values 
are considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive 
limit of acceptability. The risk analysis also shows low cancer 
incidence (1 in every 200 years),\36\ no potential for adverse 
environmental effects or human health multi-pathway effects, and that 
chronic non-cancer health impacts are unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ We note that these MIR values would be reduced by 50 
percent if the CIIT URE for formaldehyde were used instead of the 
IRIS URE.
    \36\ We note that the cancer incidence would be reduced by 30 
percent if the CIIT URE for formaldehyde were used instead of the 
IRIS URE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When estimated maximum 1-hour peak emissions estimates for 
speciated glycol ethers (i.e., propyl cellosolve) are compared to the 
REL for EGME (used as a surrogate for propyl cellosolve), the 
assessment indicates that a maximum acute non-cancer HQ up to 10 could 
occur at one facility. Eight facilities (or

[[Page 80245]]

2 percent of the total) had an estimated HQ greater than 1. All other 
facilities modeled had HQ less than 1. Nevertheless, exposures above 
the REL do not necessarily indicate that adverse effects will occur. 
There are no other appropriate acute reference values available for 
glycol ethers that may be used to assess acute risks for glycol ethers.
    When estimated one-hour peak emissions estimates for formaldehyde 
are compared to the formaldehyde REL, the assessment indicates a 
maximum acute non-cancer HQ up to 7 could occur. Eleven facilities (or 
three percent of the total) had an estimated HQ greater than 1 and up 
to 7 for formaldehyde. All other facilities modeled had HQs less than 
1. The maximum acute HQ for formaldehyde based on an AEGL-1 or ERPG-1 
value is 0.35. Exposures immediately above the REL do not necessarily 
indicate that adverse effects will occur (i.e., they do not define a 
threshold for an effect); on the other hand, AEGL-1 and ERPG-1 are 
levels above which you may have mild, but reversible, non-disabling 
effects.
    A detailed discussion of our acute assessment for formaldehyde 
along with the interpretation of potential acute risks is provided in 
the Draft Risk Assessment for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Source 
Category, in the docket for this rulemaking. We solicit comment on the 
acute assessment and on the interpretation of potential acute 
formaldehyde risks.
    Nevertheless, as described earlier in this preamble, the acute 
assessment includes some conservative assumptions and some 
uncertainties. Moreover, the RELs are protective and designed to 
protect the most sensitive individuals in the population by inclusion 
of margins of safety. Therefore, overall we believe that it is unlikely 
that HAP emissions from this source category pose unacceptable acute 
non-cancer risks. However, as described below, we still have concerns 
about the uncertainties associated with acute non-cancer risks.
    While our additional analysis of facility-wide risks indicates that 
there is one facility with a maximum facility-wide cancer risk of 100-
in-1 million and three facilities with a maximum chronic non-cancer 
TOSHI of 1 or more, it also shows that wood furniture manufacturing 
operations do not drive these risks. Our additional analysis of the 
demographics of the exposed population indicates disparities in risks 
between demographic groups may exist; however, the overall risks are 
not high and the total number of people exposed to cancer risks of 1-
in-1 million or greater due to emissions from the source category is 
relatively low (20,000).
    EPA has weighed the various health measures and factors and 
uncertainties discussed above and in section IV.A.7 of this preamble, 
and is proposing that the risks from the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 
Operations source category are acceptable. We are proposing that the 
risks are acceptable after weighing concerns about possible acute non-
cancer risks, especially acute non-cancer risks due to formaldehyde 
(acute HQ up to 7 with the REL and up to 0.35 with the AEGL) and glycol 
ethers (acute HQ up to 10), and uncertainties in the emissions data as 
described above. We have considered these HAP further under the ample 
margin of safety analyses, as described below, and are seeking data and 
comments to help us refine the assessments.
b. Ample Margin of Safety
    Although we are proposing that the risks from the Wood Furniture 
Manufacturing Operations source category are acceptable, risk estimates 
for 20,000 individuals in the exposed population are above 1-in-1 
million, and while there is uncertainty associated with our assessment 
of acute non-cancer risks, we remain concerned about the potential for 
them. Consequently, we considered whether the Wood Furniture MACT 
standards provide an ample margin of safety. In this analysis, we 
investigated available emissions control options that might reduce the 
risks associated with emissions from the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 
Operations source category and considered this information along with 
all of the health risks and other health information considered in the 
risk acceptability determination.
i. Emissions Control Options
    We evaluated the emissions reductions and cost associated with 
various control options for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations 
source category. One option would require lower VHAP content in wood 
furniture coatings, which we estimate could reduce VHAP emissions from 
this source category by up to 56 TPY from the estimated baseline level 
of 5,900 TPY.\37\ The estimated capital and annualized costs for this 
option would be $12,200,000 and $2,800,000, respectively. We estimate 
the cost-effectiveness would be about $30,000 per ton of HAP emissions 
reduced. We estimate this requirement to lower VHAP content from wood 
furniture coatings would not appreciably reduce the maximum lifetime 
individual cancer risk, the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value, or 
the maximum acute non-cancer TOSHI value. These values would remain at 
about 20-in-1 million for the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk, 
0.4 for the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value, and 10 for the 
maximum acute HQ value using the REL.\38\ Table 9 summarizes the 
nationwide costs and cost-effectiveness of this option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ We estimate that lower-VHAP coatings could be applied 
nationwide for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source 
category because the coatings are applied inside buildings at the 
facilities and the external temperature is not a limiting factor.
    \38\ We estimate this requirement to lower VHAP content from 
wood furniture coatings would reduce the maximum lifetime individual 
cancer risk and the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value by 
approximately one percent. However, as the maximum individual risk 
values are presented with one significant digit due to the precision 
of the data used to estimate these values, the risk values would 
still be presented as 20 for the maximum individual cancer risk, 0.4 
for the maximum individual non-cancer TOSHI, and 10 for the maximum 
acute HQ value.

                        Table 9--Lower Voc Coating Limits For Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations--Costs And Risk Reductions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                     Max MIR
                                              Number of     Emission    Capital costs   Annualized      Cost-         after      Max TOSHI    Max Acute
               Control option                  affected    reduction     ($ million)     costs ($   effectiveness  control (in     after       HQ after
                                              facilities     (TPY)                     million/yr)     ($/ton)      1 million)    control      control
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower VOC coating limits...................          406           56           $12.2         $2.8       $30,000            20          0.4           10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 80246]]

    Another potential emissions reduction option involving an RTO add-
on control device was investigated but found not to be feasible for 
implementation by the majority of the facilities in the source 
category. This control technology is discussed below in section IV.B.5 
of this preamble.
    A third emissions reduction option is to limit formaldehyde 
emissions by restricting formaldehyde use to 400 pounds per rolling 12 
month period, or if a control device is used, to an amount adjusted 
from 400 pounds per rolling 12 month period based on the overall 
control efficiency of the control system. The limit would apply to wood 
furniture coatings and contact adhesives. This emissions level is 
currently included in Table 5 to Subpart JJ of Part 63--List of VHAP of 
Potential Concern Identified by Industry of the Wood Furniture 
Manufacturing Operations MACT standards as part of the work practice 
requirement to have a Formulation Assessment Plan for finishing 
operations. The usage level provided in Table 5 to Subpart JJ of Part 
63--List of VHAP of Potential Concern Identified by Industry of the 
Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT standards is 0.2 TPY. 
Under the current Wood Furniture MACT standards, if a facility's annual 
usage of formaldehyde exceeds its baseline level, the owner or operator 
of the facility provides a written notification to the permitting 
authority describing the amount of the increase and explains the 
reasons for exceedance of the baseline level. If the exceedance is no 
more than 15 percent above the baseline, or if usage is below the level 
in Table 5 to Subpart JJ of Part 63--List of VHAP of Potential Concern 
Identified by Industry, then no further explanation is required. See 40 
CFR 63.803(l). This third emissions reduction option would change the 
formaldehyde usage level in the existing Wood Furniture Operations MACT 
standards to a limit not to be exceeded at any time. Based on the 
updated dataset described in section V.B.2, 39 of the 385 facilities 
use (and emit) more than 400 pounds per rolling 12-month period of 
formaldehyde. By setting a usage limit of 400 pounds per rolling 12-
month period, we estimate that the formaldehyde emissions from these 39 
facilities will be reduced from 20.125 TPY to 10.665 TPY, a 9.46 TPY or 
47 percent reduction.
    As described in the risk assessment section above, we estimate that 
formaldehyde emissions from 11 facilities (about three percent) could 
result in exceedances of the acute REL, indicating a potential for 
acute non-cancer risks of concern. We did not see a potential for any 
facility to cause exceedances of the acute ERPG-1 or AEGL-1 levels. 
These 11 facilities are among the 39 facilities that use and emit 
formaldehyde in excess of 400 pounds per year. Moreover, formaldehyde 
emissions from these facilities also drive the maximum lifetime 
individual cancer risks. Therefore, reductions in formaldehyde 
emissions will reduce these risks. We estimate that limiting 
formaldehyde use to no more than 400 pounds per rolling 12 month period 
will reduce the maximum acute HQ value based on the REL for 
formaldehyde from 7 to 3, and will reduce the maximum lifetime 
individual cancer risk from 20-in-1 million to approximately 10-in-1 
million, both based on the actual emissions level.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ We note that the estimated reduction in cancer MIR would be 
negligible if the CIIT URE for formaldehyde were used instead of the 
IRIS URE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are many coatings and adhesives available from several 
suppliers that contain no or low quantities of formaldehyde and that 
are approximately equivalent in cost to the coatings and adhesives that 
contain formaldehyde. Many facilities currently use these no- or low-
formaldehyde coatings and adhesives. Based on our data, the wood 
furniture manufacturing operations at the facilities using more than 
400 pounds per rolling 12 month period of formaldehyde are similar to 
operations at facilities currently using less than 400 pounds per 
rolling 12 month period of formaldehyde. Therefore, we believe it is 
feasible for the remaining facilities (including the 11 facilities with 
HQ greater than 1) to switch to coatings and adhesives containing no or 
low amounts of formaldehyde, at little or no extra cost, and reduce 
their overall usage to no more than 400 pounds per rolling 12 month 
period.
    We are proposing to limit the formaldehyde usage to 400 pounds per 
12 month rolling period as a means of reducing emissions of 
formaldehyde. This limit will reduce the maximum acute HQ value for 
formaldehyde from 7 to 3, and reduce the maximum lifetime individual 
cancer risk from 20-in-1 million to approximately 10-in-1 million. All 
affected sources are expected to meet this limit by using no- or low-
formaldehyde coatings. We solicit comment on these estimated risk 
reductions, compliant coatings as a method for reducing the risk 
associated with formaldehyde, the appropriateness of the 400 lb per 
rolling 12-month period emissions limit on formaldehyde usage, and the 
feasibility and cost associated with using compliant coatings to 
achieve the limit on formaldehyde usage.
    The proposed emission limit is being developed primarily under CAA 
section 112(f)(2), and has a 2-year compliance date for existing 
sources pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(4). We are soliciting comment on 
whether the proposed formaldehyde emission limit should be issued under 
CAA section 112(d)(6). Standards developed under section 112(d)(6) 
would provide up to a three year compliance date for existing sources. 
We recognize that affected sources may need time to ensure that 
compliant coatings are available for their wood furniture manufacturing 
operations.
ii. Ample Margin of Safety Evaluation
    In accordance with the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP, 
EPA weighed all health risk measures and information considered in the 
risk acceptability determination, along with the costs and economic 
impacts of emissions controls, technological feasibility, 
uncertainties, and other relevant factors, in making our ample margin 
of safety determination. We considered all of these factors in our 
ample margin of safety decision, and concluded that the costs of the 
add-on control options analyzed are not reasonable considering the 
emissions reductions and health benefits potentially achievable with 
the controls. However, as discussed above, we believe it is feasible 
for facilities to limit formaldehyde use to less than 400 pounds per 
rolling 12 month period by using no- or low-formaldehyde coatings and 
adhesives. This limit on formaldehyde use will also result in reduced 
emissions. As a result, we propose to establish a usage limit of 400 
pounds per rolling 12 month period for formaldehyde under section 
112(f) of the CAA.
    We chose this level (of 400 pounds per rolling 12 month period) as 
the proposed usage limit since it is currently used in the MACT 
standard and since limiting emissions to this level will lead to 
reductions in cancer risks and the potential for acute non-cancer risks 
of concern. This limit would reduce formaldehyde emissions by an 
estimated 9.46 TPY from the baseline level of 20.125 TPY. The estimated 
maximum lifetime individual cancer risk would be reduced to 
approximately 10-in-1 million from the baseline of 20-in-1 million, the 
estimated cancer incidence due to emissions from the source category 
would be reduced by about 15 percent nationwide, and the estimated 
maximum acute HQ would be reduced

[[Page 80247]]

from 7 to 3, based on the REL for formaldehyde, and from 0.35 to 0.15, 
based on the AEGL-1 for formaldehyde. We estimate that there would be 
either no or minimal additional costs associated with this option, as 
the cost of no- or low-formaldehyde coatings and adhesives are 
approximately equal to other coating and adhesive products containing 
larger quantities of formaldehyde. Also, there are minimal costs 
associated with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for 
compliance with the rule. See EPA ICR number 1716.07 for detailed 
information. We believe this formaldehyde limit is technically feasible 
for all wood manufacturing operations and is a cost-effective measure 
to achieve emissions and health risk reductions. Therefore, we propose 
that with this formaldehyde limit, the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 
Operations MACT standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health. Nevertheless, we are seeking comments on the proposed 
formaldehyde limit of 400 pounds per rolling 12-month period, and 
whether there may be an alternative level that we should consider. In 
addition, we are seeking comments and data on the cost and feasibility 
of using coatings, solvents, adhesives, and any other products covered 
by the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT standards that have 
lower VHAP content, or contain less toxic VHAP, as well as information 
that would help us to refine our assessment of the chronic or acute 
risks of formaldehyde emissions from this source category.
    While we propose that the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations 
MACT standards, revised to include the 400 pounds per rolling 12-month 
period formaldehyde emissions limit, will provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health, uncertainties remain concerning that 
an acute HQ of up to 10 may occur due to emissions of glycol ethers 
based on our screening level assessment. The potential risk reduction 
options identified would not appreciably reduce emissions or the 
potential acute risks associated with glycol ethers. Therefore, we are 
seeking comments and data regarding the use of glycol ethers in wood 
furniture manufacturing operations. This information includes the 
quantities of coatings and adhesives used (TPY); the speciated glycol 
ethers content in these products; whether the use of these products is 
in the kitchen cabinet, business furniture, or home furnishings sector; 
and the availability and feasibility of using coatings and adhesive 
products with a lower content of glycol ethers.
5. What are our proposed decisions on the technology review?
    We evaluated developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies applicable to the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations 
source category. This included an internet search, a search of the RBLC 
Clearinghouse, a review of relevant subsequently developed regulations, 
and contacts with industry. We found one advance in add-on control 
technology since the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT 
standards were promulgated, we have determined that there are more 
stringent VOC-based coatings limits for wood furniture manufacturing 
facilities in one area of California, and we have found that fewer 
conventional spray guns are in use. For more detail, see the memorandum 
Developments in Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies, dated 
August 24, 2010, in the docket for this action that describes the 
technology review for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations 
source category.
    With regard to add-on technology, we identified one facility in 
Indiana that manufactures kitchen cabinets and uses an RTO to control 
spray booth emissions from its wood furniture manufacturing operations. 
The facility coats flat panels using an automated process with high 
speed lines. We estimate cost-effectiveness of the RTO system at this 
facility to be $20,000 per ton of HAP reduced.
    Nationwide, we estimate that fewer than five facilities manufacture 
wood furniture using automated, high speed lines, and could install 
this type of add-on control device. Therefore, the RTO control 
technology is not applicable across the entire wood furniture source 
category. The estimated emissions reduction, based on these five 
facilities, is 98 tons of HAP per year. The cost to treat low-HAP 
concentration, high volume air streams routed to the RTO is estimated 
to be $20,000 per ton of HAP reduced, and is considered economically 
prohibitive when compared to the amount of emissions reduced. Based on 
per facility sales, we determined that this option is not affordable. 
The cost as a percentage of revenues was estimated to be 73 percent or 
greater. Additional information on the affordability of controls is 
discussed in the memorandum Affordability of Lower VHAP Coatings and 
Add-on Controls for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations, dated 
October 28, 2010, in the docket for this action. The large amount of 
fuel required for this type of add-on control would be a significant 
disadvantage and the fuel produces NOX emissions, a by-
product of combustion. Finally, facilities must have a large physical 
land space to house the RTO. For these reasons, we determined that the 
installation of a RTO on spray booths is not a viable option for the 
wood furniture manufacturing industry. For more detail, see the memo 
Cost Analyses for Control Options, dated September 27, 2010, in the 
docket for this action that describes the cost analysis for the Wood 
Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category.
    In our review of developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies, we identified the Bay Area Air Quality Management 
District in California as having adopted more stringent VOC coating 
emission limits than the VHAP coating emission limits in the Wood 
Furniture MACT standards. However, the California limits came into 
effect in July 2010, and we do not have data to demonstrate whether the 
facilities in this area have been able to achieve compliance with these 
limits or the measures they may be taking to comply with them. The 
California limits are VOC-based, and coating limits in the Wood 
Furniture MACT standard are VHAP-based. We do not have information on 
the exact correlation between lower-VOC content and lower-HAP content 
in coatings (e.g., if lower VOC content leads to lower HAP content). We 
believe that coatings used in the industry average approximately 50 
percent HAP and 50 percent non-HAP VOC, however the HAP and non-HAP VOC 
content varies between specific coating products.\40\ Using this 
assumed average HAP-to-VOC content, we estimate that by adopting the 
California VOC limits, the industry-wide emission reduction would be 56 
tons of HAP per year at a cost of $30,000 per ton of HAP reduced for 
the approximately 406 facilities in the source category. Based on per 
facility sales, we determined that this option may be affordable. The 
cost as a percentage of revenues was estimated to be less than four 
percent. Additional information on the affordability of lower VHAP 
coatings is discussed in the memorandum Affordability of Lower VHAP 
Coatings and Add-on Controls for Wood Furniture Manufacturing 
Operations, dated October 28, 2010, in

[[Page 80248]]

the docket for this action. Nevertheless, due to the factors described 
above including the limited emissions reduction potential and the cost 
effectiveness, we are not proposing to require lowering the VHAP 
content in coatings in the MACT standards. However, we solicit comments 
and data regarding lower VHAP coatings and information on the types of 
wood furniture manufacturing coating operations for which they may be 
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Case Studies comparing HAP and VOC content of wood 
furniture coatings at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/wood/low/casebyco.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Wood Furniture MACT standards were promulgated, 
conventional guns were used extensively by industry. Since 
promulgation, the use of conventional guns in the wood furniture 
industry has diminished drastically, and they are now rarely used. We 
are proposing to remove the provision in the Wood Furniture MACT 
standards that allows the use of conventional air spray guns; thereby 
codifying current industry practice. This proposed action will prevent 
future increases in the use of conventional spray guns, which have 
lower transfer efficiencies and higher emissions than other spray gun 
types. Based on our findings, it is possible to replace conventional 
air spraying with more efficient spray application methods such as air 
assisted airless spraying. We anticipate no changes in coating 
formulation will be needed to use air assisted airless spray guns 
rather than conventional spray guns. As conventional spray guns are now 
rarely used, we do not estimate there will be any appreciable emission 
reductions as a result of this proposed provision. For more details, 
see Impacts of Prohibiting the Use of Conventional Spray Guns in the 
Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations Source Category, dated October 
19, 2010.
    The associated cost of discontinuing use of conventional air spray 
guns is believed to be minimal. Overall, we do not believe many 
conventional guns are in use and need to be replaced. However, for the 
remaining conventional spray guns, we also estimate there to be a net 
cost savings by switching to air assisted airless spray guns. While an 
air assisted airless spray gun is estimated to cost approximately $300 
more than a conventional spray gun, the 10 percent increase in transfer 
efficiency results in an equally lower coating use and cost savings. We 
estimate that for a single spray gun, if the coating cost is $10/gallon 
and the rate of coating use is at least 1.1 gallons per day, the 
initial cost difference between the guns is made up within a year. For 
more expensive coatings, the cost difference is made up more quickly. 
In addition, the expected life of a conventional spray gun is estimated 
to be, at most, 2 years. The compliance period of the rule is three 
years; therefore, no air assisted airless guns would be required to 
replace a conventional spray gun before the end of its useful life as a 
result of the revised Wood Furniture MACT standards. For more details, 
see Impacts of Prohibiting the Use of Conventional Spray Guns in the 
Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations Source Category, dated October 
19, 2010 in the docket for this action. We solicit comment on the 
accuracy of our assumptions about coating use, coating costs, transfer 
efficiency of spray guns, spray gun replacement frequency, any 
additional cost associated with switching gun technology such as 
attachment replacements, the need for additional training associated 
with switching spray guns and the costs of training, if needed and the 
extent to which facilities are already using air assisted airless spray 
guns.
    In summary, as a result of the technology review under section 
112(d)(6) of the CAA, we are proposing to prohibit the use of 
conventional spray guns by facilities regulated by the Wood Furniture 
Manufacturing Operations MACT standard. Existing sources would be 
required to comply with this proposed change by 3 years after the 
effective date.
6. What other actions are we proposing?
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in the Wood 
Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT standards. Consistent with 
Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA is proposing standards in this rule that apply 
at all times. We are proposing several revisions to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart JJ regarding the standards that apply during periods of SSM. 
Specifically, we are proposing to revise Table 1 to Subpart JJ of Part 
63--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart JJ to indicate that the 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) of the General Provisions do not 
apply. Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) requires owners or operators to act 
according to the general duty to ``operate and maintain any affected 
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.'' We are 
separately proposing to incorporate this general duty to minimize 
emissions into section 63.802(c). Section 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) also 
requires the owner or operator of an affected source to develop a 
written SSM plan. We are proposing to remove the SSM plan requirement. 
We are also proposing to add SSM-associated reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.806 and 63.807 to require reporting and 
recordkeeping for periods of malfunction, add a requirement in 40 CFR 
63.805 to require performance tests to be performed under normal 
operating conditions, and to revise Table 1 to Subpart JJ of Part 63--
General Provisions Applicability to Subpart JJ to specify that 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) and (ii), 63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1), 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), 40 
CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii), and the last sentence of 63.8(d)(3), 40 
CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i),(ii), (iv), and (v), 63.10(c)(10), (11), and (15), 
and 63.10(d)(5) of the General Provisions do not apply. In addition, as 
explained above, we are proposing to add an affirmative defense to 
civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits caused by 
malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing the affirmative 
defense in section 63.800. EPA has attempted to ensure that we have not 
included in the proposed regulatory language any provisions that are 
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM 
exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on whether there are any 
such provisions that we have inadvertently incorporated or overlooked.

VI. Proposed Action

A. What actions are we proposing as a result of the technology review?

    For the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source 
category, we have determined that there have been no developments in 
practices, processes, or control technologies since the promulgation of 
the MACT standards that are feasible for the facilities in these source 
categories to implement at this time, and we are proposing that it is 
not necessary to revise the existing MACT requirements based on our CAA 
section 112(d)(6) review.
    For the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category, we 
are proposing to amend the rule to prohibit the use of conventional 
spray guns under the authority of CAA section 112(d)(6).

B. What actions are we proposing as a result of the residual risk 
review?

    For the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source 
category, we propose that the MACT standards provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental 
effects. Thus, we are proposing to re-adopt these

[[Page 80249]]

standards for the purpose of meeting the requirements of CAA section 
112(f)(2).
    For the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category, to 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent 
adverse environmental effects for the purpose of meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 112(f)(2), we propose to limit usage of 
formaldehyde in coatings and contact adhesives to 400 pounds per 
rolling 12 month period.
    Existing sources would be required to comply with this proposed 
change by 2 years after the effective date.

C. What other actions are we proposing?

    We propose to amend the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 
Coating) and Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT standards to 
remove the language that exempts facilities from the emissions 
standards that would otherwise be applicable during periods of SSM, and 
to add an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of 
emission standards caused by malfunctions. These changes are being made 
to ensure these rules are consistent with the court's ruling in Sierra 
Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008).
    We also propose to clarify the applicability language for Wood 
Furniture Manufacturing Operations to be consistent with surface 
coating rules issued after the promulgation of the Wood Furniture MACT 
standards in 1995. These include subparts MMMM, PPPP, QQQQ, and RRRR of 
part 63. Subparts MMMM, PPPP, QQQQ, and RRRR exempt surface coating 
operations that are subject to other subparts of Part 63, such as the 
Wood Furniture Operations MACT standards. (See 40 CFR Sec. Sec.  
63.3881(c)(6), 63.4481(c)(7), 63.4681(c)(2), 63.4881(c)(2)). Similarly, 
we propose to amend the Wood Furniture Operations MACT standards to 
acknowledge that surface coating operations that are subject to 
subparts MMMM, PPPP, QQQQ, or RRRR of Part 63 are not subject to the 
Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations standards. Subparts MMMM, PPPP, 
and QQQQ also include provisions providing compliance options for 
facilities potentially subject to more than one subpart applicable to 
surface coating operations. (See 40 CFR Sec. Sec.  63.3881(e), 
63.4481(e), 63.4681(d)).

VII. Request for Comments

    We are soliciting comments on all aspects of this proposed action. 
All comments received during the comment period will be considered. In 
addition to general comments on the proposed actions, we are also 
interested in any additional data that may help to reduce the 
uncertainties inherent in the risk assessments. We are specifically 
interested in receiving corrections to the datasets used for risk 
modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in 
sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and 
representativeness of the data or information. Please see the following 
section for more information on submitting data. We are also interested 
in comments and information regarding add-on controls and any lower-HAP 
coatings available for use by these source categories and the types of 
coating activities for which they could be used. We are also seeking 
comments on the potential for lower HAP content in other products used 
in the Wood Furniture Production industry, including glues, resins and 
adhesives.

VIII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The facility-specific data used in the source category risk 
analyses, facility-wide analyses, and demographic analyses for each 
source category subject to this action are available for download on 
the RTR Web Page at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. These 
data files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release 
point at each facility included in the source category and all other 
HAP emissions sources at these facilities (facility-wide emissions 
sources). However, it is important to note that the source category 
risk analysis included only those emissions tagged with the MACT code 
associated with the source category subject to the risk analysis.
    If you believe the data are not representative or are inaccurate, 
please identify the data in question, provide your reason for concern, 
and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if available. When you 
submit data, we request that you provide documentation of the basis for 
the revised values to support your suggested changes. To submit 
comments on the data downloaded from the RTR Web page, complete the 
following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the 
data fields appropriate for that information. The data fields that may 
be revised include the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Data element                          Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Measure...................  Are control measures in place? (yes
                                     or no).
Control Measure Comment...........  Select control measure from list
                                     provided, and briefly describe the
                                     control measure.
Delete............................  Indicate here if the facility or
                                     record should be deleted.
Delete Comment....................  Describes the reason for deletion.
Emission Calculation Method Code    Code description of the method used
 For Revised Emissions.              to derive emissions. For example,
                                     CEM, material balance, stack test,
                                     etc.
Emission Process Group............  Enter the general type of emission
                                     process associated with the
                                     specified emission point.
Fugitive Angle....................  Enter release angle (clockwise from
                                     true North); orientation of the y-
                                     dimension relative to true North,
                                     measured positive for clockwise
                                     starting at 0 degrees (maximum 89
                                     degrees).
Fugitive Length...................  Enter dimension of the source in the
                                     east-west (x-) direction, commonly
                                     referred to as length (ft).
Fugitive Width....................  Enter dimension of the source in the
                                     north-south (y-) direction,
                                     commonly referred to as width (ft).
Malfunction Emissions.............  Enter total annual emissions due to
                                     malfunctions (TPY).
Malfunction Emissions Max Hourly..  Enter maximum hourly malfunction
                                     emissions here (lb/hr).
North American Datum..............  Enter datum for latitude/longitude
                                     coordinates (NAD27 or NAD83); if
                                     left blank, NAD83 is assumed.
Process Comment...................  Enter general comments about process
                                     sources of emissions.
REVISED Address...................  Enter revised physical street
                                     address for MACT facility here.
REVISED City......................  Enter revised city name here.
REVISED County Name...............  Enter revised county name here.
REVISED Emission Release Point      Enter revised Emission Release Point
 Type.                               Type here.
REVISED End Date..................  Enter revised End Date here.
REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate........  Enter revised Exit Gas Flowrate here
                                     (ft\3\/sec).
REVISED Exit Gas Temperature......  Enter revised Exit Gas Temperature
                                     here (F).
REVISED Exit Gas Velocity.........  Enter revised Exit Gas Velocity here
                                     (ft/sec).
REVISED Facility Category Code....  Enter revised Facility Category Code
                                     here, which indicates whether
                                     facility is a major or area source.

[[Page 80250]]

 
REVISED Facility Name.............  Enter revised Facility Name here.
REVISED Facility Registry           Enter revised Facility Registry
 Identifier.                         Identifier here, which is an ID
                                     assigned by the EPA Facility
                                     Registry System.
REVISED HAP Emissions Performance   Enter revised HAP Emissions
 Level Code.                         Performance Level here.
REVISED Latitude..................  Enter revised Latitude here (decimal
                                     degrees).
REVISED Longitude.................  Enter revised Longitude here
                                     (decimal degrees).
REVISED MACT Code.................  Enter revised MACT Code here.
REVISED Pollutant Code............  Enter revised Pollutant Code here.
REVISED Routine Emissions.........  Enter revised routine emissions
                                     value here (TPY).
REVISED SCC Code..................  Enter revised SCC Code here.
REVISED Stack Diameter............  Enter revised Stack Diameter here
                                     (ft).
REVISED Stack Height..............  Enter revised Stack Height here
                                     (Ft).
REVISED Start Date................  Enter revised Start Date here.
REVISED State.....................  Enter revised State here.
REVISED Tribal Code...............  Enter revised Tribal Code here.
REVISED Zip Code..................  Enter revised Zip Code here.
Shutdown Emissions................  Enter total annual emissions due to
                                     shutdown events (TPY).
Shutdown Emissions Max Hourly.....  Enter maximum hourly shutdown
                                     emissions here (lb/hr).
Stack Comment.....................  Enter general comments about
                                     emission release points.
Startup Emissions.................  Enter total annual emissions due to
                                     startup events (TPY).
Startup Emissions Max Hourly......  Enter maximum hourly startup
                                     emissions here (lb/hr).
Year Closed.......................  Enter date facility stopped
                                     operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested 
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter e-
mail address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions 
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations, etc.).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in 
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to 
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786 (through one of the methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). To expedite 
review of the revisions, it would also be helpful if you submitted a 
copy of your revisions to the EPA directly at [email protected] in addition 
to submitting them to the docket.
    5. If you are providing comments on a facility with multiple source 
categories, you need only submit one file for that facility, which 
should contain all suggested changes for all source categories at that 
facility. We request that all data revision comments be submitted in 
the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Access files, which are provided 
on the http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html Web page.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is a significant regulatory action because it raises novel legal 
and policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to OMB for 
review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to 
OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq. The ICR document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 
1716.07.
    The proposed revisions to the SSM provisions for the standards 
being amended with this proposed rule will reduce the reporting burden 
associated with having to prepare and submit a SSM report. However, we 
are proposing new paperwork requirements to the Wood Furniture 
Manufacturing Operations MACT standards. The proposed standards would 
require regulated entities to submit reports and keep records in 
accordance with Section V.B. We are not proposing any new paperwork 
requirements for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) 
source category.
    We estimate that there are approximately 406 regulated entities 
currently subject to the National Emission Standards for Wood Furniture 
Manufacturing Operations and that approximately 150 of those entities 
will be subject to the proposed rule involving the 12-month rolling 
average formaldehyde limit. New and existing regulated entities would 
have no capital costs associated with the information collection 
requirements in the proposed rule.
    The estimated annual average recordkeeping and reporting burden 
after the effective date of the proposed rule is estimated to be 2,001 
labor hours at a cost of approximately $200,000.00. This estimate 
includes the cost of reporting, including reading instructions, and 
information gathering. Recordkeeping cost estimates include reading 
instructions, planning activities, calculation of formaldehyde usage, 
and maintenance of 12-month rolling data. The average hours and cost 
per regulated entity would be 15 hours and $1,400.00. About 406 
facilities would respond per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 
1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for 
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See 
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit 
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, 
Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a 
decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after December 21, 
2010, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB 
receives it by January 20, 2011. The final rule will respond to any OMB 
or

[[Page 80251]]

public comments on the information collection requirements contained in 
this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the APA or any other statute unless the 
agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities 
include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed 
rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small 
business that is a small industrial entity as defined by the SBA's 
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction 
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or 
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The costs 
associated with the proposed requirements in this proposed rule (i.e., 
the formaldehyde emissions limit and conventional spray gun 
prohibition) are negligible as discussed above.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the 
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed rule does not contain a federal mandate that may 
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any 
one year. This proposed rule does mandate a lowering of formaldehyde 
usage and a ban on the use of conventional spray guns but the 
nationwide annualized cost of these mandates are estimated to be 
approximately $200,000 for affected sources. Thus, this proposed rule 
is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of 
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it 
contains no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it 
impose obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship 
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The burden to the respondents 
and the states is less than $500,000 for the entire source category. 
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule 
from state and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that 
imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required 
by statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary 
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or 
EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing 
the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement. 
EPA has concluded that this proposed rule will not have tribal 
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have 
substantial direct effect on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed 
action from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as 
defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe 
the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action 
present a disproportionate risk to children. This action would not 
relax the control measures on existing regulated sources. EPA's risk 
assessments (included in the docket for this proposed rule) demonstrate 
that the existing regulations are associated with an acceptable level 
of risk and that the proposed additional requirements for the Wood 
Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category will provide an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined under 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This 
action will not create any new requirements for sources in the energy 
supply, distribution, or use sectors.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use VCS in its regulatory activities 
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The 
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when 
the EPA decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on EJ. Its main provision directs federal 
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to 
make EJ part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on 
minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

[[Page 80252]]

    To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated 
with each source category, we evaluated the distributions of HAP-
related cancer and non-cancer risks across different social, 
demographic, and economic groups within the populations living near the 
facilities where these source categories are located. The methods used 
to conduct demographic analyses for this rule are described in section 
IV.A of the preamble for this rule. The development of demographic 
analyses to inform the consideration of EJ issues in EPA rulemakings is 
an evolving science. The EPA offers the demographic analyses in this 
proposed rulemaking as examples of how such analyses might be developed 
to inform such consideration, and invites public comment on the 
approaches used and the interpretations made from the results, with the 
hope that this will support the refinement and improve utility of such 
analyses for future rulemakings.
    For the demographic analyses, we focused on the populations within 
50 km of any facility estimated to have exposures to HAP which result 
in cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater, or non-cancer HI of 1 or 
greater (based on the emissions of the source category or the facility, 
respectively). We examined the distributions of those risks across 
various demographic groups, comparing the percentages of particular 
demographic groups to the total number of people in those demographic 
groups nationwide. The results, including other risk metrics, such as 
average risks for the exposed populations, are documented in source 
category-specific technical reports in the docket for both source 
categories covered in this proposal.
    As described in the preamble, for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 
(Surface Coating) and Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT 
standard source categories, our risk assessments demonstrate that the 
regulations are associated with an acceptable level of risk and that 
the proposed additional requirements for the Wood Furniture 
Manufacturing Operations source category will provide an ample margin 
of safety to protect public health.
    Our analyses also show that, for these source categories, there is 
no potential for an adverse environmental effect or human health multi-
pathway effects, and that acute and chronic non-cancer health impacts 
are unlikely. EPA has determined that although there may be an existing 
disparity in HAP risks from these sources between some demographic 
groups, no demographic group is exposed to an unacceptable level of 
risk.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 3, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency proposes to amend title 40, chapter I of the Code of 
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart II--[AMENDED]

    2. Section 63.781 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.781  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (d) If you are authorized in accordance with 40 CFR 63.783(c) to 
use an add-on control system as an alternative means of limiting 
emissions from coating operations, in response to an action to enforce 
the standards set forth in this subpart, you may assert an affirmative 
defense to a claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such 
standards that are caused by malfunction, as defined in 40 CFR 63.2. 
Appropriate penalties may be assessed, however, if the respondent fails 
to meet its burden of proving all the requirements in the affirmative 
defense. The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for 
injunctive relief.
    (1) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce 
such a limit, the owners or operators of facilities must timely meet 
the notification requirements in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, and 
must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (i) The excess emissions:
    (A) Were caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, and unavoidable 
failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process 
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner; and
    (B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper 
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been 
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (D) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate 
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and 
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these 
repairs; and
    (iii) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions 
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable 
during periods of such emissions; and
    (iv) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control 
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss 
of life, severe personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment, and human 
health; and
    (vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation if at all possible; and
    (vii) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were 
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (viii) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner 
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared to determine, 
correct and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the 
excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The 
analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods and 
engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that were the 
result of the malfunction.
    (2) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility 
experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a 
malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile 
transmission as soon as possible, but no later than two business days 
after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it wishes to avail 
itself of an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that 
malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative 
defense shall also submit a written report to the Administrator within 
30 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in 
this subpart to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting 
documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section.
    3. Section 63.782 is amended by adding a definition for 
``affirmative defense'' to read as follows:

[[Page 80253]]

Sec.  63.782  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 
proceeding, a response or a defense put forward by a defendant, 
regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits 
of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding.
* * * * *
    4. Section 63.783 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (b)(1) and 
(b)(2) as (b)(2) and (b)(3) and adding a new paragraph (b)(1) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.783  Standards.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) At all times the owner or operator must operate and maintain 
any affected source, including associated air pollution control 
equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety 
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. 
Determination of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are 
being used will be based on information available to the Administrator 
which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of 
operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and 
maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
* * * * *
    5. Section 63.785 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.785  Compliance procedures.

* * * * *
    (e) Continuous compliance requirements. You must demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the emissions standards and operating limits 
by using the performance test methods and procedures in Sec.  63.786 
for each affected source.
    (1) General requirements. (i) You must monitor and collect data, 
and provide a site specific monitoring plan, as required by Sec. Sec.  
63.783, 63.785, 63.786 and 63.787.
    (ii) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs 
associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring 
system quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as 
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), 
you must operate the monitoring system and collect data at all required 
intervals at all times the affected source is operating, and periods of 
malfunction. Any period for which data collection is required and the 
operation of the CEMS is not otherwise exempt and for which the 
monitoring system is out-of-control and data are not available for 
required calculations constitutes a deviation from the monitoring 
requirements.
    (iii) You may not use data recorded during monitoring system 
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, 
or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities 
in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. A 
monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 
preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide valid data. 
Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance 
or careless operation are not malfunctions. The owner or operator must 
use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing the 
operation of the control device and associated control system.
    (2) [Reserved]
    6. Section 63.786 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.786  Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *
    (e) For add-on control systems approved for use in limiting 
emissions from coating operations pursuant to Sec.  63.783(c), 
performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as the 
Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on 
representative performance of the affected source for the period being 
tested. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the 
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
    7. Section 63.788 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(5) and 
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.788  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Each owner or operator that receives approval pursuant to Sec.  
63.783(c) to use an add-on control system to control coating emissions 
shall maintain records of the occurrence and duration of each 
malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the required air 
pollution control and monitoring equipment. Each owner or operator 
shall maintain records of actions taken during periods of malfunction 
to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.783(b)(1), including 
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution 
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of 
operation.
    (c) Reporting requirements. Before the 60th day following 
completion of each 6-month period after the compliance date specified 
in Sec.  63.784, each owner or operator of an affected source shall 
submit a report to the Administrator for each of the previous six 
months. The report shall include all of the information that must be 
retained pursuant to paragraphs (b)(2) through (3) of this section, 
except for that information specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through 
(ii), (b)(2)(v), (b)(3)(i)(A), (b)(3)(ii)(A), and (b)(3)(iii)(A). If a 
violation at an affected source is detected, the owner or operator of 
the affected source shall also report the information specified in 
paragraph (b)(4) of this section for the reporting period during which 
the violation(s) occurred. To the extent possible, the report shall be 
organized according to the compliance procedure(s) followed each month 
by the affected source. If there was a malfunction during the reporting 
period, the report must also include the number, duration, and a brief 
description of each malfunction which occurred during the reporting 
period and which caused or may have caused any applicable emission 
limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a description 
of actions taken by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an 
affected source to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  
63.783(b)(1), including actions taken to correct a malfunction.
    8. Table 1 to subpart II of part 63 is amended:
    a. By removing entry 63.6(e)-(f);
    b. By adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 
63.6(e)(1)(iii); 63.6(e)(2), 63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1), and 63.6(f)(2)-
(f)(3);
    c. By removing entry 63.7;
    d. By adding entries 63.7(a)-(d), 63.7(e)(1), and 63.7(e)(2)-
(e)(4);
    e. By revising entry 63.8;
    f. By removing entry 63.10(a)-(b);
    g. By adding entries 63.10(a), 63.10(b)(1), 63.10(b)(2)(i), 
63.10(b)(2)(ii), 63.10(b)(2)(iii), 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v), 
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(xiv), and 63.10(b)(3);
    h. By removing entries 63.10(c);
    i. By adding entries 63.10(c)(1)-(9), 63.10(c)(10)-(11), 
63.10(c)(12)-(14), and 63.10(c)(15);
    j. By removing entry 63.10(d); and
    k. By adding entries 63.10(d)(1)-(4) and 63.10(d)(5).
    The revisions read as follows:

[[Page 80254]]



                                   Table 1 to Subpart II of Part 63--General Provisions of Applicability to Subpart II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Reference                      Applies to subpart II                                          Comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
63.6(e)(1)(i)............................  No...........................  See Sec.   63.783(b)(1) for general duty requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii)...........................  No...........................  ..............................................................................
63.6(e)(1)(iii)..........................  Yes..........................  ..............................................................................
63.6(e)(2)...............................  No...........................  Section reserved.
63.6(e)(3)...............................  No...........................  ..............................................................................
63.6(f)(1)...............................  No...........................  ..............................................................................
63.6(f)(2)-(f)(3)........................  No...........................  If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an add-on control system)
                                                                           is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with Sec.   63.783(c), then
                                                                           this section does apply.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
63.7(a)-(d)..............................  No...........................  If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an add-on control system)
                                                                           is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with Sec.   63.783(c), then
                                                                           these sections do apply.
63.7(e)(1)...............................  No...........................  If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an add-on control system)
                                                                           is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with Sec.   63.783(c), then
                                                                           see Sec.   63.786(e).
63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4)........................  No...........................  If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an add-on control system)
                                                                           is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with Sec.   63.783(c), then
                                                                           these sections do apply.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
63.8.....................................  No...........................  If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an add-on control system)
                                                                           is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with Sec.   63.783(c), then
                                                                           this section does apply, with the exception of Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i), Sec.
                                                                           63.8(c)(1)(iii), and the last sentence of Sec.   63.8(d)(3).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
63.10(a).................................  Yes..........................  ..............................................................................
63.10(b)(1)..............................  Yes..........................  ..............................................................................
63.10(b)(2)(i)...........................  No...........................  ..............................................................................
63.10(b)(2)(ii)..........................  No...........................  See Sec.   63.788(b)(5) for recordkeeping of occurrence, duration, and actions
                                                                           taken during malfunctions.
63.10(b)(2)(iii).........................  Yes..........................  ..............................................................................
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v)................  No...........................  ..............................................................................
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(xiv)..............  Yes..........................  ..............................................................................
63.10(b)(3)..............................  Yes..........................  ..............................................................................
63.10(c)(1)-(9)..........................  No...........................  If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an add-on control system)
                                                                           is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with Sec.   63.783(c), then
                                                                           these sections do apply.
63.10(c)(10)-(11)........................  No...........................  If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an add-on control system)
                                                                           is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with Sec.   63.783(c), then
                                                                           see Sec.   63.788(b)(5) for records of malfunctions.
63.10(c)(12)-(14)........................  No...........................  If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an add-on control system)
                                                                           is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with Sec.   63.783(c), then
                                                                           these sections do apply.
63.10(c)(15).............................  No...........................  ..............................................................................
63.10(d)(1)-(4)..........................  Yes..........................  ..............................................................................
63.10(d)(5)..............................  No...........................  See Sec.   63.788(c) for reporting malfunctions.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Table 3 to subpart II of part 63 is amended by revising entry 
``Determination of whether containers meet the standards described in 
Sec.  63.783(b)(2)'' to read as follows:

[[Page 80255]]



           Table 3 to Subpart II of Part 63--Summary of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements a b c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       All Opts.           Option 1            Option 2            Option 3
           Requirement           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Rec       Rep       Rec       Rep       Rec       Rep       Rec       Rep
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Determination of whether          X         X         ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
 containers meet the standards
 described in Sec.
 63.783(b)(3).
 
                                                 * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Affected sources that comply with the cold-weather limits must record and report additional information, as
  specified in Sec.   63.788(b)(3)(ii)(C), (iii)(C), and (iv)(D).
\b\ Affected sources that detect a violation must record and report additional information, as specified in Sec.
    63.788(b)(4).
\c\ OPTION 4: the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Option 4 are identical to those of Options 1, 2,
  or 3, depending on whether and how thinners are used. However, when using Option 4, the term ``VOHAP'' shall
  be used in lieu of the term ``VOC,'' and the owner or operator shall record and report the Administrator-
  approved VOHAP test method or certification procedure.

* * * * *

Subpart JJ--[AMENDED]

    10. Section 63.800 is amended:
    a. By redesignating paragraphs (f) and (g) as paragraphs (h) and 
(i);
    b. By redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (e) and 
(f);
    c. By adding new paragraphs (d) and (g); and
    d. By adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.800  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (d) This subpart does not apply to any surface coating or coating 
operation that meets any of the criteria of paragraphs (d)(1) through 
(4) of this section.
    (1) Surface coating of metal parts and products other than metal 
components of wood furniture that meets the applicability criteria for 
miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating (subpart MMMM of 
this part).
    (2) Surface coating of plastic parts and products other than 
plastic components of wood furniture that meets the applicability 
criteria for plastic parts and products surface coating (subpart PPPP 
of this part).
    (3) Surface coating of wood building products that meets the 
applicability criteria for wood building products surface coating 
(subpart QQQQ of this part). The surface coating of millwork and trim 
associated with cabinet manufacturing are subject to subpart JJ.
    (4) Surface coating of metal furniture that meets the applicability 
criteria for metal furniture surface coating (subpart RRRR of this 
part). Surface coating of metal components of wood furniture performed 
at a wood furniture or wood furniture component manufacturing facility 
are subject to subpart JJ.
* * * * *
    (g) Existing affected sources shall be in compliance with Sec.  
63.802(a)(4) no later than [DATE 2 YEARS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and Sec.  63.803(h) no later 
than [DATE three YEARS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 
THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The owner or operator of an existing area source 
that increases its emissions of (or its potential to emit) HAP such 
that the source becomes a major source that is subject to this subpart 
shall comply with this subpart one year after becoming a major source.
* * * * *
    (j) If the owner or operator, in accordance with 40 CFR 63.804, 
uses a control system as a means of limiting emissions, in response to 
an action to enforce the standards set forth in this subpart, you may 
assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil penalties for 
exceedances of such standards that are caused by malfunction, as 
defined in 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed, however, 
if the respondent fails to meet its burden of proving all the 
requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall 
not be available for claims for injunctive relief.
    (1) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce 
such a limit, the owner or operator of facilities must timely meet the 
notification requirements in paragraph (j)(2) of this section, and must 
prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (i) The excess emissions:
    (A) Were caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, and unavoidable 
failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process 
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner; and
    (B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper 
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been 
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (D) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate 
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and 
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these 
repairs; and
    (iii) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions 
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable 
during periods of such emissions; and
    (iv) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control 
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss 
of life, severe personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment, and human 
health; and
    (vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation if at all possible; and
    (vii) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were 
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (viii) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner 
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared to determine, 
correct and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the 
excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The 
analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods and 
engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that were the 
result of the malfunction.
    (2) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility 
experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a 
malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile 
transmission as soon as possible, but no later than two business days 
after the

[[Page 80256]]

initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself of 
an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that malfunction. The 
owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative defense shall also 
submit a written report to the Administrator within 30 days of the 
initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in this subpart to 
demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, that it has 
met the requirements set forth in paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
    11. Section 63.801 is amended by:
    a. Adding a definition for ``affirmative defense'' and revising the 
definition for ``wood furniture'' in paragraph (a); and
    b. Adding (b)(24) through (b)(28).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.801  Definitions.

    (a) * * *
    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 
proceeding, a response or a defense put forward by a defendant, 
regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits 
of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding.
* * * * *
    Wood furniture means any product made of wood, a wood product such 
as rattan or wicker, or an engineered wood product such as 
particleboard that is manufactured at any facility that is engaged, 
either in part or in whole, in the manufacture of wood furniture or 
wood furniture components, including, but not limited to, facilities 
under any of the following standard industrial classification codes: 
2434, 2511, 2512, 2517, 2519, 2521, 2531, 2541, 2599, or 5712.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (24) Cf =the formaldehyde content of a finishing 
material (c), in pounds of formaldehyde per gallon of coating (lb/gal).
    (25) Ftotal= total formaldehyde emissions in each 
rolling 12-month period.
    (26) Gf =the formaldehyde content of a contact adhesive 
(g), in pounds of formaldehyde per gallon of contact adhesive (lb/gal).
    (27) Vc=the volume of formaldehyde-containing finishing 
material (c), in gal.
    (28) Vg=the volume of formaldehyde-containing contact 
adhesive (g), in gal.
    12. Section 63.802 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(4), (b)(4), 
and (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.802  Emission limits.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Limit total formaldehyde (Ftotal) emissions from 
finishing operations and contact adhesives to no more than 400 lb per 
rolling 12-month period.
    (b) * * *
    (4) Limit total formaldehyde (Ftotal) emissions from 
finishing operations and contact adhesives to no more than 400 lb per 
rolling 12-month period.
    (c) At all times, the owner or operator must operate and maintain 
any affected source, including associated air pollution control 
equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety 
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. 
Determination of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are 
being used will be based on information available to the Administrator 
which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of 
operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and 
maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
    13. Section 63.803 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.803  Work practice standards.

* * * * *
    (h) Application equipment requirements. Each owner or operator of 
an affected source shall not use conventional air spray guns.
* * * * *
    14. Section 63.804 is amended by adding paragraphs (g)(9) and (h) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  63.804  Compliance procedures and monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (9) Continuous compliance requirements. You must demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the emissions standards and operating limits 
by using the performance test methods and procedures in Sec.  63.805 
for each affected source.
    (i) General requirements. (A) You must monitor and collect data, 
and provide a site specific monitoring plan as required by Sec. Sec.  
63.804, 63.806 and 63.807.
    (B) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs 
associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring 
system quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as 
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), 
you must operate the monitoring system and collect data at all required 
intervals at all times the affected source is operating and periods of 
malfunction. Any period for which data collection is required and the 
operation of the CEMS is not otherwise exempt and for which the 
monitoring system is out-of-control and data are not available for 
required calculations constitutes a deviation from the monitoring 
requirements.
    (C) You may not use data recorded during monitoring system 
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, 
or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities 
in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. A 
monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 
preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide valid data. 
Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance 
or careless operation are not malfunctions. The owner or operator must 
use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing the 
operation of the control device and associated control system.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (h) The owner or operator of an existing or new affected source 
subject to Sec.  63.802(a)(4) or (b)(4) shall comply with those 
provisions by using either of the methods presented in Sec.  
63.804(h)(1) and (2).
    (1) Calculate total formaldehyde emissions from all finishing 
materials and contact adhesives used at the facility using Equation 5 
and maintain a value of Ftotal no more than 400 lb per 
rolling 12-month period.

    Ftotal=(Cf1Vc1 + 
Cf2Vc2 + * * * + CfnVcn + 
Gf1Vg1 + Gf2Vg2 + * * * + 
GfnVgn) Equation 5

    (2) Use a control system with an overall control efficiency (R) 
such that the calculated value of Ftotal in Equation 6 is no 
more than 400 lb per rolling 12-month period.

    Ftotal=(Cf1Vc1 + 
Cf2Vc2 + * * * + CfnVcn + 
GfiVg1 + Gf2Vg2 + * * * + 
GfnVgn)* (1-R) Equation 6

    15. Section 63.805 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.805  Performance test methods.

    (a)(1) * * *
    (2) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as 
the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on 
representative performance of the affected source for the period being 
tested. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the 
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
    16. Section 63.806 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(e)(4)

[[Page 80257]]

and adding paragraphs (b)(4) and (k) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.806  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) The formaldehyde content, in lb/gal, as applied, of each 
finishing material and contact adhesive subject to the emission limits 
in Sec.  63.802.
* * * * *
    (k) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to this 
subpart shall maintain records of the occurrence and duration of each 
malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution 
control equipment and monitoring equipment. The owner or operator shall 
maintain records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to 
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.802(c), including 
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution 
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of 
operation.
    17. Section 63.807 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) 
introductory text and (c)(3) and the first sentence in paragraph (d) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.807  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) The owner or operator of an affected source demonstrating 
compliance in accordance with Sec.  63.804(g)(1), (2), (3), (5), (7), 
(8), and (h)(1) shall submit a report covering the previous six months 
of wood furniture manufacturing operations.
* * * * *
    (3) The semiannual reports shall include the information required 
by Sec.  63.804(g) (1), (2), (3), (5), (7), (8), and (h)(1), a 
statement of whether the affected source was in compliance or 
noncompliance, and, if the affected source was in noncompliance, the 
measures taken to bring the affected source into compliance. If there 
was a malfunction during the reporting period, the report shall also 
include the number, duration, and a brief description for each type of 
malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which caused 
or may have caused any applicable emission limitation to be exceeded. 
The report must also include a description of actions taken by an owner 
or operator during a malfunction of an affected source to minimize 
emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.802(c), including actions taken 
to correct a malfunction.
* * * * *
    (d) The owner or operator of an affected source demonstrating 
compliance in accordance with Sec.  63.804(g)(4), (6), and (h)(2) of 
this subpart shall submit the excess emissions and continuous 
monitoring system performance report and summary report required by 
Sec.  63.10(e) of subpart A. * * *
* * * * *

Subpart JJ [Amended]

    18. Table 1 to Subpart JJ of part 63 is amended:
    a. By removing entry 63.6(e)(1);
    b. By adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 
63.6(e)(1)(iii);
    c. By revising entries 63.6(e)(2) and (3);
    d. By removing entries 63.7 and 63.8;
    e. By adding entries 63.7(a)-(d), 63.7(e)(1), 63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4), 
63.8(a)-(b), 63.8(c)(1)(i), 63.8(c)(1)(ii), 63.8(c)(1)(iii), 
63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2), 63.8(d)(3), and 63.8(e)-(f);
    f. By removing entry 63.10(b)(2);
    g. By adding entries 63.10(b)(2)(i), 63.10(b)(2)(ii), 
63.10(b)(2)(iii), 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v), 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-
(b)(2)(xiv);
    h. By removing entry 63.10(c);
    i. By adding entries 63.10(c)(1)-(9), 63.10(c)(10)-(11), 
63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14), and 63.10(c)(15); and
    j. By revising entry 63.10(d)(5).
    The revisions read as follows:

                                    Table 1 to Subpart JJ of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart JJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Reference                      Applies to subpart JJ                                          Comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
63.6(e)(1)(i)............................  No...........................  See 63.802(c) for general duty requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii)...........................  No...........................  ..............................................................................
63.6(e)(1)(iii)..........................  Yes..........................  ..............................................................................
63.6(e)(2)...............................  No...........................  Section reserved.
63.6(e)(3)...............................  No...........................  ..............................................................................
63.6(f)(1)...............................  No...........................  ..............................................................................
Sec.   63.7(a)-(d).......................  Yes..........................  Applies only to affected sources using a control device to comply with the
                                                                           rule.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)........................  No...........................  See 63.805(a)(1).
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4).................  Yes..........................  Applies only to affected sources using a control device to comply with the
                                                                           rule.
63.8(a)-(b)..............................  Yes..........................  Applies only to affected sources using a control device to comply with the
                                                                           rule.
63.8(c)(1)(i)............................  No...........................  ..............................................................................
63.8(c)(1)(ii)...........................  Yes..........................  Applies only to affected sources using a control device to comply with the
                                                                           rule.
63.8(c)(1)(iii)..........................  No...........................  ..............................................................................
63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2)........................  Yes..........................  Applies only to affected sources using a control device to comply with the
                                                                           rule.
63.8(d)(3)...............................  Yes, except for last sentence  Applies only to affected sources using a control device to comply with the
                                                                           rule.
63.8(e)-(g)..............................  Yes..........................  Applies only to affected sources using a control device to comply with the
                                                                           rule.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
63.10(b)(2)(i)...........................  No...........................  ..............................................................................

[[Page 80258]]

 
63.10(b)(2)(ii)..........................  No...........................  See 63.806(k) for recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of malfunctions and
                                                                           recordkeeping of actions taken during malfunction.
63.10(b)(2)(iii).........................  Yes..........................  Applies only to affected sources using a control device to comply with the
                                                                           rule.
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v)................  No...........................  ..............................................................................
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(xiv)..............  Yes..........................  Applies only to affected sources using a control device to comply with the
                                                                           rule.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
63.10(c)(1)-(9)..........................  Yes..........................  ..............................................................................
63.10(c)(10)-(11)........................  No...........................  See 63.806(k) for recordkeeping of malfunctions.
63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14).....................  Yes..........................  ..............................................................................
63.10(c)(15).............................  No...........................  ..............................................................................
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
63.10(d)(5)..............................  No...........................  See 63.807(c)(3) for reporting of malfunctions.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. Table 3 to Subpart JJ of part 63 is amended by adding entry (e) 
under ``Finishing Operations'' to read as follows:

      Table 3 to Subpart JJ of Part 63--Summary of Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Existing
                Emission point                     source     New source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
(e) Achieve total free formaldehyde emissions           400          400
 across all finishing operations and contact
 adhesives, lb per rolling 12-month period, as
 applied......................................
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 5 to Subpart JJ of Part 63 [Amended]

    20. Table 5 to Subpart JJ of part 63 is amended by removing the 
entry for ``Formaldehyde.''

[FR Doc. 2010-31091 Filed 12-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P