[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 51 (Friday, March 15, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9590-9646]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03560]

Vol. 84

Friday,

No. 51

March 15, 2019

Part II

 Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface
Coating of Large Appliances; Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles; and Surface Coating of Metal Furniture Residual
Risk and Technology Reviews; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 2019 / Rules
and Regulations

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670; FRL-
9988-80-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT72

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface
Coating of Large Appliances; Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles; and Surface Coating of Metal Furniture Residual
Risk and Technology Reviews

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action on the residual risk and technology reviews (RTRs) conducted for
the Surface Coating of Large Appliances; the Printing, Coating, and
Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and the Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture source categories regulated under national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final
action addressing emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM); electronic reporting for performance test results
and compliance reports; the addition of EPA Method 18 and updates to
several measurement methods; and the addition of requirements for
periodic performance testing. Additionally, several miscellaneous
technical amendments will be made to improve the clarity of the rule
requirements. We are making no revisions to the numerical emission
limits based on these risk analyses or technology reviews.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 15, 2019. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 15,
2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established dockets for this action under Docket
ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668 for 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
part 63, subpart OOOO, Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and
Other Textiles; EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR,
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670, for 40 CFR
part 63, subpart NNNN, Surface Coating of Large Appliances, as
applicable. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST),
Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room
is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Docket Center is
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the final rule for
the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category, contact Ms.
Kim Teal, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (Mail Code D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander
Dr., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:
(919) 541-5580; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For questions about the final rule for the Printing, Coating, and
Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category, contact Ms. Paula
Hirtz, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (Mail Code D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander
Dr., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:
(919) 541-2618; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For questions about the final rule for the Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture source category, contact Ms. J. Kaye Whitfield, Minerals and
Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (Mail Code
D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Dr., Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology,
contact Mr. Chris Sarsony, Health and Environmental Impacts Division
(C539-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a
particular entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA WJC
South Building (Mail Code 2221A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ASTM--ASTM International
CAA--Clean Air Act
CDX--Central Data Exchange
CEDRI--Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CRA--Congressional Review Act
EPA--Environmental Protection Agency
ERT--Electronic Reporting Tool
FR--Federal Register
gal--gallon
HAP--hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl--hydrochloric acid
HF--hydrogen fluoride
HI--hazard index
HQ--hazard quotient
HQREL--hazard quotient recommended exposure limit
HVLP--high-volume, low-pressure
IBR--incorporation by reference
ICR--Information Collection Request
kg--kilogram
km--kilometer
lb--pound
MACT--maximum achievable control technology
MIR--maximum individual risk
NAICS--North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP--national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS--Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
OSHA--Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PB-HAP--hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and
bioaccumulative in the environment
ppmv--parts per million by volume
PRA--Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR--residual risk and technology review
SSM--startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI--target organ-specific hazard index

tpy--tons per year
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VOC--volatile organic compound

    Background information. On September 12, 2018, the EPA proposed
revisions to the Surface Coating of Large Appliances; the Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles (Fabrics); and the
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP, based on our RTR. In this
action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rules. We
summarize some of the more significant comments we timely received
regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble.
A summary of all other public comments on the proposed rules and the
EPA's responses to those comments are available in ``Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Reviews for the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances; the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing
of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and the Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture,'' in Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0669, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670. A ``track changes'' version of the
regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action is
available in the docket for each subpart.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What are the source categories and how does the NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
    C. What changes did we propose for the source categories in our
September 12, 2018, RTR proposal?
III. What is included in these final rules?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances; Printing, Coating, and
Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textile; and Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture source categories?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the source categories?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of SSM?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
    F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test
data to the EPA?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
these three surface coating source categories?
    A. Residual Risk Reviews
    B. Technology Reviews
    C. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations
    D. Work Practice During Periods of Malfunction
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     NESHAP Source category      NAICS \1\ code   Regulated entities \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Coating of Large                 335221  Household laundry
 Appliances.                                      equipment.
                                         335222  Household cooking
                                                  equipment.
                                         335224  Household refrigerators
                                                  and freezers.
                                         335228  Other major household
                                                  appliances.
                                         333312  Commercial laundry, dry
                                                  cleaning, and pressing
                                                  equipment.
                                         333415  Air-conditioners
                                                  (except motor
                                                  vehicle), comfort
                                                  furnaces, and
                                                  industrial
                                                  refrigeration units
                                                  and freezers (except
                                                  heat transfer coils
                                                  and large commercial
                                                  and industrial
                                                  chillers).
                                     \3\ 333319  Other commercial/
                                                  service industry
                                                  machinery, e.g.,
                                                  commercial
                                                  dishwashers, ovens,
                                                  and ranges, etc.
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing             31321  Broadwoven fabric
 of Fabrics and Other Textiles.           31322   mills.
                                                 Narrow fabric mills and
                                                  Schiffli machine
                                                  embroidery.
                                         313241  Weft knit fabric mills.
                                         313311  Broadwoven fabric
                                                  finishing mills.
                                         313312  Textile and fabric
                                                  finishing (except
                                                  broadwoven fabric)
                                                  mills.
                                         313320  Fabric coating mills.
                                         314110  Carpet and rug mills.
                                         326220  Rubber and plastics
                                                  hoses and belting and
                                                  manufacturing.
                                         339991  Gasket, packing, and
                                                  sealing device
                                                  manufacturing.
Surface Coating of Metal                 337124  Metal Household
 Furniture.                                       Furniture
                                                  Manufacturing.
                                         337214  Nonwood Office
                                                  Furniture
                                                  Manufacturing.
                                         337127  Institutional Furniture
                                                  Manufacturing.
                                         337215  Showcase, Partition,
                                                  Shelving, and Locker
                                                  Manufacturing.
                                         337127  Institutional Furniture
                                                  Manufacturing.
                                         332951  Hardware Manufacturing.
                                         332116  Metal Stamping.

                                         332612  Wire Spring
                                                  Manufacturing.
                                         337215  Showcase, Partition,
                                                  Shelving, and Locker
                                                  Manufacturing.
                                         335121  Residential Electric
                                                  Lighting Fixture
                                                  Manufacturing.
                                         335122  Commercial, Industrial,
                                                  and Institutional
                                                  Electric Lighting
                                                  Fixture Manufacturing.
                                         339111  Laboratory Furniture
                                                  Manufacturing.
                                         339114  Dental Equipment
                                                  Manufacturing.
                                         337127  Institutional Furniture
                                                  Manufacturing.
                                          81142  Reupholstery and
                                                  Furniture Repair.
                                         922140  State correctional
                                                  institutions that
                                                  apply coatings to
                                                  metal furniture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Regulated entities means major source facilities that apply surface
  coatings to these parts or products.
\3\ Excluding special industry machinery, industrial and commercial
  machinery and equipment, and electrical machinery equipment and
  supplies not elsewhere classified.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source categories listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/printing-coating-and-dyeing-fabrics-and-other-textiles-national#rule-summary, https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-large-appliances-national-emission-standards, and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-metal-furniture-national-emission-standards. Following publication in the
Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version and
key technical documents at this same website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an
overview of the RTR program, links to project websites for the RTR
source categories, and detailed emissions and other data we used as
inputs to the risk assessments.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) by May 14, 2019. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources''
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly
referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards
and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques,
including but not limited to those that reduce the volume of or
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination
of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The

MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than floors
for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of
existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing
five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30
sources). In developing MACT standards, we must also consider control
options that are more stringent than the floor under CAA section
112(d)(2). We may establish standards more stringent than the floor,
based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions
reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and
energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for these final rules, see 83 Federal Register (FR) 46262, September
12, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What are the source categories and how does the NESHAP regulate its
HAP emissions?

1. What is the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category and
how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?
    The EPA promulgated the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source
category NESHAP on July 23, 2002 (67 FR 48254). The standards are
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN. The Surface Coating of Large
Appliances industry consists of facilities that are engaged in the
surface coating of a large appliance part or product. The source
category covered by this MACT standard currently includes ten
facilities.
    The Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP (40 CFR 63.4081)
defines a ``large appliance part or product'' as ``a component of a
large appliance product manufactured for household, recreational,
institutional, commercial, or industrial use,'' and defines a coating
as a ``material that is applied to a substrate for decorative,
protective or functional purposes.'' This source category is further
described in the September 12, 2018, RTR proposal. See 83 FR 46262,
46266-67.
    The primary HAP emitted from this source category are organic HAP
and include xylene, glycol ethers, toluene, methanol, ethyl benzene,
methylene chloride, and methyl isobutyl ether with approximately 80
percent of the HAP emissions coming from coating operations and from
the mixing and storage areas. The EPA estimates that HAP emissions are
currently about 120 tpy. Most large appliance coating is currently
applied either by using a spray gun in a spray booth, by dipping the
substrate in a tank of coating, or by powder coating.
    The Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP specifies numerical
emission limits for organic HAP emissions from surface coating
application operations. The organic HAP emission limit for existing
sources is 0.13 kilogram (kg) organic HAP/liter (1.1 pound/gallon (lb/
gal)) of coating solids and for new or reconstructed sources is 0.022
kg organic HAP/liter (0.18 lb/gal) of coating solids.
    The Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP provides three
compliance options for existing sources: (1) Compliant coatings, i.e.,
all coatings have less than or equal to 0.13 kg organic HAP/liter (1.1
lb/gal) of coating solids; (2) emission rate without add-on controls;
or (3) emission rate with add-on controls. Facilities using the
compliant material option or the emission rate without add-on controls
option are not required to meet any work practice standards, but
facilities that use add-on controls to demonstrate compliance must
develop and implement a work practice plan and comply with site-
specific operating limits for the emission capture and control system.
2. What is the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its
HAP emissions?
    The EPA promulgated the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles NESHAP on May 29, 2003 (68 FR 32172). The standards
are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO. The Printing, Coating,
and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles industry consists of
facilities that are engaged in the printing, coating, slashing, dyeing,
or finishing of fabrics and other textiles. The source category covered
by this MACT standard currently includes 43 facilities.
    The Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles
NESHAP (40 CFR 63.4371) defines a fabric as any woven, knitted,
plaited, braided, felted, or non-woven material made of filaments,
fibers, or yarns, including thread, and further defines textile as any
one of the following: (1) Staple fibers and filaments suitable for
conversion to or use as yarns, or for the preparation of woven, knit,
or nonwoven fabrics; (2) yarns made from natural or manufactured
fibers; (3) fabrics and other manufactured products made from staple
fibers and filaments and from yarn; and (4) garments and other articles
fabricated from fibers, yarns, or fabrics. The NESHAP also defines a
coating material as an elastomer, polymer, or prepolymer material
applied as a thin layer to a textile web. This source category is
further described in the September 12, 2018, RTR proposal. See 83 FR
46264.
    The primary HAP emitted from printing, coating, and dyeing
operations are organic HAP and include toluene, phenol, methanol, and
N,N-dimethylformamide. The majority of organic HAP emissions (greater
than 95 percent) come from the coating and printing subcategories, with
the remainder coming from dyeing and finishing. The EPA estimates that
HAP emissions are currently about 737 tpy.
    The Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles
NESHAP specifies numerical emission limits for organic HAP emissions
from three subcategories: Printing and coating; dyeing and finishing;
and slashing. The

organic HAP emissions limit for existing affected sources is 0.12 kg
organic HAP/kg (lb/lb) of coating solids applied, and for new or
reconstructed affected sources the emissions limit is 0.08 kg organic
HAP/kg (lb/lb) of coating solids applied. Printing or coating-affected
sources also may demonstrate compliance by achieving at least a 98-
percent HAP reduction for new affected sources or a 97-percent HAP
reduction for existing sources. Alternatively, new and existing sources
using a thermal oxidizer may demonstrate compliance by achieving a HAP
concentration at the oxidizer outlet of no greater than 20 parts per
million by volume (ppmv) on a dry basis and having an emission capture
system with 100-percent efficiency.
    For new, reconstructed, or existing dyeing and finishing
operations, the emissions limit for conducting dyeing operations is
0.016 kg organic HAP/kg (lb/lb) dyeing materials applied; the emissions
limit for conducting finishing operations is 0.0003 kg organic HAP/kg
(lb/lb) finishing materials applied; and the emissions limit for
conducting both dyeing and finishing operations is 0.016 kg organic
HAP/kg (lb/lb) dyeing and finishing materials applied.
    For new, reconstructed, or existing slashing operations, the
slashing materials must contain no organic HAP (each organic HAP that
is not an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-defined
carcinogen that is measured to be present at less than 1 percent by
weight is counted as zero).
    Facilities using the compliant material option or the emission rate
without add-on controls option are not required to meet any work
practice standards, but facilities that use add-on controls to
demonstrate compliance must develop and implement a work practice plan
and comply with site-specific operating limits for the emission capture
and control system.
3. What is the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category and
how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?
    The EPA promulgated the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP
on May 23, 2003 (68 FR 28606). The standards are codified at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart RRRR. The Surface Coating of Metal Furniture industry
consists of facilities that engage, either in part or in whole, in the
surface coating of metal furniture. The Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture NESHAP (40 CFR 63.4881) defines metal furniture as furniture
or components of furniture constructed either entirely or partially
from metal. The source category covered by this MACT standard currently
includes 16 facilities. This source category is further described in
the September 12, 2018, RTR proposal. See 83 FR 46264.
    Most of the organic HAP emissions from metal furniture surface
coating operations occur from coating application operations and drying
and curing ovens. Xylene, glycol ethers, ethylbenzene, toluene, and
cumene account for more than 95 percent of the HAP emitted from the
source category. The EPA estimates that HAP emissions are currently
about 145 tpy.
    The Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP provides existing
sources three compliance options: (1) Use only compliant coatings,
i.e., all coatings have less than or equal to 0.10 kg organic HAP/liter
(0.83 lb/gal) of coating solids used; (2) collectively manage the
coatings such that the monthly emission rate of organic HAP is less
than or equal to 0.10 kg organic HAP/liter (0.83 lb/gal) coating solids
used; or (3) use emission capture systems and control devices to
achieve an organic HAP emissions rate of less than or equal to 0.10 kg
organic HAP/liter (0.83 lb/gal) coating solids used.
    Facilities using the compliant material option or the emission rate
without add-on controls option are not required to meet any work
practice standards, but facilities that use add-on controls to
demonstrate compliance must develop and implement a work practice plan
and comply with site-specific operating limits for the emission capture
and control system.

C. What changes did we propose for the source categories in our
September 12, 2018, RTR proposal?

    On September 12, 2018, the EPA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP;
the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP;
and the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart NNNN, 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart
RRRR, respectively, that took into consideration the RTR analyses.
    We proposed to find that the risks from each of the source
categories are acceptable, and that additional emission controls for
each source category are not necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety.
    We also proposed the following amendments:
     Pursuant to the technology reviews for the Surface Coating
of Large Appliances source category and the Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture source category, a requirement that, for each coating
operation for which coatings are spray applied, high-efficiency spray
equipment must be used if the source is not using the emission rate
with add-on control compliance option;
     For each source category, a requirement for electronic
submittal of notifications, semi-annual reports, and compliance reports
(which include performance test reports);
     For each source category, revisions to the SSM provisions
of each NESHAP in order to ensure that they are consistent with the
Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
which vacated two provisions that exempted source owners and operators
from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section
112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM;
     For each source category, adding the option of conducting
EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ``Measurement of Gaseous
Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography,'' to measure and then
subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass
emissions as carbon;
     For each source category, removing references to paragraph
(d)(4) of OSHA's Hazard Communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200),
which dealt with OSHA-defined carcinogens, and replacing that reference
with a list of HAP that must be regarded as potentially carcinogenic
based on EPA guidelines;
     For each source category, IBR of alternative test methods
and references to updated alternative test methods; and
     Several minor editorial and technical changes in each
subpart.
    In the same notice, we requested comment on the following, although
we did not propose actual rule amendments:
     Whether the EPA should change the reporting frequency for
all reports submitted to the EPA from semi-annual to annual, for all
three source categories;
     Whether, for all three source categories, additional
performance testing should be required, with a specific request for
comment on a requirement to conduct performance testing any time a
source plans to undertake an operational change that may adversely
affect compliance with an applicable standard, operating limit, or
parametric monitoring value;
     Whether the Agency should ban the use of ethylene oxide in
the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source
category under the technology review;

     Whether the Agency should establish a work practice for
sources in the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles source category for periods of malfunction when an immediate
line shutdown may not be feasible due to safety concerns, and concerns
that an immediate shutdown would result in the unnecessary generation
of hazardous waste; and
     The relationship between CAA sections 112(d)(6),
technology review, and CAA section 112(f), residual risk review;
specifically, the extent to which findings that underlie a CAA section
112(f) determination should be considered in making any determinations
under CAA section 112(d)(6).

III. What is included in these final rules?

    This action amends and finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant
to the RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for three rules--the Surface
Coating of Large Appliances; the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of
Fabrics and Other Textiles; and the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture.
This action also finalizes the following changes for each source
category:
     A requirement for periodic performance testing of capture
and control devices every 5 years;
     A requirement for electronic submittal of notifications,
semi-annual reports, and compliance reports (which include performance
test reports);
     Revising the SSM provisions of each NESHAP;
     Adding the option to conduct EPA Method 18 of appendix A
to 40 CFR part 60, ``Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions
by Gas Chromatography,'' to measure and then subtract methane emissions
from measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon;
     Removing references to paragraph (d)(4) of OSHA's Hazard
Communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200), which dealt with OSHA-
defined carcinogens, and replacing that reference with a list of HAP
that must be regarded as potentially carcinogenic based on EPA
guidelines;
     IBR of alternative test methods and references to updated
alternative test methods and updated appendices; and
     Several minor technical amendments and clarifications of
the applicability of the NESHAP and definitions.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances; Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of
Fabrics and Other Textile; and Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
source categories?

    This section describes the final amendments to the Surface Coating
of Large Appliances NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN); the
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP (40
CFR part 63, subpart OOOO); and the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR) being promulgated pursuant to CAA
section 112(f). The EPA proposed no changes to these three subparts
based on the risk reviews conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
this action, we are finalizing our proposed determination that risks
from these three subparts are acceptable, and that the standards
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent
an adverse environmental effect. The EPA received no new data or other
information during the public comment period that causes us to change
that proposed determination. Therefore, we are not requiring additional
controls under CAA section 112(f)(2) for any of the three subparts in
this action.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the source categories?

    For 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN, 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, and
40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR, we are not finalizing any revisions to
the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6) pursuant to our
technology reviews.

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of SSM?

    We are finalizing, as proposed, changes to the Surface Coating of
Large Appliances; the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and
Other Textiles; and the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source
categories NESHAP to eliminate the SSM exemption. Consistent with
Sierra Club v. EPA 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA is
establishing standards in these rules that apply at all times. Table 2
to Subpart NNNN of Part 63, Table 3 to Subpart OOOO of Part 63, and
Table 2 to Subpart RRRR of Part 63 (General Provisions applicability
table) are being revised to change several references related to
requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We eliminated or revised
certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the
eliminated SSM exemption. The EPA also made changes to the rule to
remove or modify inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant language in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We determined that facilities in
these source categories can meet the applicable emission standards in
the Surface Coating of Large Appliances; the Printing, Coating, and
Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and the Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture NESHAP at all times, including periods of startup and
shutdown. Therefore, the EPA determined that no additional standards
are needed to address emissions during these periods. The legal
rationale and detailed changes for SSM periods that we are finalizing
today are set forth in the proposed rule. See 83 FR 46284 through
46288, 46295 through 46298, and 46305 through 46308.
    We are finalizing a revision to the performance testing
requirements at 40 CFR 63.4164, 40 CFR 63.4360, and 40 CFR 63.4963. The
final performance testing provisions prohibit performance testing
during startup, shutdown, or malfunction as these conditions are not
representative of normal operating procedures. The final rules will
also require that operators maintain records to document that operating
conditions during the test represent normal operations.

D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

    These rules also finalize, as proposed, revisions to several other
NESHAP requirements. We describe the revisions that apply to all the
affected source categories in the following paragraphs.
    To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data
accessibility, we are finalizing a requirement that owners and
operators of facilities in the Surface Coating of Large Appliances;
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source categories submit electronic
copies of certain required performance test reports through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) website using an electronic performance
test report tool called the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). We also
are finalizing, as proposed, provisions that allow facility operators
the ability to seek extensions for submitting electronic reports for
circumstances beyond the control of the facility, i.e., for a possible
outage in the CDX or Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI) or for a force majeure event in the time just prior to a
report's due date, as well as the process to assert such a claim.
    We are finalizing amendments to 40 CFR 63.4166(b), 40 CFR
63.4362(b), and

40 CFR 63.4965(b) to add the option of conducting EPA Method 18 of
appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ``Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound
Emissions by Gas Chromatography,'' to measure and then subtract methane
emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass emissions, as
carbon, for those facilities using the emission rate with add-on
control compliance option and EPA Method 25A to measure control device
destruction efficiency. We also are finalizing the format of references
to test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to indicate where, in the
eight sections of appendix A, each method is found.
    For each subpart, we are finalizing the proposal to remove the
reference to paragraph (d)(4) of OSHA's Hazard Communication standard
(29 CFR 1910.1200) and replace with a reference to a new table in each
subpart (Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN, Table 6 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart OOOO, and Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR)
that lists the organic HAP that must be included in calculating total
organic HAP content of a coating material present at 0.1 percent or
greater by mass. We are finalizing the a provision to include organic
HAP in these tables if they were categorized in the EPA's ``Prioritized
Chronic Dose-Response Values for Screening Risk Assessments'' (dated
May 9, 2014) as a ``human carcinogen,'' ``probable human carcinogen,''
or ``possible human carcinogen'' according to ``The Risk Assessment
Guidelines of 1986'' (EPA/600/8-87/045, August 1987),\2\ or as
``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to be carcinogenic to humans,'' or
with ``suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential'' according to the
``Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment'' (EPA/630/P-03/001F, March
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are including in the final rule for each subpart a requirement
for facilities to conduct control device performance testing no less
frequently than once every 5 years when using the emission rate with
add-on controls compliance option. Facilities will be able to conduct
these performance tests on the same schedule as their title V operating
permit renewals. If the title V permit already requires performance
testing, no additional testing will be required.
1. What other changes have been made to the Surface Coating of Large
Appliances source category NESHAP?
    We are finalizing several miscellaneous technical amendments to
improve the clarity of the rule requirements:
     Clarifying that a thermocouple is part of the temperature
sensor referred to in 40 CFR 63.4168(c)(3) for purposes of performing
periodic calibration and verification checks;
     Renumbering 40 CFR 63.4130(k)(8) and (9) to be 40 CFR
63.4130(k)(7) and (8) because the current paragraph 40 CFR 63.4130(k)
is missing a paragraph (k)(7);
     Revising the rule citation ``Sec.  63.4130(k)(9)'' in 40
CFR 63.4163(e) to be ``Sec.  63.4130(k)(8),'' consistent with the
proposed renumbering of 40 CFR 63.4130(k)(9) to (k)(8);
     Clarifying that 40 CFR 63.4131(a) applies to all records
that were submitted as reports electronically via the EPA's CEDRI and
adding text to the same provision to clarify that the ability to
maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for
facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to
a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance
evaluation; and
     Revising 40 CFR 63.4141(b) and (c) to update ASTM
International (ASTM) D1475-90 to ASTM D1475-13, including IBR of the
newer version of the method.
    We are finalizing corrections to several erroneous rule citations:
     Revising one instance in 40 CFR 63.4160(a)(1) and three
instances in 40 CFR 63.4160(b)(1) that an erroneous rule citation
``Sec.  63.4183'' is specified. Section 63.4183 does not exist in 40
CFR part 63, subpart NNNN, and the corrected citation is ``Sec.
63.4083'';
     Revising one instance in 40 CFR 63.4110(b)(10) of an
erroneous rule citation ``Sec.  63.4081(d).'' The corrected citation is
``Sec.  63.4081(e)'';
     Revising one instance in 40 CFR 63.4130(f) and one
instance in 40 CFR 63.4130(g) of an erroneous rule citation of ``Sec.
63.4141(a).'' The corrected citation is ``Sec.  63.4141'';
     Revising one instance in 40 CFR 63.4168(c)(2) where an
erroneous rule citation ``Sec.  63.6167(b)(1) and (2)'' is specified.
The corrected citation is to ``Sec.  63.4167(b)(1) and (2)'';
     Revising the rule citation for ``Sec.  63.4120(b)''
specified in the fourth column of the table entry for ``Sec.
63.10(d)(2).'' The corrected citation is ``Sec.  63.4120(h)'';
     Revising the rule citation ``Sec.  63.4120(b)'' specified
in the fourth column of the table entry for ``Sec.  63.10(e)(3).'' The
corrected citation is ``Sec.  63.4120(g)''; and
     Clarifying that 40 CFR 63.4152(c) requires a statement
that the source was in compliance with the emission limitations during
the reporting period applies only if there were no deviations from the
emission limitations.
    The above clarifications and corrections were proposed in the
September 12, 2018, RTR proposal. No comments were received during the
public comment period and these changes are being finalized as
proposed.
2. What other changes have been made to the Printing, Coating, and
Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category NESHAP?
    We are finalizing the proposal to amend 40 CFR 63.4350(a)(3) and
(b)(3); and 40 CFR 63.4351(a) and (e) to correct the references to the
alternative control device outlet organic HAP concentration limit from
20 parts per million by weight to 20 ppmv.
    In addition, we are finalizing several miscellaneous technical
amendments to improve the clarity of the rule requirements:
     Clarifying that a thermocouple is part of the temperature
indicator referred to in 40 CFR 63.4364(c) for purposes of performing
periodic calibration and verification checks;
     Clarifying that 40 CFR 63.4313(a) applies to all records
that were submitted as reports electronically via the EPA's CEDRI and
adding text to the same provision to clarify that the ability to
maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for
facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to
a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance
evaluation;
     Amending a reporting requirement in 40 CFR 63.4342(f) to
harmonize the requirement with the same reporting requirement in 40 CFR
63.4311(a)(4) that requires the same statement to be reported if
``there were no deviations from the emission limitations in Sec. Sec.
63.4290, 63.4292, and 63.4293'';
     Revising one instance in 40 CFR 63.4311(a)(7)(i)(B) to add
a reference for an equation that is missing by adding ``6'' to the list
of equations cited in 40 CFR 63.4311(a)(7)(i)(B) so that the citation
reads ``Equations 4, 4A, 5, 6, and 7 of Sec.  63.4331'';
     Revising one instance in 40 CFR 63.4340(b)(3) in which an
erroneous rule citation to ``Sec.  63.4561'' is corrected to ``Sec.
63.4341''; and
     Correcting Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO in the
fourth column of the table entry for ``Sec.  63.8(g)(1)-(5)'' that
erroneously refers to ``sections 63.4342 and 63.4352.'' The correct
reference is ``Sections 63.4363 and 63.4364.''
    The above clarifications and corrections were proposed in the

September 12, 2018, RTR proposal. No comments were received during the
public comment period and these changes are being finalized as
proposed.
3. What other changes have been made to the Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture source category NESHAP?
    We are finalizing several proposed miscellaneous technical
amendments to improve the clarity of the rule requirements:
     Clarifying that a thermocouple is part of the temperature
sensor referred to in 40 CFR 63.4967(c)(3) for purposes of performing
periodic calibration and verification checks;
     Clarifying that 40 CFR 63.4931(a) applies to all records
that were submitted as reports electronically via the EPA's CEDRI and
adding text to the same provision to clarify that the ability to
maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for
facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to
a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance
evaluation;
     Revising the second sentence of 40 CFR 63.4920(a)(4) to
correct an erroneous reference to ``the emission limitations in Sec.
63.4890.'' The correct reference is to the applicable emission
limitations in 40 CFR 63.4890, 63.4892, and 63.489;
     Changing ``emission limitations'' in the first sentence of
40 CFR 63.4920(a)(4) to ``emission limits'';
     Revising 40 CFR 63.4941(c) to update ASTM D1475-90 to ASTM
D1475-13, including IBR of the newer version of the method;
     Revising 40 CFR 63.4951(c) to remove repetition with the
cross-referenced 40 CFR 63.4941(c); and
     Correcting Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR in the
fourth column of the table entry for ``Sec.  63.10(e)(3)'' for an
erroneous rule citation of ``Sec.  63.4920(b).'' The correct rule
citation is ``Sec.  63.4920(a).''
    The above clarifications and corrections were proposed in the
September 12, 2018, RTR proposal. No comments were received during the
public comment period and these changes are being finalized as
proposed.

E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The effective date of all three final rules is March 15, 2019. We
are finalizing two changes that would impact ongoing compliance
requirements for each of these three subparts. We are adding a
requirement that notifications, performance test results, and
semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically using the new
template for each subpart that was included in the docket for each
proposed rule. We are also changing the requirements for SSM by
removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard
during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop and
implement an SSM plan. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for
implementing the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA proposed
a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period
practicable. No comments were received during the public comment period
and the 180-day period is being finalized as proposed. Thus, the
compliance date of the final amendments for all affected sources will
be September 11, 2019.

F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to
the EPA?

    As proposed, the EPA is taking a step to increase the ease and
efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility. Specifically, the
EPA is finalizing the requirement for owners and operators of
facilities in the Surface Coating of Large Appliances; the Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and the Surface
Coating of Metal Furniture source categories to submit electronic
copies of certain required performance test reports.
    Data will be collected by direct computer-to-computer electronic
transfer using EPA-provided software. This EPA-provided software is an
electronic performance test report tool called the ERT (Electronic
Reporting Tool). The ERT will generate an electronic report package
which will be submitted to CEDRI, and then archived to the EPA's CDX. A
description of the ERT and instructions for using ERT can be found at
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. CEDRI can be accessed
through the CDX website (https://cdx.epa.gov/).
    The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to
the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and will
apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that
are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods
supported by the ERT is available at the ERT website. Through this
approach, industry will save time in the performance test submittal
process. Additionally, this rulemaking will benefit industry by
reducing recordkeeping costs, as the performance test reports that are
submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are no longer required to be kept in
hard copy.
    State, local, and tribal agencies may benefit from a more
streamlined and accurate review of performance test data that will
become available to the public through WebFIRE. Having such data
publicly available enhances transparency and accountability. For a more
thorough discussion of electronic reporting of performance tests using
direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer and using EPA-provided
software, see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal.
    In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development,
control strategy development, and other air pollution control
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance
test data will save industry, state, local, tribal agencies, and the
EPA significant time, money, and effort while improving the quality of
emission inventories and air quality regulations.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
these three surface coating source categories?

A. Residual Risk Reviews

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f)?
a. Surface Coating of Large Appliances (40 CFR part 63, Subpart NNNN)
Source Category
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk
review and presented the results of this review, along with our
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of
safety, in the September 12, 2018, proposed rule for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart NNNN (83 FR 46262). The results of the risk assessment for the
proposal are presented briefly below in Table 2 of this preamble. More
detail is in the residual risk technical support document, ``Residual
Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances Source
Category in Support of the May 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule,'' available in the docket for this rulemaking.

                       Table 2--Surface Coating of Large Appliances Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results at Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Maximum individual     Estimated population      Estimated annual         Maximum chronic        Maximum screening
                                   cancer risk  (in 1     at increased risk of      cancer incidence       noncancer TOSHI \1\     acute  noncancer  HQ
                                        million)             cancer >=1-in-1        (cases per year)    ------------------------           \2\
                                ------------------------         Million        ------------------------                        ------------------------
        Risk assessment                                 ------------------------                          Based on    Based on
                                  Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on     actual     allowable      Based on  actual
                                   actual     allowable    actual     allowable    actual     allowable   emissions   emissions         emissions
                                  emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category................         0.9           1           0          50      0.0001      0.0002        0.07        0.08  HQREL = 2
Whole Facility.................           6  ..........         600  ..........      0.0002  ..........         0.2  ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) is the sum of the chronic noncancer hazard quotients (HQ) values for substances that affect the same
  target organ or organ system.
\2\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values (HQREL = hazard
  quotient recommended exposure level).

    The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling using actual
emissions data, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate that the
maximum individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime)
could be up to 0.9-in-1 million, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI
value based on actual emissions could be up to 0.07, and the maximum
screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-facility site) could be up to 2
(driven by glycol ethers). At proposal, the total annual cancer
incidence (national) from these facilities based on actual emission
levels was estimated to be 0.0001 excess cancer cases per year, or one
case in every 10,000 years.
    The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling using
allowable emissions data, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble,
indicate that the maximum individual cancer risk based on allowable
emissions (lifetime) could be up to 1-in-1 million, and the maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on allowable emissions could be up
to 0.08. At proposal, the total annual cancer incidence (national) from
these facilities based on allowable emission levels was estimated to be
0.0002 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 5,000 years.
    The maximum whole-facility cancer maximum individual risk (MIR) was
determined to be 6-in-1 million at proposal, driven by chromium (VI)
compounds from a cleaning/pretreatment operation. At proposal, the
total estimated cancer incidence from whole facility emissions was
determined to be 0.0002 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess
case in every 5,000 years. Approximately 600 people were estimated to
have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted
from both MACT and non-MACT sources at the 10 facilities in this source
category. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category was
estimated to be 0.2, driven by emissions of methylene diphenyl
diisocyanate from foam produced as part of plastic products
manufacturing.
    There are no persistent and bioaccumulative HAP (PB HAP) emitted by
facilities in this source category. Therefore, we did not estimate any
human health multi-pathway risks from this source category. Two
environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category:
Hydrogen chloride (HCl) and hydrogen flouride (HF). Therefore, at
proposal we conducted a screening-level evaluation of the potential
adverse environmental risks associated with emissions of HCl and HF.
Based on this evaluation, we proposed that we do not expect an adverse
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source
category.
    We weighed all health risk factors, including those shown in Table
2 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability determination and
proposed that the residual risks from the Surface Coating of Large
Appliances source category are acceptable (section IV.A.2.a of proposal
preamble, 83 FR 46279, September 12, 2018).
    We then considered whether 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevents, taking
into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors,
an adverse environmental effect. In considering whether the standards
should be tightened to provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health, we considered the same risk factors that we considered
for our acceptability determination and also considered the costs,
technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to
emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with
emissions from the source category.
    As discussed further in section III.B. of this preamble, the only
development identified in the technology review was the use of high-
efficiency spray equipment. We estimated no changes in costs or
emissions would occur due to switching to high-efficiency application
methods for this source category, because we expected that large
appliance surface coating facilities already are using high-efficiency
coating application methods due to state volatile organic compound
(VOC) rules and the economic incentives of using more efficient
application methods. Because quantifiable reductions in risk are
unlikely, we proposed that additional emissions controls for this
source category are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety
(section IV.A.2.b. of proposal preamble, 83 FR 46279, September 12,
2018).
b. Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles (40 CFR
Part 63, Subpart OOOO) Source Category
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk
review and presented the results of this review, along with our
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of
safety, in the September 12, 2018, proposed rule for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart OOOO (83 FR 46262). The results of the risk assessment for the
proposal are presented briefly below in Table 3 of this preamble. More
detail is in the residual risk technical support document, ``Residual
Risk Assessment for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and
Other Textiles Source Category in Support of the May 2018 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule,'' available in the docket for this
rulemaking.

           Table 3--Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results at Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Maximum individual     Estimated population      Estimated annual         Maximum chronic        Maximum  screening
                                    cancer risk (in 1     at increased risk of      cancer incidence       noncancer TOSHI \1\   acute  noncancer HQ \2\
                                        million)             cancer >=1-in-1        (cases per year)    ------------------------------------------------
                                ------------------------         million        ------------------------
        Risk  assessment                                ------------------------                          Based on    Based on
                                  Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on     actual     allowable      Based on  actual
                                   actual     allowable    actual     allowable    actual     allowable   emissions   emissions         emissions
                                  emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category................           9          10       8,500      10,000       0.002       0.002         0.3         0.3  HQREL = 0.6
Whole Facility.................           9  ..........      12,200  ..........       0.003  ..........         0.3  ..........  .......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) is the sum of the chronic noncancer hazard quotient (HQ) values for substances that affect the same
  target organ or organ system.
\2\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values (HQREL = hazard
  quotient recommended exposure level).

    The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling using actual
emissions data, as shown in Table 3 of this preamble, indicate that the
maximum individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime)
could be up to 9-in-1 million (driven by ethylene oxide), the maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions could be up to
0.3, and the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-facility
site) could be up to 0.6. At proposal, the total annual cancer
incidence (national) from these facilities based on actual emission
levels was estimated to be 0.002 excess cancer cases per year, or one
case in every 500 years.
    The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling using
allowable emissions data, as shown in Table 3 of this preamble,
indicate that the maximum individual cancer risk based on allowable
emissions (lifetime) could be up to 10-in-1 million (driven by ethylene
oxide), the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on allowable
emissions could be up to 0.3. At proposal, the total annual cancer
incidence (national) from these facilities based on allowable emission
levels was estimated to be 0.002 excess cancer cases per year, or one
case in every 500 years.
    The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR was 9-in-1 million at
proposal, driven by ethylene oxide from fabric finishing. The results
of our facility-wide assessment at proposal indicated that 12
facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or equal to 1-
in-1 million. At proposal the total estimated cancer incidence from
whole facility emissions was determined to be 0.003 excess cancer cases
per year, or one excess case in every 330 years. Approximately 12,200
people were estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from
exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and non-MACT sources collocated
at the 43 facilities in this source category. The maximum facility-wide
TOSHI for the source category was estimated to be 0.3, driven by
emissions of trichloroethylene from adhesive application.
    There are no PB-HAP emitted by facilities in this source category.
Therefore, we did not estimate any human health multi-pathway risks
from this source category. Environmental HAP are not emitted by sources
within this source category; therefore, we do not expect an adverse
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source
category.
    We weighed all health risk factors, including those shown in Table
3 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability determination, and
proposed that the residual risks from the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing
of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category are acceptable (section
IV.B.2.a of proposal preamble, 83 FR 46292, September 12, 2018).
    We then considered whether 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevents, taking
into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors,
an adverse environmental effect. In considering whether the standards
should be tightened to provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health, we considered the same risk factors that we considered
for our acceptability determination and also considered the costs,
technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to
emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with
emissions from the source category.
    Based on our review, we did not identify any developments in add-on
control technologies, other equipment or work practices and procedures
since the promulgation of the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles NESHAP. We note, however, that the only facility
that previously reported ethylene oxide emissions no longer emits this
HAP as a result of a process change. Therefore, we proposed that
additional emissions controls for this source category are not
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety (section IV.B.2.b. of
proposal preamble, 83 FR 46293, September 12, 2018). However, we
solicited comment on whether the Agency should ban the use of ethylene
oxide in this source category under the technology review (section VI
of proposal preamble, 83 FR 46313, September 12, 2018). Our response to
these comments and rationale for our final decision are found in
section IV.B of this preamble.
c. Surface Coating of Metal Furniture (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart RRRR)
Source Category
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk
review and presented the results of this review, along with our
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of
safety, in the September 12, 2018, proposed rule for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart RRRR (83 FR 46262). The results of the risk assessment for the
proposal are presented briefly below in Table 4 of this preamble. More
detail is in the residual risk technical support document, ``Residual
Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture Source
Category in Support of the May 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule,'' available in the docket for this rulemaking.

                       Table 4--Surface Coating of Metal Furniture Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results at Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Maximum individual     Estimated population      Estimated annual         Maximum chronic        Maximum  screening
                                   cancer risk  (in 1     at increased risk of      cancer incidence       noncancer TOSHI \1\     acute  noncancer  HQ
                                        million)             cancer >=1-in-1        (cases per year)    ------------------------           \2\
                                ------------------------         million        ------------------------                        ------------------------
        Risk assessment                                 ------------------------                          Based on    Based on
                                  Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on     actual     allowable      Based on  actual
                                   actual     allowable    actual     allowable    actual     allowable   emissions   emissions         emissions
                                  emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category................           7          10       2,100       4,200      0.0004      0.0008         0.2         0.3  HQREL = 2
Whole Facility.................           7  ..........       2,200  ..........      0.0005  ..........         0.1  ..........  .......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQ values for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system.
\2\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values (HQREL = hazard
  quotient recommended exposure level).

    The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling using actual
emissions data, as shown in Table 4 of this preamble, indicate that the
maximum individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime)
could be up to 7-in-1 million (driven by ethyl benzene), the maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions could be up to
0.2, and the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-facility
site) could be up to 2 (driven by glycol ethers). At proposal, the
total annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities based on
actual emission levels was estimated to be 0.0004 excess cancer cases
per year, or one case in every 2,500 years.
    The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling using
allowable emissions data, as shown in Table 4 of this preamble,
indicate that the maximum individual cancer risk based on allowable
emissions (lifetime) could be up to 10-in-1 million (driven by ethyl
benzene), the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on allowable
emissions could be up to 0.3. At proposal, the total annual cancer
incidence (national) from these facilities based on allowable emission
levels was estimated to be 0.0008 excess cancer cases per year, or one
case in every 1,250 years.
    The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR was 7-in-1 million at
proposal, driven by ethyl benzene. Four facilities had a facility-wide
cancer MIR greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. At proposal, the
total cancer incidence from whole facility emissions was estimated to
be 0.0005 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every
2,000 years. Approximately 2,200 people were estimated to have cancer
risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT
and non-MACT sources at the 16 facilities in this source category. The
maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category was estimated to be
0.1.
    There are no PB-HAP emitted by facilities in this source category.
Therefore, we did not estimate any human health multi-pathway risks
from this source category. Environmental HAP are not emitted by sources
within this source category; therefore, we do not expect an adverse
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source
category.
    We weighed all health risk factors, including those shown in Table
4 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability determination, and
proposed that the residual risks from the Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture source category are acceptable (section IV.C.2.a of proposal
preamble, 83 FR 46301, September 12, 2018).
    We then considered whether 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevents, taking
into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors,
an adverse environmental effect. In considering whether the standards
should be tightened to provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health, we considered the same risk factors that we considered
for our acceptability determination and also considered the costs,
technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to
emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with
emissions from the source category.
    As discussed in detail in section III.B of this preamble, the only
development identified in the technology review was the use of high-
efficiency spray equipment. We estimated no changes in costs or
emissions reductions would occur due to switching to high-efficiency
application methods for this source category because we expected that
metal furniture surface coating facilities were already using high-
efficiency coating application methods due to state VOC rules and the
economic incentives of using these more efficient application methods.
Because quantifiable reductions in risk are unlikely, we proposed that
additional emissions controls for this source category were not
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety (section IV.C.2.b. of
proposal preamble, 83 FR 46302, September 12, 2018).
2. How did the risk review change?
    We have not changed any aspect of the risk assessment since the
September 2018 proposal for any of the three source categories.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk reviews, and what are
our responses?
    We received comments in support of and against the proposed
residual risk review and our determination that no revisions were
warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2) for all three source categories.
Generally, the comments that were not supportive of the determination
from the risk reviews suggested changes to the underlying risk
assessment methodology. For example, some commenters stated that the
EPA should lower the acceptability benchmark so that risks below 100-
in-1 million are unacceptable, include emissions outside of the source
categories in question in the risk assessment, and assume that
pollutants with noncancer health risks have no safe level of exposure.
After review of all the comments received, we determined that no
changes were necessary. The comments and our specific responses can be
found in the document, ``Summary of Public Comments and Responses for
the Risk and Technology Reviews for Surface Coating of Large
Appliances; Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles; and Surface Coating of Metal Furniture,'' available in the
dockets for these actions (Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0669, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670).

4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk reviews?
    As noted in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting approach, with an
analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers
all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and
includes a presumptive limit on MIR of ``approximately 1-in-10
thousand'' (see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). We weigh all health
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the
cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum cancer TOSHI, the maximum
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and the risk
estimation uncertainties.
    Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse
environmental effects have changed. For the reasons explained in the
proposed rule, we determined that the risks from each of these three
source categories are acceptable, and the current standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Therefore, we are not revising any of these three
subparts to require additional controls pursuant to CAA section
112(f)(2) based on the residual risk review, and we are readopting the
existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2).

B. Technology Reviews

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6)?
    The Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP and the Surface
Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP do not contain any standards
specifying the type of spray application equipment that must be used
when coatings are spray applied. Sources subject to the Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabric and Other Textiles NESHAP do not spray
apply coatings. However, many facilities complying with these NESHAP
also are required by state VOC regulations to use high-efficiency spray
guns for coatings that are spray applied. We expected that other large
appliance surface coating and metal furniture surface coating
facilities in other states are also using high-efficiency application
equipment for spray-applied coatings to reduce coating and spray booth
filter consumption and to reduce the amount of solid waste generated in
the form of used spray booth filters. Although we expected that
switching to high-efficiency spray application equipment would have
lower costs at facilities not already using it, we are uncertain of
other factors that facilities may need to consider if choosing to
switch to high-efficiency application equipment.
    Based on these findings, we proposed to revise the Surface Coating
of Large Appliances NESHAP and the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
NESHAP for coating application operations pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6) to require that, for each coating operation for which
coatings are spray applied, high-efficiency spray equipment must be
used if the source is not using the emission rate with add-on control
compliance option. Specifically, all spray-applied coating operations,
where the source is not using the emission rate with add-on control
compliance option, would have been required to achieve transfer
efficiency equivalent to or better than 65 percent. At proposal four
types of high-efficiency spray equipment technologies were identified
that the EPA believed could achieve transfer efficiency equivalent to
or better than 65 percent, including high volume, low pressure (HVLP)
spray equipment; electrostatic application; airless spray equipment;
and air-assisted airless spray equipment. Alternative spray equipment
technologies would have had to provide documentation demonstrating at
least 65-percent transfer efficiency. Spray application equipment
sources using alternative spray application equipment technologies
other than the four listed would have had to follow procedures in the
California South Coast Air Quality Management District's, ``Spray
Equipment Transfer Efficiency Test Procedure for Equipment User, May
24, 1989,'' to demonstrate that their spray application equipment is
capable of achieving transfer efficiency equivalent to, or better than,
65 percent. Equivalency documentation would have been certified by
manufacturers of the spray equipment, on behalf of facilities using
spray-applied coatings, by following the aforementioned procedure in
conjunction with California South Coast Air Quality Management
District's, ``Guidelines for Demonstrating Equivalency with District
Approved Transfer Efficient Spray Guns, September 26, 2002.'' We
proposed that all spray equipment used for spray-applied coating
operations be required to be operated according to company procedures,
local specified operating procedures, or the manufacturer's
specifications, whichever achieved 65-percent transfer efficiency.
Further, we proposed related definitions for ``airless and air-assisted
airless spray,'' ``electrostatic application,'' ``high-volume, low-
pressure (HVLP) spray equipment,'' ``spray-applied coating
operations,'' ``and transfer efficiency.''
    For the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles
source category, we identified one potential development in technology:
A process change that eliminated the use of ethylene oxide at one
facility. In our residual risk analysis for this source category, we
estimated the maximum facility-wide cancer MIR to be 9-in-1 million,
driven by ethylene oxide emissions from fabric finishing at one
facility. During a site visit to the facility that reported ethylene
oxide emissions in the National Emission Inventory, we learned that the
ethylene oxide emissions were overstated by the facility. The facility
confirmed that it no longer uses the ethylene oxide-containing material
due to cost. We noted this was the only facility that reported ethylene
oxide emissions, and we concluded that ethylene oxide-containing
materials are no longer used in the industry, based on our information.
We solicited comment on whether the Agency should ban the use of
ethylene oxide in this source category under the technology review.
    We also solicited comment on the relationship between the CAA
section 112(d)(6) technology review and the CAA section 112(f) risk
review. We solicited comment on whether revisions to the NESHAP are
``necessary,'' as the term is used in CAA section 112(d)(6), in
situations where the EPA has determined that CAA section 112(d)
standards evaluated pursuant to CAA section 112(f) provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse
environmental effect. In other words, we solicited comment on whether
it is ``necessary'' to revise the standards based on developments in
technologies, practices, or processes under CAA section 112(d)(6) if
remaining risks associated with air emissions from a source category
have already been reduced to levels that provide an ample margin of
safety under CAA section 112(f). See CAA section 112(d)(6) (``The
Administrator shall review, and revise as necessary . . .''). We also
solicited comment on whether further revisions under CAA section
112(d)(6) would be necessary if the CAA section 112(f) ample margin of
safety analysis shows lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual
most exposed to emissions from a source in the category is less than 1-
in-1 million or if other, either higher

or lower, cancer risk levels would be appropriate to consider if they
assured an ample margin of safety.
2. How did the technology review change?
    We are not finalizing the proposal to require the use of high-
efficiency application equipment for spray-applied coatings in the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP and the Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture NESHAP.
    We solicited comment on the potential process change that
eliminated the use of ethylene oxide at one facility, but did not
propose this requirement for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of
Fabrics and Other Textiles source category. Based on the comments we
received, we are making no changes as a result of the technology review
to the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles
NESHAP.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology reviews, and what
are our responses?
    Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's proposal to require
Large Appliances and Metal Furniture facilities to use high-efficiency
spray equipment as a technology development under CAA section
112(d)(6). However, the commenter disagreed with the EPA's conclusion
that all or most sources are likely using high-efficiency spray
equipment. They argued that the EPA provided no evidence there would be
no emission reduction, and argued that the proposed requirement would
prevent emission increases in the future if economic incentives or
state rules currently encouraging the use of high-efficiency spray
equipment change.
    Another commenter objected to the proposed language that all
``spray application equipment must be operated according to company
procedures, local specified operating procedures, and/or the
manufacturer's specifications, whichever is most stringent, at all
times.'' The commenter argued that it was unclear how facilities would
ensure the equipment is operated according to the more stringent
approach so as to avoid having a potential permit deviation/violation
even though they may still be complying with the underlying numerical
emission standard.
    Response: The EPA has determined not to finalize the proposed
requirement for all sources to use high-efficiency spray application
technology that has a transfer efficiency of at least 65 percent
because we believe our assumptions at proposal may not be appropriate
for all coating-related processes in the metal furniture and large
appliances source categories. We do not have sufficient data at this
time to determine if the high-efficiency spray application technology
requirement is reasonable from a technological perspective.
    At proposal, a critical assumption we made was that the four high-
efficiency spray equipment technologies required in the proposed
rulemaking (HVLP, electrostatic application, airless and air assisted
airless spray equipment) would achieve at least 65-percent transfer
efficiency when used by all facilities in the Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture and Surface Coating of Large Appliances source categories.
New information, however, leads us to conclude that the transfer
efficiency of the proposed high-efficiency spray application
technologies may be less than 65 percent, as it is dependent on
parameters such as part size, part shape, distance of the spray gun
from the parts, atomizing air pressure, fluid pressure, painting
technique, type of coating, viscosity of the coating, and more.
Generally, the smaller and narrower the part being coated, the lower
the transfer efficiency. Conversely, the larger and wider the part
being painted, the higher the transfer efficiency. Therefore, transfer
efficiency varies greatly source category-by-source category. In both
the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture and Surface Coating of Large
Appliances source categories, parts are of various shapes and sizes;
therefore, transfer efficiency using high-efficiency spray application
technologies could be lower than the 65-percent transfer efficiency
requirement in the proposed rule, depending on the size and shape of
the parts being coated.
    Additionally, we did not receive any data that would allow us to
determine the actual average transfer efficiency of the spray
application technologies we identified in the proposed rule. In light
of this uncertainty, we conclude it would be difficult, if not
impossible, to determine at this time the appropriate high-efficiency
spray application technologies or transfer efficiency to require.
Absent more data and information, we are not able to adequately
estimate the technical feasibility of the proposed 65-percent transfer
efficiency requirement for the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture and
Surface Coating of Large Appliances source categories.
    The situation for the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture and
Surface Coating of Large Appliances source categories is different from
other rules where we have required use of high-efficiency spray
application. For example, the high-efficiency spray application
requirements in the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Operations
NESHAP were based on available data that allowed us to estimate the
technological feasibility of the requirements. Absent similar data for
the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture and Surface Coating of Large
Appliances source categories, we believe it is not reasonable to
require the use of the high-efficiency spray application technologies
proposed pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) at this time. The EPA, in
the future, may be able to determine the technological capabilities of
high-efficiency spray application equipment for the Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture and Surface Coating of Large Appliances source
categories and revisit the need to require such spray application
equipment when we have sufficient data and information.
    Finally, as noted in the proposed rule, we believe that most, if
not all, sources in the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture and Surface
Coating of Large Appliances source categories are already using the
types of spray application technologies in the proposed rule pursuant
to state requirements. We believe that sources will continue to use
these technologies, even if it is not required in this final rule,
because of the lower coating consumption and waste disposal costs.
Nothing in the record supports the comments that states may remove
these existing spray application technology requirements from current
regulations. We do not expect sources to change from high-efficiency
spray technology to lower-efficiency spray equipment, even if state
requirements changed, unless there was a specific application that did
not work with high-efficiency spray technology. In those cases, the
limits on the HAP content of coatings would still apply. We do not
think it is reasonable to assume sources would choose higher the
coating and waste disposal costs associated with non-high-efficiency
spray technology and incur the costs to switch back to non-high-
efficiency spray technology, even if state requirements were removed.
    For all these reasons, we are not finalizing the proposed
requirement for sources in the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture and
Surface Coating of Large Appliances source categories to use high-
efficiency spray application equipment.
    Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA should revise the
Coating, Printing, and Dyeing of Fabric and Other Textiles NESHAP to
ban the use of ethylene oxide. The commenter argued that failing to ban
the use of ethylene oxide would allow facilities to

begin using and emitting this chemical in the future.
    Two commenters argued that they saw no justification or rationale
to support a ban on the use of ethylene oxide in the Printing, Coating,
and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category because the
decision by one company to stop using materials containing ethylene
oxide based on cost did not represent a development in new control
technologies, processes, or practices that could be deemed applicable
and achievable by the rest of the source category. One of the
commenters argued that, unlike technology changes where efficiency
gains, emissions reductions, and similar advances are not easily
reversed, market forces frequently change the business justification
for and against using particular products.
    The two commenters argued that the record reflects only a decision
by one company based on a set of factors that may be applicable to only
that one company and does not provide the statement of basis and
purpose required by CAA section 307(d)(3). The commenters argued that
additional information and data would be needed on potential costs and
emissions reductions and stated that the EPA has not shown whether
similar reductions are achievable across the source category. They
argued that this information would need to be available for public
review and comment. Otherwise, the EPA's proposal would be arbitrary
and capricious.
    Response: We received no additional information from other
facilities in the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabric and Other
Textiles source category on whether they use materials containing
ethylene oxide. In addition, we cannot determine whether one facility's
decision to stop using the material containing ethylene oxide as a cost
savings measure demonstrates that all applications of ethylene oxide
should be foreclosed as a development in technology. If sources in this
category were to later determine that materials with ethylene oxide are
necessary for a particular application, the sources would still be
required to comply with the NESHAP limits on the HAP content of
materials or HAP emissions for sources using add-on controls.
Therefore, total HAP emissions are unlikely to increase even if sources
were to start using ethylene oxide containing materials. Under these
circumstances, we have determined it is not reasonable to conclude that
ethylene oxide containing coatings should be prohibited for use by all
sources in the category as an advancement in technology. Finally, we
cannot determine whether finalizing a ban on the use of materials
containing ethylene oxide would reduce HAP from the source category or
otherwise achieve any environmental or risk reduction benefits. For
these reasons, we are not finalizing a ban on the use of materials
containing ethylene oxide.
    Comment: We received several substantive and extensive comments in
response to our request for comments on the relationship between the
technology review conducted under CAA section 112(d)(6) and the risk
analysis under CAA section 112(f)(2) and whether it is necessary for
the EPA to amend rules based on CAA section 112(d) to reflect the
results of the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review if the results
of the risk analysis under CAA section 112(f)(2) show that the current
rule provides an ample margin of safety and no adverse environmental
effect. One commenter argued that the EPA must complete the technology
review and propose standards based on the findings of that review,
regardless of the results of the risk analysis. Other commenters argued
that the results of the risk analysis should be considered in the
``necessity'' determination that should be completed in the process of
deciding whether to amend a subpart as a result of the technology
review.
    Response: The EPA is not taking final action on the proposed
interpretation discussed in this comment. Instead, the EPA has
determined for the reasons described in this notice not to implement
the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subparts NNNN, OOOO, or RRRR
based on our technology review. As we are not relying on the proposed
interpretation in our final action, we are not addressing the comments
we received regarding the relationship between the technology review
conducted under CAA section 112(d)(6) and the risk analysis under CAA
section 112(f)(2).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
reviews?
    As noted above, we are not finalizing the proposed requirement to
use high-efficiency spray application equipment with a 65-percent or
better transfer efficiency. We received no information in response to
our request for comment on whether any facilities in this source
category do not currently use high-efficiency spray application
methods, so it is unclear whether the proposed requirement is
achievable for all sources in the category. We also received
information indicating that the four types of high-efficiency spray
application equipment described in our proposed rule do not always
achieve the 65-percent transfer efficiency that we proposed to require
for high-efficiency spray equipment.
    We are not including in the final rule amendments for the Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP any
requirements to ban the use of ethylene oxide in this source category.
We received no additional information from other facilities on whether
they use materials containing ethylene oxide, so we cannot determine
whether a ban would achieve any environmental or risk reduction
benefits.

C. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations

1. What did we propose?
    The EPA requested comment for all three source categories on
whether additional performance testing should be required for any
source using the add-on control option based on information from
pollution control manufacturers indicating that periodic performance
tests are necessary to ensure HAP removal efficiency for the controls
is maintained over time. See Proposed Rule, 83 FR 46289. We
specifically requested comment on whether we should require performance
testing for a source that is planning to undertake an operational
change that may adversely affect compliance with an applicable
standard, operating limit, or parametric monitoring value. Any such
requirement would have included provisions to allow a source to make
the change, but it would have limited the change to a specific time
before a test is required. We anticipated that a reasonable time limit
under the new operations change would be approximately 30 days to allow
adequate time for testing and developing a test report. The source
would submit temperature and flow rate data during the test to
establish new operating parameters, including the time a source would
be allowed to operate under the new parameters before the test is
performed, and what would constitute an operational change requiring
testing.
    This approach on which we requested comment could have also allowed
an exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to
continuously measure actual emissions, such as continuous emission
monitoring systems (CEMS). Use of CEMS to demonstrate compliance would
obviate the need for periodic oxidizer testing.

2. What changed since proposal?
    In the final rule amendments for each subpart, the EPA is requiring
performance testing of control devices at least every 5 years for
facilities complying with the emission rate with add-on controls
compliance option. The EPA solicited comment on the need for additional
performance testing in the proposed rule (see sections IV.A.4.d,
IV.B.4.d, and IV.C.4.d of the Surface Coating of Large Appliances;
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture Residual Risk and Technology
Reviews, 83 FR 46289, 46299, and 46309, September 12, 2018).
3. What key comments did we receive and what are our responses?
    Comment: One commenter did not support the requirement to complete
additional add-on control performance testing after operational changes
that may adversely affect compliance because the EPA did not define the
operational changes that would trigger the need for performance
testing. The commenter argued that the EPA did not define the
anticipated costs, burdens, and benefits associated with this testing.
The commenter also argued that the suggested 30-day period for testing
and development of a test report is too short. The commenter
recommended a period of at least 180 days to allow time to hire a
testing contractor, to achieve stable (representative) operating
conditions before the test, and to allow time for the contractor to
prepare the report.
    Another commenter supported the testing requirement after a process
change that could affect compliance with an emission limit and noted
that it was a common feature of MACT rules. The commenter suggested
that examples of a process change could include venting additional
equipment to the control device, an increase in line speeds, an
increase in coating materials used, or use of new coating materials.
However, the commenter also suggested that the 30-day timeframe to
perform a test after a process change does not seem adequate to allow a
facility time to schedule an outside contractor to perform the required
testing, test report preparation, review by responsible official, and
submission of results. The commenter recommended a 60-day or 90-day
timeframe as more appropriate.
    Response: The EPA is not finalizing a requirement to require add-on
control performance testing after operational changes that may
adversely affect compliance. The EPA acknowledges the difficultly in
defining operational changes for each source category that would
trigger the need for performance testing, as the EPA proposed. However,
as described in the preamble to the proposed rules, the EPA recognizes
the need for periodic performance testing after the initial performance
test to measure the organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency of
the add-on control device, or to measure the control device outlet
concentration of organic HAP. As stated in the proposed rule, pollution
control manufacturers maintain that additional performance testing is
needed to ensure the control devices are operating properly. Continuous
compliance with the standards when a facility is using the emission
rate with add-on control or the control device outlet concentration
compliance options that are included in each of these three subparts
depends on the proper functioning of the control device.
    Periodic performance tests require the measurement of the control
devices' actual destruction efficiency or the actual outlet
concentration of organic HAP, depending on the compliance option
chosen, in order to reaffirm or reestablish the control devices'
operating limits. Periodic performance tests help identify potential
degradation of the add-on control device over time and ensure the
control device remains effective, reducing the potential for acute
emissions episodes or non-compliance. As stated in the proposed rule,
many facilities using add-on controls to demonstrate compliance with
the NESHAP emission limits are currently required to conduct
performance tests as a condition for renewing their title V operating
permit, which is required every 5 years. Also, specifying a specific
performance test interval addresses the uncertainty of when tests would
be required was raised by the commenters.
    Therefore, the EPA is including in the final rule for each subpart
a requirement that each facility using the emission rate with add-on
control compliance option or the control device outlet concentration
compliance option must complete a performance test of the add-on
control device no less frequently than every 5 years. This approach
will balance the need to ensure ongoing compliance against providing
objective criteria for when performance testing must be completed.
    The periodic testing requirement is being added to each subpart but
is not estimated to impose any costs on the Surface Coating of Large
Appliances or Surface Coating of Metal Furniture sources categories. No
facilities in the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category
are known to be using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance
option. One facility in the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source
category is using the emission rate with the add-on controls compliance
option, but already is required to conduct performance testing every 5
years as a condition of renewing their title V operating permit. In the
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source
category, we have identified 13 facilities using 18 control devices
that are not currently required to perform testing as a condition of
renewing their title V operating permits. We estimate that performance
testing will cost approximately $19,000 per control device once every 5
years. The annualized cost will be about $4,400 per control device.
    One environmental benefit of periodic performance testing is
expected to be in the form of reduced excess emissions from sources
using add-on controls, even though facilities are required to be in
compliance at all times, and the overall costs and benefits of a NESHAP
are calculated based on the assumption that facilities are in
compliance. However, this benefit cannot be quantified because our data
are not sufficient to estimate the frequency of sources using add-on
control devices failing to meet the emission standards, and the
magnitude of the excess emissions. If, for example, the standard has a
requirement for 98-percent control (e.g., for new or reconstructed
coating and printing affected sources under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
OOOO), and the device is achieving only 96-percent, emissions are twice
what they would be if the device was meeting the standard. This
potential for significant increases in HAP from poor performing
controls further supports the requirement to conduct periodic testing
every 5 years.
4. What is the rational for our final approach?
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rules (83
FR 46262, September 12, 2018) and in the comment responses above in
section IV.C.3 of this preamble, we are finalizing requirements in each
of these three subparts to require add-on control performance testing
no less frequently than once every 5 years.

D. Work Practice During Periods of Malfunction

1. What did we propose?
    The EPA requested comment on the need to establish a standard
during periods of malfunction of a control device or a capture system
that is used to meet the emission limits for the

Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source
category and asked for specific information to support such a standard.
We solicited information from industry on best practices and the best
level of emission control during malfunction events for the Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category. We
solicited information on the potential cost savings associated with
these practices. We solicited specific supporting data on organic HAP
emissions during malfunction events for this category, including the
cause of malfunction, the frequency of malfunction, duration of
malfunction, and the estimate of organic HAP emitted during each
malfunction. We also asked specifically for comment on the use of CEMS
by facilities in this source category as a method to better quantify
organic HAP emissions during malfunctions and normal operation. We also
requested comment on two alternative work practices: (1) During a
malfunction, the facility must discontinue the coating operation, but
can continue the oven curing of any coating materials already applied
onto the web without the control device for the period of the
malfunction so long as it continues to meet the emission limits for the
current compliance period; or (2) during a malfunction, the facility
could initiate repairs immediately and complete them as expeditiously
as possible, without ceasing operations, until it becomes apparent that
the repairs will not be completed before exceeding the 12-month rolling
average compliance limit. Neither alternative provided an opportunity
to exceed the emissions limit. (See section IV.B.4.b of the Surface
Coating of Large Appliances; Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles; and Surface Coating of Metal Furniture Residual
Risk and Technology Reviews, 83 FR 46295, September 12, 2018).
2. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA is not providing a work practice standard for periods of
malfunction of a control device or a capture system for the Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category in
the final rule amendments.
3. What key comments did we receive and what are our responses?
    Comment: One commenter supported the work practice standard that
would apply during malfunctions of any control device or capture system
used by a web coating line, described as alternative 1 in the proposal
preamble, and requested that the EPA develop a malfunction alternative
that balances the generation of waste (from inadequate drying; cured
coatings in lines and guns; and generation of waste coatings) and/or
worker safety with exceeding emission limits. However, the commenter
did not provide any supporting data or information in response to the
EPA's specific solicitation in the proposal preamble.
    Another commenter did not support a work practice standard and
noted that it was unlawful to add a malfunction exemption or set a so-
called malfunction-based standard for any source category, including
the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source
category, because, among other arguments, emission standards must be
``continuous.'' A complete summary of the comments received on the
EPA's proposal is included in the docket for this rulemaking.
    Response: The EPA is not finalizing a separate standard for periods
of malfunction, although the EPA may establish a standard for periods
of malfunction if the available information supports a separate
standard in the future. In this case, we requested comment and
information to support the development of a work practice standard
during periods of malfunction, but we did not receive sufficient
information, including additional quantitative emissions data, on which
to base a standard for periods of malfunction. Absent sufficient
information, it is not reasonable at this time to establish a work
practice standard for this source category. We will continue to review
this issue to determine if any new data become available in the future.
4. What is the rational for our final approach?
    We are not finalizing a separate standard for periods of
malfunction for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles source category, because we did not receive sufficient
information on which to base a standard for periods of malfunction.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

    We estimate that the 10 major sources subject to the Surface
Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP, the 43 major sources subject to the
Printing, Coating and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP, and
the 16 major sources subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
NESHAP are operating in the United States and will be affected by these
final rules.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    We are not establishing new emission limits and are not requiring
additional controls; therefore, no air quality impacts are expected as
a result of the final amendments to the rule. Requiring periodic
performance testing has the potential to reduce excess emissions from
sources using poorly performing add-on controls, even though facilities
are required to be in compliance at all times.
    The final amendments will have no effect on the energy needs of the
affected facilities in any of the three source categories, and would,
therefore, have no indirect or secondary air emissions impacts.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We estimate that each facility in the three source categories will
experience costs as a result of these final amendments for reporting.
Specifically, each facility will experience costs to read and
understand the rule amendments. Costs associated with elimination of
the SSM exemption were estimated as part of the reporting and
recordkeeping costs and include time for re-evaluating previously
developed SSM record systems. Costs associated with the requirement to
electronically submit notifications and semi-annual compliance reports
using CEDRI were estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping
costs and include time for becoming familiar with CEDRI and the
reporting template for semi-annual compliance reports. The
recordkeeping and reporting costs are presented in section VI.C of this
preamble.
    We estimate that in the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles source category, 13 facilities using 18 control
devices may be affected by the final rule requirements to conduct
control device performance testing no less frequently than every 5
years. It is also assumed that 5 percent of the tests will need to be
repeated, so that 19 total performance tests will be required. The
total annualized cost will be about $4,400 per control device, with
additional tests of control devices at the same facility costing 25
percent less due to reduced travel costs. The total annualized cost is
approximately $77,000 per year for the source category, including
retests, with an additional $3,300 in reporting costs per test in the
year in which the test occurs.
    We estimate that no facilities in the Surface Coating of Large
Appliances source category nor in the Surface

Coating of Metal Furniture source category will be affected by the
final rule requirements to conduct control device performance testing
no less frequently than every 5 years. Only one facility in those two
categories is currently using add-on controls to comply, and it is
already required to conduct performance tests as a condition of their
operating permit.
    For further information on the potential costs, see the memoranda
titled Estimated Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR Part 63 Subparts NNNN,
OOOO and RRRR Monitoring Reviews, February 2018, in the Surface Coating
of Large Appliances Docket, Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles Docket, and Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
Docket.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    For the final revisions to the NESHAP for the Surface Coating of
Large Appliances, the total cost in 2019 is estimated to be $23,000 (in
2016 dollars) for the 10 affected entities and is expected to range
from 0.000002 to 0.02 percent of annual sales revenue per affected
entity. These costs are not expected to result in a significant market
impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or
absorbed by the firms.
    For the final revisions to the NESHAP for the Printing, Coating,
and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles, the total cost in 2019 is
estimated to be $90,000 (in 2016 dollars) for the 43 affected entities.
Thirteen facilities will also incur performance testing and additional
reporting costs, which we assume will occur in 2021. The annualized
cost of each performance test is approximately $4,400, with additional
tests of control devices at the same facility costing 25 percent less
due to reduced travel costs. The reporting cost for each test is
approximately $3,100. The 2018 equivalent annualized value of the
present value of the costs (in 2016 dollars) for the analysis period
(2019-2025) is estimated to be approximately $72,000 annually when
assuming a 3-percent discount rate and $75,000 annually when assuming a
7-percent discount rate. The estimated maximum cost faced by affected
entities is expected to range from 0.00002 to 0.42 percent of annual
sales revenue per ultimate owner of affected entities. These costs are
not expected to result in a significant market impact, regardless of
whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
    For the final revisions to the NESHAP for the Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture, the total cost in 2019 is estimated to be $32,000 (in
2016 dollars) for the 16 affected entities and is expected to range
from 0.00007 to 0.02 percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner
of affected entities. These costs are not expected to result in a
significant market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to
the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.

E. What are the benefits?

    As stated in section V.B. of the September 12, 2018, RTR proposal
(83 FR 46311), we were unable to quantify the specific emissions
reductions associated with eliminating the SSM exemption. We also are
unable to quantify potential environmental benefits as a result of
adding the requirement to conduct periodic add-on control device
performance tests (e.g., reduced emissions of organic HAP during
periods of non-compliance). However, any reduction in HAP emissions
would be expected to provide health benefits in the form of improved
air quality and less exposure to potentially harmful chemicals.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice 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 environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km)
and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the
distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from each source
category across different demographic groups within the populations
living near facilities.
1. Surface Coating of Large Appliances
    The results of the demographic analysis for the Surface Coating of
Large Appliances source category indicate that, for two of the 11
demographic groups, ``African American'' and ``Below the Poverty
Level,'' the percentage of the population living within 5 kilometers
(km) of facilities in the source category is greater than the
corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups. When
examining the risk levels of those exposed to emissions from large
appliance coating facilities, we find that no one is exposed to a
cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer hazard
index (HI) greater than 1 based on actual emissions from the source
category.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report titled Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface
Coating of Large Appliances Source Category Operations in the Surface
Coating of Large Appliances Docket.
2. Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles
    The results of the demographic analysis for the Printing, Coating,
and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category are summarized
in Table 5 of this preamble. These results, for various demographic
groups, are based on the estimated risks from actual emissions levels
for the population living within 50 km of the facilities.

 Table 5--Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis
                                                     Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Population
                                                                                with cancer     Population
                                                                                risk at or     with chronic
                                                                                above 1-in-1    noncancer HI
                                                                                million due to  Above 1 due to
                                                                    Nationwide       printing,       printing,
                                                                                coating, and    coating, and
                                                                                dyeing of       dyeing of
                                                                                fabrics and     fabrics and
                                                                                other           other
                                                                                textiles        textiles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................     317,746,049           8,500               0