Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP
where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which
is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents compliance
with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by
this rule.
b. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Requirements
1. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
    The EPA is proposing to eliminate the SSM exemption in the
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP. The
EPA's proposed rationale for the elimination of the SSM exemption for
the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source
category is the same as for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances
source category, which is discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this
preamble. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 3 to subpart
OOOO of 40 CFR part 63 (Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart
OOOO, hereafter referred to as the ``General Provisions table to
subpart OOOO'') as is explained in more detail below in section
IV.B.4.b.2 of this preamble. For example, we are proposing to eliminate
the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that the
source develop an SSM plan. We are also proposing to delete 40 CFR
63.4342(h), which specifies that deviations during SSM periods are not
violations. Further, we are proposing to eliminate and revise certain
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption
as further described below. The EPA has attempted to ensure that the
provisions we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate,
unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are
specifically seeking comment on the specific proposed deletions and
revisions and also whether additional provisions should be revised to
achieve the stated goal.
    In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for the same reasons explained in
section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the Surface Coating of Large
Appliances source category, has not proposed alternate standards for
those periods in the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles NESHAP. Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set
standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where
feasible, as further discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble
for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category. It is
unlikely that a malfunction of sources in the Printing, Coating, and
Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category would result in a
violation of the standards for those facilities using the compliant
material or the emission rate without add-on controls option, since
they meet the emission limits without using add-on controls. It also is
unlikely that facilities using the add-on control option to meet the
emission limits would experience a malfunction that would result in a
violation, since compliance with the surface coating emission limits is
based on a rolling 12-month compliance period. However, it is not
inevitable that a malfunction would result in a violation of the
standards for those facilities using add-on controls; therefore, we are
considering the need for a work practice for periods of malfunction for
these facilities. In fact, the EPA has received information that it is
possible that a control device malfunction for sources in the Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category could
potentially result in an emissions increase and potential violation of
the emissions limit. During these periods, it is possible that 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 wastes. In those cases, it may be appropriate
to establish a standard for malfunctions. Given the fact that emissions
testing during malfunctions is both economically and technically
infeasible, we would anticipate that a separate standard would be in
the form of a work practice standard. We are, therefore, soliciting
information on industry 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 are also soliciting
information on the cost savings associated with these practices. In
addition, we are soliciting 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 are asking 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.
    In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and
rectify excess emissions. Refer to section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble
for further discussion of the EPA's actions in response to a source
failing to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a
result of a malfunction

event for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category,
which applies to this source category.
2. Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
a. 40 CFR 63.4300(b) General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
OOOO (table 3) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general
duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no
longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM
exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text
at 40 CFR 63.4300(b) that reflects the general duty to minimize
emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM
exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes
what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the
elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate
between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events
in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is
proposing for 40 CFR 63.4300(b) does not include that language from 40
CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to
subpart OOOO (table 3) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being
added at 40 CFR 63.4300(b).
b. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
OOOO (table 3) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require development
of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to remove from 40 CFR
part 63, subpart OOOO, the current provisions requiring the SSM plan in
40 CFR 63.4300(c) and requiring reporting related to the SSM plan in 40
CFR 63.4310(c)(9)(iv). As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM
exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission
standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during
such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for
and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no
longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
OOOO (table 3) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts
sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed
above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in
this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112
standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is
proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
    We are also proposing to remove rule text in 40 CFR 63.4341(e)(4)
and (f)(4) and 40 CFR 63.4351(d)(4) clarifying that, in calculating
emissions to demonstrate compliance, deviation periods must include
deviations during an SSM period. Since the EPA is removing the SSM
exemption, this clarifying text is no longer needed.
d. 40 CFR 63.4360 Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
OOOO (table 3) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing
requirement at 40 CFR 63.4360. The performance testing requirements we
are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance
testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not
include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM
exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from
being considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance
testing. Also, the proposed performance testing provisions will not
allow performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not
be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions
are often not representative of normal operating conditions. Section
63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator maintain records of the
process information necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such records an explanation to support that
such conditions represent normal operation. The EPA is proposing to add
language clarifying that the owner or operator must make such records
available to the Administrator upon request.
e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
OOOO (table 3) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general
duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary
in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air
pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the
requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40
CFR 63.8(d)). Further, we are proposing to revise the General
Provisions table to subpart NNNN (table 3) entry for 40 CFR
63.8(c)(1)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' We have
determined that 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) is redundant to the current
monitoring requirement in 40 CFR 63.4364(a)(6) (i.e., ``maintain the
monitoring system in proper working order including, but not limited
to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring
equipment''), except 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) requires that necessary
parts be ``readily'' available. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR
63.4967(a)(4) to replace ``maintaining'' with specify ``keeping readily
available.''
f. 40 CFR 63.4312 Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
OOOO (table 3) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording
provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that
recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply
to startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions
applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown
plan, there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup
and shutdown periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
OOOO (table 3) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, requiring a record of
``the occurrence and duration of each malfunction.'' A similar record
is already required in 40 CFR 63.4312(i), which requires a record of
``the date, time, and duration of each deviation,''

which the EPA is retaining. The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.4312(i)
differs from the General Provisions in that the General Provisions
requires the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and
duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and
monitoring equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.4312(i) applies to any failure
to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record
the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the
``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.4312(i) a
requirement that sources also keep records that include a list of the
affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions,
an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over
the emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard,
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass
balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content
and application rates and control device efficiencies). We also propose
to revise 40 CFR 63.4312(i) to clarify that, if an owner or operator
uses the equivalent emission rate option to comply with this subpart,
the applicable information reported as currently required in 40 CFR
63.4311(a)(8)(ii) through (iv) satisfies the requirement to keep a
record of the estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant for
which the source failed to meet the standard and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions. The EPA proposes to require that
sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is
adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any
failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how
the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source
has failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
OOOO (table 3) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.4312(i)(5).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
OOOO (table 3) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions
taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
OOOO (table 3) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no
longer apply. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or
operator to use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to
satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40
CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10)
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
    We are proposing to remove the requirement in 40 CFR 63.4312(j)(1)
that deviation records specify whether deviations from a standard
occurred during a period of SSM. This revision is being proposed due to
the proposed removal of the SSM exemption and because, as discussed
above in this section, we are proposing that deviation records must
specify the cause of each deviation, which could include a malfunction
period as a cause. We are also proposing to remove the requirement to
report the SSM records in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) by
deleting 40 CFR 63.4312(j)(2).
g. 40 CFR 63.4311 Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
OOOO (table 3) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting
requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the
General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add
reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.4311. The replacement language
differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates
periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language
that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any
time to report the information concerning such events in the semi-
annual compliance report already required under this rule. Subpart OOOO
currently requires reporting of the date, time period, and cause of
each deviation. We are clarifying in the rule that, if the cause of a
deviation from a standard is unknown, this should be specified in the
report. We are also proposing to change ``date and time period'' or
``date and time'' to ``date, time, and duration'' (see proposed
revisions to 40 CFR 63.4311(a)(7)(vii), (a)(7)(ix), and (a)(7)(xiv)) to
use terminology consistent with the recordkeeping section. Further, we
are proposing that the report must also contain the number of
deviations from the standard and a list of the affected sources or
equipment. For deviation reports addressing deviations from an
applicable emission limit in Table 1 to subpart OOOO or operating limit
in Table 2 to subpart OOOO, we are proposing that the report also
include an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted
over any emission limit for which the source failed to meet the
standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions. For deviation reports addressing deviations from work
practice standards associated with the emission rate with add-on
controls option (see proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.4311(a)(7)(xiv)),
we are retaining the current requirement (including reporting actions
taken to correct the deviation), except that we are revising the rule
language to reference the new general duty requirement in 40 CFR
63.4200(b), we are clarifying that the description of the deviation
must include a list of the affected sources or equipment and the cause
of the deviation, we are clarifying that ``time period'' includes the
``time and duration,'' and we are requiring that the report include the
number of deviations from the work practice standards in the reporting
period.
    Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission
limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, examples of
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment
based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and
application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is
proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information
to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to

determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard,
and to provide data that may document how the source met the general
duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable
standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate 40 63.4311(c) that requires reporting of whether
the source deviated from its SSM plan, including required actions to
communicate with the Administrator, and the cross reference to 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required
SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These
specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be
reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and
submittal requirements.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
OOOO (table 3) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate
report for startups, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to
meet an applicable standard, but did not follow the SSM plan. We will
no longer require owners and operators to report when actions taken
during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an
SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.
    We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR
63.4311(a)(7)(ix) that deviation reports must specify whether a
deviation from an operating limit occurred during a period of SSM. We
are also proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR
63.4311(a)(7)(xi) to break down the total duration of deviations into
the startup and shutdown categories. As discussed above in this
section, we are proposing to require reporting of the cause of each
deviation. Further, the startup and shutdown categories no longer apply
because these periods are proposed to be considered normal operation,
as discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the Surface
Coating of Large Appliances source category, which also applies to this
source category.
c. Technical Amendments to the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles NESHAP
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.4331, Equation 7; 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 (ppmw) to 20
ppmv. The reference to ppmw was incorrect and inconsistent with the
rest of the NESHAP.
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.4362(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. Facilities using the emission rate
with add-on control compliance option can use either EPA Method 25 or
Method 25A to measure control device destruction efficiency. Unlike EPA
Method 25, Method 25A does not exclude methane from the measurement of
organic emissions. Because exhaust streams from coating operations may
contain methane from natural gas combustion, we are proposing to allow
facilities the option to measure methane using Method 18 and to
subtract the methane from the emissions as part of their compliance
calculations. We also propose to revise the format of references to
test methods in 40 CFR part 60. The current reference in 40 CFR
63.4362(a) and (b) to Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B,
4, 25, and 25A specify that each method is in ``appendix A'' of part
60. Appendix A of part 60 has been divided into appendices A-1 through
A-8. We propose to revise each reference to appendix A to indicate
which of the eight sections of appendix A applies to the method.
    EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.4321(e)(1)(i)(A) and
(e)(1)(iv), which describe how to demonstrate initial compliance with
the emission limitations using the compliant material option, to remove
reference to paragraph (d)(4) of OSHA's Hazard Communication standard,
which dealt with OSHA-defined carcinogens. EPA is proposing to replace
that reference with its own list of hazardous air pollutants that must
be regarded as potentially carcinogenic based on EPA guidelines.
Although paragraph (d)(4) of OSHA's standard was deleted when the
Agency adopted the Globally Harmonized System of Hazard Communication
in 2012, it was replaced by section A.6.4.2 of mandatory Appendix A of
that standard, which reads as follows:
    ``Where OSHA has included cancer as a health hazard to be
considered by classifiers for a chemical covered by 29 CFR part 1910,
subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous Substances, chemical manufacturers,
importers, and employers shall classify the chemical as a carcinogen.''
Thus, where OSHA has regulated workplace exposure to a chemical based,
at least in part, on carcinogenic risk, OSHA requires the chemical to
be classified as a carcinogen. OSHA suggests that EPA should refer to
section A.6.4.2 of Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.1200 in its discussion of
section 63.4141 and consider chemicals that meet this requirement be
considered ``OSHA-defined carcinogens.''
    We also propose to remove the same reference in the definition of
``No organic HAP'' in 40 CFR 63.4371. We propose to replace these
references to OSHA-defined carcinogens at 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a
list (in proposed new Table 6 to subpart OOOO) of those organic HAP
that must be included in calculating total organic HAP content of a
coating material if they are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass.
    We propose to include organic HAP in proposed Table 6 to subpart
OOOO 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),\30\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to revise the monitoring provisions for thermal and
catalytic oxidizers to clarify 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.
    Current 40 CFR 63.4931(a) allows records, ``where appropriate,'' to
be maintained as ``electronic spreadsheets'' or a ``data base.'' We
propose to add clarification to this provision that the allowance to
retain electronic records applies to all records that were submitted as
reports electronically via the EPA's CEDRI. We also propose to add text
to the same provision clarifying that this 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.
    We propose to revise 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). Section 40 CFR 63.4342(f) requires ``If there were
no deviations from the applicable emission limit in Table 1 to this
subpart,'' then the source (i.e., coating/printing or dyeing/finishing
operation) must submit a statement that the source is ``in compliance
with the emission limitations during the reporting period because the
organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period was less than or
equal to the applicable emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and
you achieved the operating limits required by Sec.  63.4292 and the
work practice standards required by Sec.  63.4293 during each
compliance period.'' We are proposing to revise the text; ``If there
were no deviations from the applicable emission limit in Table 1 to
this subpart,'' to read ``If there were no deviations from the
applicable emission limitations in Sec. Sec.  63.4290, 63.4292, and
63.4293.'' This revised text will be consistent 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 Table 1 to this subpart and Sec. Sec.  63.4292, and 63.4293.'' Note
that ``emission limitation'' is defined in 40 CFR 63.4371 to mean an
emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard.
    We propose to revise one instance in 40 CFR 63.4311(a)(7)(i)(B) and
one instance in 40 CFR 63.4311(a)(7)(ii)(B) that reference an equation
that is missing. Each of these provisions specifies that ``Equations 4,
4A, 5, and 7 of Sec.  63.4331'' must be used to calculate the organic
HAP emission rate for dyeing/finishing operations; however, Equation 6
of Sec.  63.4331 should also be used, together with Equations 4, 4A, 5,
and 7 of Sec.  63.4331. We propose to add ``6'' to the list of
equations cited in 40 CFR 63.4311(a)(7)(i)(B) and 63.4311(a)(7)(ii)(B),
so that the citation reads ``Equations 4, 4A, 5, 6, and 7 of Sec.
63.4331.'' We propose to revise one instance in 40 CFR 63.4340(b)(3) in
which an erroneous rule citation ``Sec.  63.4561'' is specified.
Section 63.4561 does not exist in 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, and 40
CFR 63.4341 is the correct citation, providing the calculations for
demonstrating initial compliance, referred to in association with the
erroneous rule citation. We propose to change the erroneous citation to
``Sec.  63.4341.'' We propose to revise one instance in Table 3 to
Subpart OOOO of Part 63 of an erroneous rule reference to ``sections
63.4342 and 63.4352.'' This rule citation is specified in the fourth
column of the table entry for ``Sec.  63.8(g)(1)-(5),'' as the source
for the requirements related to reducing monitoring data. Sections 40
CFR 63.4342 and 63.4352 do not provide requirements related to data
reduction; however, 40 CFR 63.4363 and 63.4364 do provide these
requirements and should be the correct citation. We propose to change
the erroneous citation to ``Sections 63.4363 and 63.4364.''
d. Requesting Comment on Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance
demonstration requirements in the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of
Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP. Currently, if a source owner or
operator chooses to comply with the standards using add-on controls,
the results of an initial performance test are used to determine
compliance; however, the rule does not require on-going periodic
performance testing for these emission capture systems and add-on
controls.
    As described more fully in section IV.A.4.d of this preamble for
the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category, the ICAC, in
their comments on proposed revisions to the NESHAP General Provisions
(72 FR 69, January 3, 2007), commented that ongoing maintenance and
checks of control devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions
control technology, including both thermal and catalytic oxidizers,
remains effective.\31\ These same comments apply to the Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094-0173, available at
www.regulations.gov. A copy of the ICAC's comments on the proposed
revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the Fabrics
and Other Textiles Docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given these comments from ICAC, suppliers of air pollution control
and monitoring technology, on the need for vigilance in maintaining
equipment to stem degradation, the EPA is requesting comment on what
steps, in addition to one-time initial emissions and capture efficiency
testing, along with ongoing temperature measurement, might better
ensure ongoing compliance with the standards.
    EPA specifically requests comment on whether air performance
testing should be required anytime a source plans to undertake an
operational change that may adversely affect compliance with an
applicable standard, operating limit, or parametric monitoring value.
This requirement would include provisions to allow a source to make the
change, but limit the change to a specific time before a test is
required. We anticipate 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. We are specifically requesting comment on this
potential provision, including the time a source is allowed to operate
under the new parameters before they test, and what would constitute an
operational change requiring testing.
    This approach would require air emissions testing to measure
organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency at the inlet and outlet
of the add-on control device, or measurement of the control device
outlet concentration of organic HAP. Emissions would be measured as
total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either Method 25
or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60, which are the methods
currently required for the initial compliance demonstration.
    We estimate that the cost to perform a control device emissions
destruction or removal efficiency test using EPA Method 25 or 25A would
be approximately $19,000 per control device. The cost estimate is
included in the memorandum titled Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR part 63
Subparts NNNN, OOOO and RRRR Monitoring Review Revisions, in the
Fabrics and Other Textiles Docket.
5. What compliance dates are we proposing?
    The EPA is proposing that affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before September 12, 2018 must
comply with all of the amendments, with the exception of the proposed
electronic format for submitting notifications and semiannual
compliance reports, no later than 181 days after the effective date of
the final rule. Affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after September 12, 2018 must comply with all
requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being proposed,
with the exception of the proposed electronic format for submitting
notifications and semiannual compliance reports, no later than the
effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later.
All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current
requirements of 40 CFR

part 63, subpart OOOO until the applicable compliance date of the
amended rule. The final action is not expected to be a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule
will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
    For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would
impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
OOOO. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add
a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and
semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically using the new
template. We are also proposing to change 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. Our experience with similar industries that are
required to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary hardware
and software, become familiar with the process of submitting
performance test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test
these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably employ
electronic reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days,
and, more typically, 180 days is generally necessary to successfully
accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar industries
further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a
time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule
requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet
the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the
rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their operation,
maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised requirements.
The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different compliance
dates for individual requirements would create and the additional
burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our assessment of
the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised
requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most
expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is proposing that
all affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on
or before September 12, 2018 be in compliance with all of this
regulation's revised requirements within 181 days of the regulation's
effective date.
    We solicit comment on the proposed compliance periods, and we
specifically request submission of information from sources in this
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the
time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the
revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in
changes to the proposed compliance dates.

C. What are the aanalytical results and proposed decisions for the
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category?

1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
    As described in section III of this preamble, for the Surface
Coating of Metal Furniture source category, we conducted a risk
assessment for all HAP emitted. We present results of the risk
assessment briefly below and in more detail in the Metal Furniture Risk
Assessment Report in the Metal Furniture Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0669).
a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 5 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the
inhalation risk assessment for the source category. As discussed in
section III.C.2 of this preamble, we set MACT-allowable HAP emission
levels at metal furniture coating facilities equal to 1.8 times actual
emissions. For more detail about the MACT-allowable emission levels,
see Appendix 1 to the Metal Furniture Risk Assessment Report in the
Metal Furniture Docket.

                             Table 5--Surface Coating of Metal Furniture Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Maximum individual     Estimated population      Estimated annual         Maximum chronic     Maximum Screening Acute
                                    cancer risk (in 1     at increased risk of      cancer incidence       noncancer TOSHI \1\       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................           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 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.

    The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions
data, as shown in Table 5 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum
individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up
to 7-in-1 million, 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. The total
estimated annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities
based on actual emission levels is 0.0004 excess cancer cases per year
or one case in every 2,500 years.
b. Acute Risk Results
    Table 5 of this preamble shows the acute risk results for the
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category. The screening
analysis for acute impacts was based on an industry specific multiplier
of 1.8, to estimate the peak emission rates from the average rates. For
more detailed acute risk results refer to the Metal Furniture Risk
Assessment Report in the Metal Furniture Docket.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    We did not identify any PB-HAP emitted by facilities in this source
category. Therefore, we do not expect any human health multipathway
risks as a result of emissions from this source category.
d. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    The emissions data for the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
source category indicate that no environmental HAP are emitted by
sources within this source category. Therefore, we did not conduct a
screening-level evaluation of the potential adverse environmental risks
associated with emissions for the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
source category. We do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a
result

of HAP emissions from this source category.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    Four facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 7-in-1
million, driven by ethyl benzene. The total estimated cancer incidence
from the whole facility is 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 of the 16 facilities in
this source category. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source
category is estimated to be 0.1.
f. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    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 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture source category across different demographic groups
within the populations living near facilities.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living above the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 6
below. 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 6--Surface Coating of Metal Furniture Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Population with cancer  Population with chronic
                                                                risk at or above 1-in-1   noncancer hazard index
                                                                 million due to Surface   above 1 due to Surface
                                              Nationwide            Coating of Metal         Coating of Metal
                                                                    Furniture source         Furniture source
                                                                        category                 category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population.....................              317,746,049                    2,100                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               White and Minority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White................................                       62                       62                        0
Minority.............................                       38                       38                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Minority Detail by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American.....................                       12                        7                        0
Native American......................                      0.8                        0                        0
Hispanic or Latino...................                       18                       30                        0
Other and Multiracial................                        7                        2  .......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below the Poverty Level..............                       14                       23                        0
Above the Poverty Level..............                       86                       77                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 Without a High School Diploma                       14                       34                        0
Over 25 With a High School Diploma...                       86                       66                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source
category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source
category expose approximately 2,100 people to a cancer risk at or above
1-in-1 million and no one to a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. The
percentages of the at-risk population in the following specific
demographic groups are higher than their respective nationwide
percentages: ``Hispanic or Latino,'' ``Over 25 Without a HS Diploma,''
and ``Below the Poverty Level.''
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture Source Category Operations, October 2017, available in
the Metal Furniture Docket.
2. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects?
a. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section III.A of this preamble, we weigh all health
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the
cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk
ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk
estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
    For the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category, the
risk analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most
exposed could be up to 7-in-1 million due to actual emissions and up to
10-in-1 million based on allowable emissions. These risks are
considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive upper
limit of acceptable risk. The risk analysis also shows very low cancer
incidence (0.0004 cases per year for actual emissions, or one case in
every

2,500 years, and 0.0008 cases per year for allowable emissions or one
case in every 1,250 years), and we did not identify potential for
adverse chronic noncancer health effects. The acute noncancer risks
based on actual emissions is an HQ of 2 for glycol ethers. Therefore,
we find there is little potential concern of acute noncancer health
impacts from actual emissions. In addition, the risk assessment
indicates no significant potential for multipathway health effects.
    Considering all of the health risk information and factors
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section
III.C.7 of this preamble, we propose to find that the risks from the
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category are acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    Although we are proposing that the risks from the Surface Coating
of Metal Furniture source category are acceptable, risk estimates for
approximately 2,100 individuals in the exposed population are above 1-
in-1 million at the actual emissions level and 4,200 individuals in the
exposed population are above 1-in-1 million at the allowable emissions
level. Consequently, we further considered whether the MACT standards
for the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. In this ample margin
of safety analysis, we investigated available emissions control options
that might further reduce the risk from the source category. This
information was considered along with our determination of the health
risks acceptability.
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source
category, and the EPA reviewed various information sources regarding
emission sources that are currently regulated by the Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture NESHAP.
    The only development identified in the technology review is the use
of high-efficiency spray equipment. We estimated no costs or emissions
reductions that would be achieved by switching to high efficiency
application methods for this source category because we expect that
metal furniture surface coating facilities are already using high
efficiency coating application methods due to state VOC rules and the
economic incentives of using more efficient application methods. As
discussed below, however, we are proposing to require this technology
under the technology review. We request comment on this proposed
requirement and whether any facilities in this source category do not
currently use high efficiency coating application methods.
    Based on our review, we did not identify any developments in add-on
control technologies, other equipment, or work practices and procedures
that would reduce HAP from the industry. Therefore, we are proposing
that additional emissions controls for this source category are not
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety.
c. Environmental Effects
    The emissions data for the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
source category indicate that no environmental HAP are emitted by
sources within this source category and we are unaware of any adverse
environmental effects caused by HAP emitted from this source category.
Therefore, we do not expect there to be an adverse environmental effect
as a result of HAP emissions from this source category and we are
proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to
prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other
relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
3. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source
category, and the EPA reviewed various information sources regarding
emission sources that are currently regulated by the Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture NESHAP. These emission sources include coating mixing;
coating application; coating curing; conveying coatings, thinners and
cleaning materials; and waste storage and handling. Based on our
review, we identified, as outlined below, one development in
technology, the application of high-efficiency spray equipment, for the
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category. A brief summary of
the EPA's findings in conducting the technology review of metal
furniture surface coating operations follows. For a detailed discussion
of the EPA's findings, refer to the Metal Furniture Technology Review
Memorandum in the Metal Furniture Docket.
    The technology basis for the original MACT standards for existing
sources under the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP was a
combination of low-HAP liquid (high-solids and waterborne) coatings and
cleaning solvents, and powder coatings. During development of that
rulemaking, we found that add-on capture and control systems for
organic HAP were rarely used by the industry at that time; of the 22
existing sources that were the basis of the MACT analysis, only one
source was identified as using an add-on control (a carbon adsorber/
oxidizer system).\33\ The original MACT basis for new or reconstructed
sources under the NESHAP was the use of non-HAP coatings, including the
use of powder coatings and the use of non-HAP liquid coatings. Under
the final original MACT standards, new or reconstructed affected
sources must emit no organic HAP during each compliance period.
Existing affected sources must limit organic HAP emissions to no more
than 0.10 kg organic HAP/liter (0.83 lb/gal) of coating solids used
during each compliance period. The use of a PTE and add-on control was
considered during development of the Metal Furniture NESHAP, but was
rejected as not cost effective for the incremental emission reductions
that would be achieved relative to the MACT floor level of control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for Source Category: Metal Furniture Surface Coating--
Background Information for Proposed Standards. EPA-453/R-01-010.
October 2001. Table 6-1, pp. 6-3 to 6-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the RBLC database, we identified entries for two facilities
currently subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP. We
reviewed the state operating permits for the two facilities in the RBLC
database, and for all other facilities known to be subject to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart RRRR to determine if any are using technologies that
exceed MACT or that were not considered during the development of the
original NESHAP. None of these facilities are using add-on controls to
comply with the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP, and none of
these facilities are using any other technology that exceeds MACT or
that was not considered during the development of the original NESHAP.
    We have also found no information that any improvements in PTE and
add-on control technology have occurred that would affect the cost
effectiveness of a PTE and add-on control or result in additional
emission reductions. We have not identified any changes that would
increase the efficiency of these controls or reduce their cost.
Therefore, the EPA does not consider the use of a PTE and add-on
control to be a

development in technology for the metal furniture source category. This
result is consistent with the technology review determinations for the
Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations NESHAP (75 FR 80247, December
21, 2010) and for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating)
NESHAP (75 FR 80239, December 21, 2010) that the incremental emissions
reductions that would be achieved using PTE and add-on control would
not warrant the additional cost that each existing source would incur.
We considered PTEs and add-on controls in the development of the
original Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP, but we rejected
these systems as a beyond-the-floor options for MACT for the source
category because the additional reductions, compared to a combination
of low-HAP liquid coatings and powder coatings, would not justify the
additional costs (67 FR 20206, at 20216, April 24, 2002). None of the
facilities currently subject to the Metal Furniture NESHAP are using
add-on controls, and we have not identified any add-on control
technology or other equipment that has been developed that was not
identified and considered during MACT standard development. Similarly,
we have identified no improvements in add-on control technology or
other equipment, and no change in the cost effectiveness of add-on
controls that were identified and considered during MACT standard
development that could result in additional emission reductions.
    We have not identified any process change or pollution prevention
alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was
not identified or considered during development of the original Metal
Furniture MACT standard. We reviewed other sources for information on
recent trends in coating technology in the metal furniture industry.
The ACA Industry Market Analysis has reported that the technology for
non-wood (predominantly metal) furniture coating has been stable over
the period since the NESHAP was promulgated, with a slow and steady
increase in the use of powder and high-solids coatings. According to
the ACA Industry Market Analysis, liquid coatings still account for
about 75 percent of the coatings used on non-wood furniture and
fixtures, but greater than 80 percent of the liquid coatings are high-
solids coatings. Powder coatings and high solids (lower-HAP coatings)
were considered during development of the original NESHAP and are the
basis for the MACT standards, so these technologies do not represent
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies since the
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP was promulgated. Rather, the
shift to use of more powder and higher solids coatings has occurred as
an expected response to comply with the original Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture NESHAP. The ACA Industry Market Analysis reported that
the growth in powder coating demand has slowed since 2005, as the
technology has matured and the powders are seen as commodities with
little product differentiation.
    The technology review conducted for the Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ) identified
the use of more efficient spray equipment as a development in process
equipment, and adopted regulations preventing the use of conventional
air-atomized spray guns. The Wood Furniture Manufacturing MACT
identified the use of air-assisted airless spraying as a more efficient
coating application technology.
    The Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP does not contain any
standards specifying the type of spray equipment that must be used when
coatings are spray-applied. Several other surface coating NESHAP
specify that high efficiency spray guns must be used for spray applied
coatings (i.e., 40 CFR part 63, subparts GG and JJ) or the compliance
demonstration takes into account the transfer efficiency of the spray
equipment, and the standards are based on high-efficiency spray
application (e.g., 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII). Using high-efficiency
spray equipment increases the amount of coating applied to the
substrate compared to conventional spray equipment and, therefore,
reduces emissions. Many facilities complying with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart RRRR are required by state VOC regulations in Indiana, Ohio,
and Wisconsin to use high-efficiency spray guns for coatings that are
spray applied. We expect that most other metal furniture surface
coating facilities also are using high-efficiency application equipment
for spray applied coatings as a cost saving measure 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
expect that the high-efficiency application equipment would provide
cost savings from an engineering perspective, we are uncertain of other
factors that facilities may need to consider if choosing to switch to
high-efficiency application equipment. Due to the competitive
marketplace and the number of units going through these surface coating
facilities, there may be facility specific operational, coating
adherence, coating drying time, material compatibility, or other
reasons that a facility may not have chosen to switch to high-
efficiency spray. We request comment on these and other aspects of
facility decision making as the agency has limited information on the
market penetration of this technology and these other factors.
    Based on these findings, we are proposing to revise 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, must be demonstrated to achieve
transfer efficiency equivalent to or better than 65 percent. There are
four types of high efficiency spray equipment technologies that have
been applied in these applications that could achieve the 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 may also be used with
documentation demonstrating at least 65 percent transfer efficiency.
Spray application equipment sources not using the emission rate with
add-on control compliance option, and/or using alternative spray
application equipment technologies other than the four listed, must
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
may be certified by manufacturers of the spray equipment, on behalf of
spray-applied coating operations sources, 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.'' When using these equivalency procedures and/or
guidelines, facilities would not be required to submit an application
with

the test plan or protocol to the Administrator, conduct the test in the
presence of an Administrator's representative, or submit test results
to the Administrator for review or approval. Instead, they would be
required to maintain records demonstrating the transfer efficiency
achieved, including a description of the procedures and/or guidelines
used. We are proposing that all spray equipment used for spray-applied
coating operations would be required to be operated according to
company procedures, local specified operating procedures, or the
manufacturer's specifications, whichever is determined to meet the 65
percent transfer efficiency. Further, we are proposing 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.''
    Considering just the incremental cost of the high efficiency spray
equipment and savings due to using less material consumption, we expect
that all facilities have already switched to high efficiency
application methods for the reasons discussed in the technology review
section for surface coating of large appliances. We have not estimated
the emissions reductions achieved by switching to high efficiency
application methods for this source category because we expect that all
large appliance surface coating facilities are using high efficiency
coating application methods. However, if any facilities switch to high
efficiency application equipment, there would likely be emission
reductions of the same magnitude as would occur in the large appliance
surface coating source category. For more information on the cost of
spray gun equipment and potential HAP emission reductions, see the
memorandum titled Impacts of Prohibiting the Use of Conventional Spray
Guns in the Wood Manufacturing Operations Source Category (Docket ID
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786 EPA). Refer to section IV.A.5 of this
preamble for a discussion of the compliance schedule for using high
efficiency spray equipment.
    Finally, we identified no developments in work practices or
procedures for the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category,
including work practices and procedures that are currently prescribed
in the NESHAP. The current Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP
standards require that, if a facility uses add-on controls to comply
with the emission limitations (and currently no facilities do this),
the facility must develop and implement a work practice plan to
minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying
of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in, and waste
materials generated by, all coating operations for which emission
limits are established. The current work practice requirements address
all the potential emission sources that are normally located outside of
the PTE that is routed to the control device, and no new measures have
been identified to further reduce the emissions from these sources.
    Refer to section IV.C.5 of this preamble for a discussion of the
compliance schedule for using high efficiency spray equipment. For
further discussion of the technology review results, refer to the Metal
Furniture Technology Review Memorandum in the Metal Furniture Docket.
4. What other actions are we proposing?
    We are proposing to require electronic submittal of notifications,
semiannual reports, and compliance reports (which include performance
test reports). In addition, we are proposing revisions to the SSM
provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent
with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (DC Cir.
2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the
requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d)
emission standards during periods of SSM. We also are proposing the
addition of EPA Method 18, various technical and editorial changes, and
IBR of alternative test methods. Our analyses and proposed changes
related to these issues are discussed in the sections below.
    Though we are not proposing to change reporting frequency currently
in the rule, we are requesting comment on changing the reporting
frequency for all reports to EPA from semi-annual to annual due to the
potential redundancy of these reporting requirements. We recognize that
Title V permits have a statutory requirement for semi-annual reports,
which are generally reported to state regulatory agencies. However, we
are not certain that changing the report frequency for just the reports
submitted to EPA in this NESHAP will result in a reporting and
recordkeeping burden reduction. We request comment and supporting
information on the burden impact of changing the reporting requirement
to annual for the reporting to EPA.
a. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of facilities
subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP submit
electronic copies of initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b),
notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h),
performance test reports, and semiannual reports through the EPA's CDX,
using the CEDRI. A description of the EPA's CDX and the EPA's proposed
rationale and details on the addition of these electronic reporting
requirements for the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category
is the same as for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source
category, which is discussed above in section IV.A.4.a of this
preamble. For further information regarding the electronic data
submission process, please refer to the memorandum titled Electronic
Reporting for Surface Coatings of Metal Furniture, May 2018, in the
Metal Furniture Docket. No specific form is proposed at this time for
the initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and notifications
of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h). Until the EPA has
completed electronic forms for these notifications, the notifications
will be required to be submitted via CEDRI in PDF. After development of
the final forms, we will notify sources about their availability via
the CEDRI website and the CHIEF Listserv. For semiannual reports, the
EPA proposes that owners or operators use the appropriate spreadsheet
template in CEDRI for 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR, or an alternate
electronic file format consistent with the form's extensible markup
language schema. For further information regarding the electronic data
submission process, please refer to the spreadsheet template attached
to the memorandum Electronic Reporting Template for Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture, Subpart RRRR Semiannual Reports, May 2018, in the
Metal Furniture Docket. We specifically request comment on the format
and usability of the template (e.g., filling and uploading a provided
spreadsheet versus entering the required information into a fillable
CEDRI web form), as well as the content, layout, and overall design of
the template. Prior to availability of the final semiannual compliance
report template in CEDRI, owners or operators of affected sources will
be required to submit semiannual compliance reports as otherwise
required by the Administrator. After development of the final template,
we will notify sources about its availability via the CEDRI website and
the CHIEF

Listserv.\34\ We plan to finalize a required reporting format with the
final rule. The owner or operator would begin submitting reports
electronically with the next report that is due, once the electronic
template has been available for at least one year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-emissions-inventory-listservs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding submittal of performance test reports via the EPA's ERT,
as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the Surface
Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP, the proposal to submit performance
test data electronically to the EPA applies only if the EPA has
developed an electronic reporting form for the test method as listed on
the EPA's ERT website. For the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
NESHAP, most of the current EPA test methods listed under 40 CFR part
63, subpart RRRR, are currently supported by the ERT, including EPA
Methods 25 and 25A. EPA Method 18, which is proposed for measuring and
subtracting methane from total organic compounds as measured by current
EPA Method 25 or 25A, is not supported by ERT. As discussed in section
IV.A.4.a of this preamble, we are proposing that performance test
results collected using test methods that are not supported by the ERT
as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test be submitted
in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
    Also, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP, we are proposing to provide
facilities with the ability to seek extensions for submitting
electronic reports for circumstances beyond the control of the
facility. In proposed 40 CFR 63.4921(d), we address the situation for
facilities subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP
where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or
CEDRI which may prevent access to the system and submittal of the
required reports. In 40 CFR 63.4921(e), we address the situation for
facilities subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP
where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which
is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents compliance
with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by
this rule.
b. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirements
1. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
    The EPA is proposing to eliminate the SSM exemption in the Surface
Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP. The EPA's proposed rationale for the
elimination of the SSM exemption for the Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture source category is the same as for the Surface Coating of
Large Appliances source category, which is discussed in section
IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble. We are also proposing several revisions to
Table 2 to subpart RRRR of 40 CFR part 63 (Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart RRRR, hereafter referred to as the ``General
Provisions table to subpart RRRR'') as is explained in more detail
below in section IV.C.4.b.2 of this preamble. For example, we are
proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions'
requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. Further, we are
proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the SSM exemption as further described below.
The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to
eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence
of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on the
specific proposed deletions and revisions and also whether additional
provisions should be revised to achieve the stated goal.
    In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for the same reasons explained in
section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the Surface Coating of Large
Appliances source category, has not proposed alternate standards for
those periods in the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP.
Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible, as
further discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category. Further, it is
unlikely that a malfunction of sources in the Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture source category would result in a violation of the standards.
Because a malfunction of the coating operation would lead to defective
products, it would most likely be corrected by the owner/operator as
quickly as possible to minimize economic losses. Furthermore, a
malfunction would not lead to an increase in the HAP content of the
coatings or the amount of HAP emitted from those coatings; therefore,
it is unlikely that malfunctions at facilities using the compliant
material or emission rate without control option would result in a
violation. Finally, compliance with the surface coating emission limits
is based on a monthly compliance period, so any malfunction that causes
a short-term increase in emissions may not cause a violation of the
standard. We have no information to suggest that it is feasible or
necessary to establish any type of standard for malfunctions associated
with the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category. We
encourage commenters to provide any such information, if available.
    In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and
rectify excess emissions. Refer to section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble
for further discussion of the EPA's actions in response to a source
failing to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a
result of a malfunction event for the Surface Coating of Large
Appliances source category, which applies to this source category.
2. Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
a. 40 CFR 63.4900(b) General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
RRRR (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general
duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no
longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM
exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text
at 40 CFR 63.4900(b) that reflects the general duty to minimize
emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM
exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes
what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the
elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate
between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events
in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is
proposing for 40 CFR 63.4900(b) does not include that language from 40
CFR 63.6(e)(1).

    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to
subpart RRRR (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being
added at 40 CFR 63.4900(b).
b. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
RRRR (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require development
of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to remove from 40 CFR
part 63, subpart RRRR, the current provisions requiring the SSM plan,
including 40 CFR 63.4900(c) and 63.4910(c)(9)(v). As noted, the EPA is
proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will
be subject to an emission standard during such events. The
applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources
have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and thus the
SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
RRRR (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts
sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed
above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in
this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112
standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is
proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
    We are also proposing to remove rule text in 40 CFR 63.4961(h)
clarifying that, in calculating emissions to demonstrate compliance,
deviation periods must include deviations during an SSM period. Since
the EPA is removing the SSM exemption, this clarifying text is no
longer needed.
d. 40 CFR 63.4963 Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
RRRR (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing
requirement at 40 CFR 63.4963. We are also proposing to remove rule
text in 40 CFR 63.4963(a)(1) that states that periods of malfunction do
not constitute representative conditions for the purposes of conducting
a performance test. The performance testing requirements we are
proposing differ from the General Provisions performance testing
provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include
the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and
language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being
considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance testing.
Also, the proposed performance testing provisions will not allow
performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not
be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions
are often not representative of normal operating conditions. Section
63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator maintain records of the
process information necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such records an explanation to support that
such conditions represent normal operation. The EPA is proposing to add
language clarifying that the owner or operator must make such records
available to the Administrator upon request.
e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
RRRR (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general
duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary
in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air
pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the
requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40
CFR 63.8(d)). Further, we are proposing to revise the General
Provisions table to subpart NNNN (table 2) entry for 40 CFR
63.8(c)(1)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' We have
determined that 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) is redundant to the current
monitoring requirement in 40 CFR 63.4967(a)(4) (i.e., ``maintain the
CPMS at all times and have available necessary parts for routine
repairs of the monitoring equipment''), except 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii)
specifies ``readily available.'' We are proposing to revise 40 CFR
63.4967(a)(4) to specify ``readily available.''
f. 40 CFR 63.4930 Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
RRRR (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording
provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that
recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply
to startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions
applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown
plan, there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup
and shutdown periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
RRRR (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, requiring a record of
``the occurrence and duration of each malfunction.'' A similar record
is already required in 40 CFR 63.4930(j), which requires a record of
``the date, time, and duration of each deviation,'' which the EPA is
retaining. The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.4930(j) differs from the
General Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation
and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.4930(j) applies to any failure to meet an
applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date,
time, and duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' The
EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.4930(j) a requirement that
sources also keep records that include a list of the affected source or
equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit
for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of
the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods
would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations,
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known
process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and application rates and
control device efficiencies). The EPA is proposing to require that
sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is

adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any
failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how
the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source
has failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
RRRR (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.4930(j)(4).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
RRRR (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions
taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
RRRR (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no
longer apply. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or
operator to use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to
satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40
CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10)
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
    We are proposing to remove the requirement in 40 CFR 63.4930(k)(1)
that deviation records specify whether deviations from a standard
occurred during a period of SSM. This revision is being proposed due to
the proposed removal of the SSM exemption and because, as discussed
above in this section, we are proposing that deviation records must
specify the cause of each deviation, which could include a malfunction
period as a cause. We are also proposing to remove the requirement to
report the SSM records in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) by
deleting 40 CFR 63.4930(k)(2).
g. 40 CFR 63.4920 Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
RRRR (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting
requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the
General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add
reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.4920. The replacement language
differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates
periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language
that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any
time to report the information concerning such events in the semi-
annual compliance report already required under this rule. Subpart RRRR
of 40 CFR subpart 63 currently requires reporting of the date, time
period, and cause of each deviation. We are clarifying in the rule
that, if the cause of a deviation from the standard is unknown, this
should be specified in the report. We are also proposing to change
``date and time period'' or ``date and time'' to ``date, time, and
duration'' (see 40 CFR 63.4920(a)(5)(i), (a)(7)(ix), and (a)(7)(xi),
(a)(7)(xvi)) to use terminology consistent with the recordkeeping
section. Further, we are proposing that the report must also contain
the number of deviations from the standard and a list of the affected
source or equipment. For deviation reports addressing deviations from
an applicable emission limit in 40 CFR 63.4890 or operating limit in
Table 1 to subpart RRRR, we are proposing that the report also include
an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over
any emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard,
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. For
deviation reports addressing deviations from work practice standards
associated with the emission rate with add-on controls option (see
proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.4920(a)(7)(xvi)), we are retaining the
current requirement (including reporting actions taken to correct the
deviation), except that we are revising the rule language to reference
the new general duty requirement in 40 CFR 63.4900(b), we are
clarifying that the description of the deviation must include a list of
the affected sources or equipment and the cause of the deviation, we
are clarifying that ``time period'' includes the ``time and duration,''
and we are requiring that the report include the number of deviations
from the work practice standards in the reporting period. Further, we
are proposing to apply these same reporting requirements to deviations
from the proposed new equipment standards associated with high
efficiency spray equipment (see proposed revisions in 40 CFR
63.4920(a)(5)(ii), (a)(5)(ii)(F), and (a)(5)(ii)(G)).
    Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission
limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, examples of
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment
based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and
application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is
proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information
to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of
the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that
may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions
during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate 40 CFR 63.4920(c) that requires reporting of
whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including required
actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the cross reference
to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the
previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this
section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the
events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar
format and submittal requirements.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
RRRR (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate
report for startups, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to
meet an applicable standard, but did not follow the SSM plan. We will
no longer require owners and operators to report when actions taken
during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an
SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.

    We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR
63.4920(a)(7)(xiii) that deviation reports must specify whether a
deviation from an operating limit occurred during a period of SSM. We
are also proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR
63.4920(a)(7)(xi) to break down the total duration of deviations into
the startup and shutdown categories. As discussed above in this
section, we are proposing to require reporting of the cause of each
deviation. Further, the startup and shutdown categories no longer apply
because these periods are proposed to be considered normal operation,
as discussed in section IV.C.4.b.1 of this preamble for the Surface
Coating of Large Appliances source category, which also applies to this
source category.
c. Technical Amendments to the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
NESHAP
    We are proposing to amend 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. Facilities using the emission rate
with add-on control compliance option can use either EPA Method 25 or
Method 25A to measure control device destruction efficiency. Unlike EPA
Method 25, Method 25A does not exclude methane from the measurement of
organic emissions. Because many exhaust streams from coating operations
may contain methane from natural gas combustion, we are proposing to
allow facilities the option to measure the methane using Method 18 and
to subtract it from the emissions as part of their compliance
calculations. We also propose to revise the format of references to
test methods in 40 CFR part 60. The current reference in 40 CFR
63.4965(a) and (b) to Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B,
4, 25, and 25A specify that each method is in ``appendix A'' of part
60. Appendix A of part 60 has been divided into appendices A-1 through
A-8. We propose to revise each reference to appendix A to indicate
which of the eight sections of appendix A applies to the method.
    EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.4941(a)(1)(i) and (a)(4), which
describe how to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations using the compliant material option, to remove reference to
paragraph (d)(4) of OSHA's Hazard Communication standard, which dealt
with OSHA-defined carcinogens. EPA is proposing to replace that
reference with its own list of hazardous air pollutants that must be
regarded as potentially carcinogenic based on EPA guidelines. Although
paragraph (d)(4) of OSHA's standard was deleted when the Agency adopted
the Globally Harmonized System of Hazard Communication in 2012, it was
replaced by section A.6.4.2 of mandatory Appendix A of that standard,
which reads as follows:
    ``Where OSHA has included cancer as a health hazard to be
considered by classifiers for a chemical covered by 29 CFR part 1910,
subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous Substances, chemical manufacturers,
importers, and employers shall classify the chemical as a carcinogen.''
Thus, where OSHA has regulated workplace exposure to a chemical based,
at least in part, on carcinogenic risk, OSHA requires the chemical to
be classified as a carcinogen. OSHA suggests that EPA should refer to
section A.6.4.2 of Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.1200 in its discussion of
section 63.4141 and consider chemicals that meet this requirement be
considered ``OSHA-defined carcinogens.''
    We are proposing to replace these references to OSHA-defined
carcinogens at 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new
Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR) of those organic HAP that must
be included in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating
material if they are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass.
    We are including organic HAP in the proposed Table 5 to 40 CFR part
63, subpart RRRR 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),\35\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also proposing to revise the monitoring provisions for
thermal and catalytic oxidizers to clarify 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.
    Current 40 CFR 63.4931(a) allows records, ``where appropriate,'' to
be maintained as ``electronic spreadsheets'' or a ``data base.'' We
propose to add clarification to this provision that the allowance to
retain electronic records applies to all records that were submitted as
reports electronically via the EPA's CEDRI. We also propose to add text
to the same provision clarifying that this 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.
    We propose to revise the second sentence of 40 CFR 63.4920(a)(4) to
correct an erroneous reference to ``the emission limitations in Sec.
63.4890,'' to be ``the applicable emission limitations in Sec. Sec.
63.4890, 63.4892, and 63.4893.'' This provision is intended to provide
the criteria for all compliance options, for making a statement that
there were no deviations in the compliance period. For this provision
to apply to the emission rate with add-on control devices option cited
later in the sentence in ``Sec.  63.4962(f),'' the criteria for making
an affirmative statement of no deviations must address all three types
of emission limitations (as defined in 40 CFR 63.4981) in 40 CFR
63.4890, 63.4892, and 63.4893. To avoid confusion with the term
``emission limitation'' as defined in 40 CFR 63.4981, and harmonize the
terminology with 40 CFR 63.4890, we also propose to change ``emission
limitation'' in the first sentence of 40 CFR 63.4920(a)(4) to be
``emission limit.''
    We propose to remove from 40 CFR 63.4951(c) the list of methods
that may be used to determine the density of each coating, thinner, and
cleaning material, and to retain the reference to 40 CFR 63.4941(c),
which provides the same list of methods. This list of methods is being
updated in 40 CFR 63.4941(c), including IBR of a new version of a
method, and this proposed approach minimizes redundancy in the rule and
removes the need to incorporate the revised method into two separate
provisions of the subpart.
    We propose to revise one instance in Table 2 to Subpart RRRR of
Part 63 of an erroneous rule citation of ``Sec.  63.4920(a).'' This
rule citation is specified in the fourth column of the table entry for
``Sec.  63.10(e)(3),''as the source for the contents of periodic
compliance reports. Section 40 CFR 63.4920(a) does not provide the
contents of periodic compliance reports; they are provided in 40 CFR
63.4920(b), and we propose to change the erroneous citation to ``Sec.
63.4920(b).''

d. Requesting Comment on Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance
demonstration requirements in the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
NESHAP. Currently, if a source owner or operator chooses to comply with
the standards using add-on controls, the results of an initial
performance test are used to determine compliance; however, the rule
does not require on-going periodic performance testing for these
emission capture systems and add-on controls.
    As described more fully in section IV.A.4.d of this preamble for
the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category, the ICAC, in
their comments on proposed revisions to the NESHAP General Provisions
(72 FR 69, January 3, 2007), commented that ongoing maintenance and
checks of control devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions
control technology, including both thermal and catalytic oxidizers,
remains effective.\36\ These same comments apply to the Surface Coating
of Metal Furniture source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094-0173, available at
www.regulations.gov. A copy of the ICAC's comments on the proposed
revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the Metal
Furniture Docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given these comments from ICAC, suppliers of air pollution control
and monitoring technology, on the need for vigilance in maintaining
equipment to stem degradation, the EPA is requesting comment on what
steps, in addition to one-time initial emissions and capture efficiency
testing, along with ongoing temperature measurement, might better
ensure ongoing compliance with the standards.
    One approach on which the EPA is specifically requesting comment,
but which is not included in this proposed rule, would be to require
air performance testing anytime a source plans to undertake an
operational change that may adversely affect compliance with an
applicable standard, operating limit, or parametric monitoring value.
This requirement would include provisions to allow a source to make the
change, but limit the change to a specific time before a test is
required. We anticipate 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. We are specifically requesting comment on this
potential provision, including the time a source is allowed to operate
under the new parameters before they test, and what would constitute an
operational change requiring testing.
    This approach on which we are requesting comment could also allow
an exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to
continuously measure emissions. Such CEMS would show actual emissions.
Use of CEMS to demonstrate compliance would obviate the need for
periodic oxidizer testing. Moreover, installation and operation of a
CEMS with a timesharing component, such that values from more than one
oxidizer exhaust could be tabulated in a recurring frequency, could
prove less expensive (estimated to have an annual cost below $15,000)
than ongoing oxidizer testing.
    Of course, this approach on which we are requesting comment would
not require periodic testing or CEMS monitoring of facilities using the
compliant materials option, or the emission-rate without add-on
controls compliance option because these two compliance options do not
use any add-on control efficiency measurements in the compliance
calculations.
    This approach would require air emissions testing to measure
organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency at the inlet and outlet
of the add-on control device, or measurement of the control device
outlet concentration of organic HAP. Emissions would be measured as
total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either Method 25
or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60, which are the methods
currently required for the initial compliance demonstration.
    We estimate that the cost to perform a control device emissions
destruction or removal efficiency test using EPA Method 25 or 25A would
be approximately $19,000 per control device. The cost estimate is
included in the memorandum titled Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR part 63
Subparts NNNN, OOOO and RRRR Monitoring Review Revisions, in the Metal
Furniture Docket.
5. What compliance dates are we proposing?
    The EPA is proposing that affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before September 12, 2018 must
comply with all of the amendments, with the exception of the proposed
electronic format for submitting notifications and semiannual
compliance reports, no later than 181 days after the effective date of
the final rule. Affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after September 12, 2018 must comply with all
requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being proposed,
with the exception of the proposed electronic format for submitting
notifications and semiannual compliance reports, no later than the
effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later.
All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR until the applicable
compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not expected
to be a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective
date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in
CAA section 112(d)(10).
    For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would
impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
RRRR. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add
a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and
semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically using the new
template. We are also proposing to change 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. Our experience with similar industries that are
required to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary hardware
and software, become familiar with the process of submitting
performance test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test
these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably employ
electronic reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days,
and, more typically, 180 days is generally necessary to successfully
accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar industries
further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a
time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule
requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet
the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the
rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their operation,
maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised requirements.
The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different compliance
dates for individual requirements would create and the additional
burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From

our assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety
of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to
be the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is
proposing that existing affected sources and new affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 12,
2018 be in compliance with all of this regulation's revised
requirements, except for the requirement to use high efficiency spray
equipment discussed below, within 181 days of the regulation's
effective date.
    Under CAA section 112(d), we are proposing compliance dates for the
proposed requirement to use high efficiency spray equipment if the
source is not using the emission rate with add-on control compliance
option. For existing affected sources under this proposed action, we
propose to provide sources three years after the effective date of the
final rule to comply with the proposed requirement to use high
efficiency spray equipment. We are proposing a three-year compliance
date for facilities that have not switched to high efficiency spray
equipment because facilities that are not yet using high efficiency
spray equipment have multiple alternative equipment types to consider
under this proposed rule. The three-year compliance period will provide
all facilities sufficient time to source and purchase the specific type
of spray application equipment compatible with their operations.
Furthermore, the compliance period provides time for sources to verify
that the spray equipment they choose meets the transfer efficiency
requirements in this proposed rule. In addition, because a spray gun's
useful lifespan is approximately two years, the proposed three-year
compliance period will provide enough time for facilities to source and
purchase replacement guns on their current equipment purchase cycle,
develop any necessary operational procedures, and perform training.
Finally, the three-year compliance period will ensure that a facility
is not required to replace a spray gun before it has time to identify
and source new guns and develop bid specification and operation
procedures. For new affected sources under this proposed action, the
proposed compliance date is the effective date of the final rule or
upon startup, whichever is later. We solicit comment on these proposed
compliance periods, and we specifically request submission of
information from sources in this source category regarding specific
actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed
amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for
compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that
information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance
dates.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    Currently, ten major sources subject to the Surface Coating of
Large Appliances NESHAP are operating in the United States. The
affected source under the NESHAP is the collection of all coating
operations; all storage containers and mixing vessels in which
coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all
manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying
coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and all storage containers
and all manual and automated equipment and containers used for
conveying waste materials generated by a coating operation. A coating
operation is defined as the equipment used to apply cleaning materials
to a substrate to prepare it for coating application or to remove dried
coating (surface preparation), to apply coating to a substrate (coating
application) and to dry or cure the coating after application, or to
clean coating operation equipment (equipment cleaning). A single
coating operation may include any combination of these types of
equipment, but always includes at least the point at which a coating or
cleaning material is applied and all subsequent points in the affected
source where organic HAP emissions from that coating or cleaning
material occur. There may be multiple coating operations in an affected
source.
    Currently, 43 major sources subject to the Printing, Coating, and
Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP are operating in the United
States. The affected source under the NESHAP includes the following
three categories of operations: Web coating and printing operations,
slashing operations, and dyeing and finishing operations.
    The web coating and printing operations subcategory is the
collection of all web coating and printing equipment used to apply
cleaning materials to a substrate on the coating or printing line to
prepare it for coating or printing material application, to apply
coating or printing materials to a substrate and to dry or cure the
coating or printing materials, or equipment used to clean web coating/
printing operation equipment; all containers used for storage and
vessels used for mixing coating, printing, thinning, or cleaning
materials; all equipment and containers used for conveying coating,
printing, thinning, or cleaning materials; all containers used for
storage, and all equipment and containers used for conveying waste
materials generated by a coating or printing operation; and all
equipment, structures, and/or devices(s) used to convey, treat, or
dispose of wastewater streams or residuals generated by a coating or
printing operation.
    The slashing operations subcategory is the collection of all
slashing equipment used to apply and dry the sizing on the warp yarn
(the warp yarn are the vertical fibers, and a chemical compound
referred to as sizing is used to bind and stiffen the yarn to provide
abrasion resistance during weaving); all containers used for storage
and vessels used for mixing slashing materials; all equipment and
containers used for conveying slashing materials; all containers used
for storage and all equipment and containers used for conveying waste
materials generated by a slashing operation; and all equipment,
structures, and/or devices(s) used to convey, treat, or dispose of
wastewater streams or residuals generated by a slashing operation.
    The dyeing and finishing subcategory is the collection of all
dyeing and finishing equipment used to apply dyeing or finishing
materials, to fix dyeing materials to the substrate, to rinse the
textile substrate, or to dry or cure the dyeing or finishing materials;
all containers used for storage and vessels used for mixing dyeing or
finishing materials; all equipment and containers used for conveying
dyeing or finishing materials; all containers used for storage, and all
equipment and containers used for conveying, waste materials generated
by a dyeing or finishing operation; and all equipment, structures, and/
or devices(s) used to convey, treat, or dispose of wastewater streams
or residuals generated by a dyeing or finishing operation.
    Currently, 16 major sources subject to the Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture NESHAP are operating in the United States. The affected
source under the NESHAP is the collection of all coating operations;
all storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners,
and cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all manual and automated
equipment and containers and all pumps and piping within the affected
source used for conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials;
and all storage containers, all pumps and piping, and all manual and

automated equipment and containers within the affected source used for
conveying waste materials generated by a coating operation. A coating
operation is defined as the equipment used to apply cleaning materials
to a substrate to prepare it for coating application or to remove dried
or wet coating (surface preparation); to apply coating to a substrate
(coating application) and to dry or cure the coating after application;
and to clean coating operation equipment (equipment cleaning). A single
coating operation may include any combination of these types of
equipment, but always includes at least the point at which a coating or
cleaning material is applied and all subsequent points in the affected
source where organic HAP emissions from that coating or cleaning
material occur. There may be multiple coating operations in an affected
source.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    At the current level of control, estimated emissions of volatile
organic HAP from the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source
category are approximately 120 tpy. Current estimated emissions of
volatile organic HAP from the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles source category are approximately 737 tpy. Current
estimated emissions of volatile organic HAP from the Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture source category are approximately 145 tpy.
    We do not estimate any volatile organic HAP emission reductions
from the proposed requirement to use high-efficiency coating spray
application equipment in the large appliance surface coating and the
metal furniture surface coating source categories. We did not quantify
these reductions; however, if a facility switched from spray guns with
50-percent transfer efficiency to those with 65-percent transfer
efficiency, the amount of coating reaching the part during spraying
would increase by 30 percent, and the total amount of coating needed to
complete the coating operation would be reduced by 23 percent, leading
to a corresponding decrease in organic HAP emissions. Due to a
combination of economic incentives and state rule requirements to use
high-efficiency coating spray application equipment, we expect that
facilities in this source category are already using high efficiency
coating spray application equipment. However, we are specifically
requesting information on any facilities not using high efficiency
spray application equipment.
    All 69 major sources in the three source categories would be
required to comply with the relevant emission standards at all times
without the SSM exemption. We were unable to quantify the specific
emissions reductions associated with eliminating the SSM exemption.
However, eliminating the SSM exemption has the potential to reduce
emissions by requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard
during SSM periods.
    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other
equipment. The proposed amendments would 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 proposed amendments for
reporting.
    Facilities in the large appliances and metal furniture source
categories transitioning to high efficiency spray equipment may
experience costs to purchase new equipment. We do not have sufficient
information on current use of this type of equipment to develop a
potential industry-wide cost. However, based the following example from
a similar coating operation, we expect the change to result in a net
cost savings. Due to the increased transfer efficiency from 45 percent
with conventional spray guns to 65 percent with high volume low
pressure spray guns, the amount of coating used per part is expected to
decrease by approximately 31 percent. See the memorandum titled,
Impacts of Prohibiting the Use of Conventional Spray Guns in the Wood
Furniture Manufacturing Operations Source Category, October 19, 2010,
EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786. For either type of gun, the
annual costs are equal to the sum of the cost of the spray gun and the
cost of coatings. The cost of coatings is equal to the product of the
cost per volume of coating, the volume of coating used, and the number
of days. The capital cost of a convention spray gun is approximately
$200 and the cost of an air-assisted airless spray gun is approximately
$700.00. Invalid source specified. The cost differential between a
conventional spray gun and an air-assisted spray gun is $500.00, and,
and a typical coating costs $15.00 per gallon. If a facility operates
five days per week and 50 weeks per year, a typical year will contain
250 days of operation. Complete cost recovery will occur when the air-
assisted-airless gun is used at a rate of 1.21 gallons of coatings per
day for a year. If the coating cost is higher, the cost recovery will
occur in less than one year. For more information on this cost
analysis, see the memorandum titled Impacts of Prohibiting the Use of
Conventional Spray Guns in the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations
Source Category, (EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786).
    We are specifically soliciting comments on the current use of high
efficiency spray equipment, the costs to transition from conventional
spray application equipment to high efficiency spray application
equipment (including costs for changes to coating delivery systems we
may have overlooked), and the actual coating cost savings realized due
to the change.
    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 V.III.C of this preamble.
    We estimate that for the large appliances and metal furniture
source categories, should a source need to purchase and begin using
high efficiency spray equipment, the cost savings associated with less
coating material may offset the incremental equipment costs in typical
cases.
    We are also soliciting comment on whether to require air emissions
performance testing in each source category using the emission rate
with add-on controls compliance option. We estimate that 15 facilities
subject to the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles NESHAP would incur costs to conduct air emissions performance
testing because they are currently using the emission rate with add-on
controls compliance option. These 15 facilities have a total of 18 add-
on controls. This total does not include other facilities in this
source category that have add-on controls and are already required to
perform air emissions performance testing as a

condition of their state operating permit. The cost for a facility to
conduct a destruction or removal efficiency air emissions performance
test using EPA Method 25 or 25A is estimated to be about $19,000, and
the total cost for all 15 facilities to test 18 add-on control devices
in a single year would be $340,000. One facility subject to the Surface
Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP is using the emission rate with add-
on controls compliance option and is already required to perform air
emissions performance testing as a condition of their state operating
permit, and would have no added costs if air emissions performance
testing were required under the NESHAP. No facilities subject to the