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.

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

                                                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

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.

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

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)

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

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.

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

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

    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

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

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

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.

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_ADDRESS>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

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.

    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:

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: