80220 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0786; FRL–9237–1] 

RIN 2060–AQ42 

National Emission Standards for 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating); National Emission Standards 

for Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes how 

EPA will address the residual risk and 

technology review conducted for two 

industrial source categories regulated by 

separate national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants. It also 

proposes to address provisions related 

to emissions during periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before February 22, 2011. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

comments on the information collection 

provisions are best assured of having 

full effect if the Office of Management 

and Budget receives a copy of your 

comments on or before January 20, 

2011. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by January 5, 2011, a public 

hearing will be held on January 20, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0786, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, 

Attention Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0786. 

• Facsimile: (202) 566–9744. 

Attention Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0786. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send 

comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA 

West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0786, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Please include a total of two copies. In 

addition, please mail a copy of your 

comments on the information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, Attn: Desk 

Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA West (Air 

Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. 

Attention Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0786. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0786. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be confidential business 

information or otherwise protected 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov 

Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

e-mail comment directly to EPA without 

going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0786. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

held, it will begin at 10 a.m. on January 

20, 2011 and will be held at EPA’s 

campus in Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina, or at an alternate facility 

nearby. For information on the status of 

the public hearing, go to http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

Persons interested in presenting oral 

testimony or inquiring as to whether a 

public hearing is to be held should 

contact Ms. Joan Rogers, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division, Natural 

Resources and Commerce Group (E143– 

01), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711; telephone number: 

(919) 541–4487. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Ms. J. Kaye Whitfield, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (E143– 

01), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone 

(919) 541–2509; facsimile number: (919) 

541–3470; and e-mail address: 

whitfield.kaye@epa.gov. For specific 

information regarding the risk modeling 

methodology, contact Ms. Elaine 

Manning, Health and Environmental 

Impacts Division (C539–02), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

5499; facsimile number: (919) 541–0840; 

and e-mail address: 

manning.elaine@epa.gov. For 

information about the applicability of 

these two National Emissions Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants to a 

particular entity, contact the appropriate 

person listed in Table 1 to this 

preamble. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80221 

TABLE 1—LIST OF EPA CONTACTS FOR THE NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

(NESHAP) ADDRESSED IN THIS PROPOSED ACTION

NESHAP for: OECA Contact 1 OAQPS Contact 2

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) Mr. Leonard Lazarus, (202) 564–6369, lazarus.leonard@epa.gov.Ms. J. Kaye Whitfield, (919) 541–2509, 

whitfield.kaye@epa.gov 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations ........ Mr. Leonard Lazarus, (202) 564–6369, lazarus.leonard@epa.gov.Ms. J. Kaye Whitfield, (919) 541–2509, 

whitfield.kaye@epa.gov 

1 OECA stands for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 2 OAQPS stands for EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Preamble Acronyms and 

Abbreviations 

Several acronyms and terms used to 

describe industrial processes, data 

inventories, and risk modeling are 

included in this preamble. While this 

may not be an exhaustive list, to ease 

the reading of this preamble and for 

reference purposes, the following terms 

and acronyms are defined here: 

ACA American Coatings Association 

ACGIH American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists 

ADAF Age-dependent Adjustment Factors 

AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Levels 

AERMOD The air dispersion model used by 

the HEM–3 model 

AHFA American Home Furnishings 

Alliance 

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

APA Administrative Procedure Act 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry 

BACT Best Available Control Technology 

BIFMA Business and Institutional Furniture 

Manufacturer’s Association 

CalEPA California Environmental 

Protection Agency 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CEEL Community Emergency Exposure 

Levels 

CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring 

System 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CIIT Chemical Industry Institute of 

Toxicology 

DGBE Diethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether 

EGME Ethylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether 

EJ Environmental Justice 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERPG Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants 

HI Hazard Index 

HEM–3 Human Exposure Model version 3 

HON Hazardous Organic National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants 

HQ Hazard Quotient 

ICR Information Collection Request 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

KCMA Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturing 

Association 

Kg Kilogram 

Km Kilometer 

LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology 

MACT Code Code within the NEI used to 

identify processes included in a source 

category 

MIR Maximum Individual Risk 

MRL Minimum Risk Level 

NAC/AEGL Committee National Advisory 

Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline 

Levels for Hazardous Substances 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NATA National Air Toxics Assessment 

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NEI National Emissions Inventory 

NIOSH National Institutes for Occupational 

Safety and Health 

NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effects Level 

NOX Nitrous Oxide 

NRC National Research Council 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS EPA’s Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards 

OECA EPA’s Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PB–HAP Hazardous air pollutants known to 

be persistent and bio-accumulative in the 

environment 

POM Polycyclic Organic Matter 

PPRTV Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity 

Value 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

RACT Reasonably Available Control 

Technology 

RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 

REL CalEPA Reference Exposure Level 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RfC Reference Concentration 

RfD Reference Dose 

RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer 

RTR Residual Risk and Technology Review 

SAB Science Advisory Board 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SCC Source Classification Codes 

SF3 2000 Census of Population and 

Housing Summary File 3 

SOP Standard Operating Procedures 

SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

TOSHI Target Organ-Specific Hazard Index 

TPY Tons Per Year 

TRIM Total Risk Integrated Modeling 

System 

TRIM.FaTE A spatially explicit, 

compartmental mass balance model that 

describes the movement and 

transformation of pollutants over time, 

through a user-defined, bounded system 

that includes both biotic and abiotic 

compartments 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UF Uncertainty Factor 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

URE Unit Risk Estimate 

VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards 

VHAP Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants 

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds 

VOHAP Volatile Organic Hazardous Air 

Pollutants 

WWW Worldwide Web 

Organization of This Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

III. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. How did we consider the risk results in 

making decisions for this proposal? 

C. What other actions are we addressing in 

this proposal? 

IV. Analyses Performed 

A. How did we estimate risks posed by the 

source categories? 

B. How did we perform the technology 

review? 

V. Analyses Results and Proposed Decisions 

A. What are the results and proposed 

decisions for the Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair (Surface Coating) source category? 

B. What are the results and proposed 

decisions for the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations source 

category? 

VI. Proposed Action 

A. What actions are we proposing as a 

result of the technology review? 

B. What actions are we proposing as a 

result of the residual risk review? 

C. What other actions are we proposing? 

VII. Request for Comments 

VIII. Submitting Data Corrections 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
80222 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The regulated industrial source 

categories that are the subject of this 

proposal are listed in Table 2 of this 

preamble. Table 2 is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by the proposed action for the 

source categories listed. These 

standards, and any changes considered 

in this rulemaking, would be directly 

applicable to sources as a federal 

program. Thus, federal, state, local, and 

tribal government entities are not 

affected by this proposed action. The 

regulated categories affected by this 

proposed action are shown in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION 

NESHAP and source category NAICS code 1 MACT code 2

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) ........................................................................... 336611 ............................... 0715–2 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations .................................................................................... 3371, 3372, 3379 ............... 0716 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

2 Maximum Achievable Control Technology. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposal will also be available on the 

WWW through the EPA’s TTN. 

Following signature by the EPA 

Administrator, a copy of this proposed 

action will be posted on the TTN’s 

policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at the 

following address: http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

Additional information is available on 

the RTR web page at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

This information includes the most 

recent version of the rule, source 

category descriptions, detailed 

emissions, and other data that were 

used as inputs to the risk assessments. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information on a disk or 

CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. If you 

submit a CD ROM or disk that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not 

contain CBI. Information not marked as 

CBI will be included in the public 

docket and EPA’s electronic public 

docket without prior notice. Information 

marked as CBI will not be disclosed 

except in accordance with procedures 

set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Roberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0786. 

III. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

two-stage regulatory process to address 

emissions of HAP from stationary 

sources. In the first stage, after EPA has 

identified categories of sources emitting 

one or more of the HAP listed in section 

112(b) of the CAA, section 112(d) of the 

CAA calls for us to promulgate NESHAP 

for those sources. ‘‘Major sources’’ are 

those that emit or have the potential to 

emit 10 TPY or more of a single HAP or 

25 TPY or more of any combination of 

HAP. For major sources, these 

technology-based standards must reflect 

the maximum degree of emission 

reductions of HAP achievable (after 

considering cost, energy requirements, 

and nonair quality health and 

environmental impacts) and are 

commonly referred to as MACT 

standards. 

MACT standards must reflect 

application of measures, processes, 

methods, systems, or techniques, 

including, but not limited to, measures 

which, (A) Reduce the volume of or 

eliminate pollutants through process 

changes, substitution of materials or 

other modifications; (B) enclose systems 

or processes to eliminate emissions; (C) 

capture or treat pollutants when 

released from a process, stack, storage, 

or fugitive emissions point; (D) are 

design, equipment, work practice, or 

operational standards (including 

requirements for operator training or 

certification); or (E) are a combination of 

the above. CAA section 112(d)(2)(A)-(E). 

The MACT standards may take the form 

of design, equipment, work practice, or 

operational standards where EPA first 

determines either that, (A) a pollutant 

cannot be emitted through a conveyance 

designed and constructed to emit or 

capture the pollutants, or that any 

requirement for, or use of, such a 

conveyance would be inconsistent with 

law; or (B) the application of 

measurement methodology to a 

particular class of sources is not 

practicable due to technological and 

economic limitations. CAA sections 

112(h)(1)–(2). 

The MACT ‘‘floor’’ is the minimum 

control level allowed for MACT 

standards promulgated under CAA 

section 112(d)(3) and may not be based 

on cost considerations. For new sources, 

the MACT floor cannot be less stringent 

than the emission control that is 

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The MACT 

floors for existing sources can be less 

stringent than floors for new sources, 

but they cannot be less stringent than 

the average emissions limitation 

achieved by the best-performing 12 

percent of existing sources in the 

category or subcategory (or the bestperforming five sources for categories or 

subcategories with fewer than 30 

sources). In developing MACT 

standards, we must also consider 

control options that are more stringent 

than the floor. We may establish 

standards more stringent than the floor 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80223 

1 ‘‘Adverse environmental effect’’ is defined in 

CAA section 112(a)(7) as any significant and 

widespread adverse effect, which may be 

reasonably anticipated to wildlife, aquatic life, or 

natural resources, including adverse impacts on 

populations of endangered or threatened species or 

significant degradation of environmental qualities 

over broad areas. 

based on the consideration of the cost of 

achieving the emissions reductions, any 

nonair quality health and environmental 

impacts, and energy requirements. 

The EPA is required to review these 

technology-based standards and to 

revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into 

account developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies)’’ no 

less frequently than every 8 years, under 

CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting 

this review, EPA is not obliged to 

completely recalculate the prior MACT 

determination. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 

1077, 1084 (DC Cir. 2008). 

The second stage in standard-setting 

focuses on reducing any remaining 

‘‘residual’’ risk according to CAA section 

112(f). This provision requires, first, that 

EPA prepare a Report to Congress 

discussing (among other things) 

methods of calculating the risks posed 

(or potentially posed) by sources after 

implementation of the MACT standards, 

the public health significance of those 

risks, the means and costs of controlling 

them, the actual health effects to 

persons in proximity of emitting 

sources, and the recommendations 

regarding legislation of such remaining 

risk. EPA prepared and submitted this 

report (Residual Risk Report to 

Congress, EPA–453/R–99–001) in March 

1999. Congress did not act in response 

to the report, thereby triggering EPA’s 

obligation under CAA section 112(f)(2) 

to analyze and address residual risk. 

Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires 

us to determine, for source categories 

subject to certain MACT standards, 

whether the emissions standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. If the MACT 

standards for HAP ‘‘classified as a 

known, probable, or possible human 

carcinogen, do not reduce lifetime 

excess cancer risks to the individual 

most exposed to emissions from a 

source in the category or subcategory to 

less than 1-in-1 million,’’ EPA must 

promulgate residual risk standards for 

the source category (or subcategory) as 

necessary to provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. In doing 

so, EPA may adopt standards equal to 

existing MACT standards if EPA 

determines that the existing standards 

are sufficiently protective. As stated in 

NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC 

Cir. 2008), ‘‘If EPA determines that the 

existing technology-based standards 

provide an ‘ample margin of safety,’ 

then the Agency is free to readopt those 

standards during the residual risk 

rulemaking.’’ CAA section 112(f)(2) 

further states that EPA must also adopt 

more stringent standards if required, ‘‘to 

prevent, taking into consideration costs, 

energy, safety, and other relevant 

factors, an adverse environmental 

effect.’’ 1

When Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA 

was enacted in 1990, it expressly 

preserved our use of the two-step 

process for developing standards to 

address any residual risk and our 

interpretation of ‘‘ample margin of 

safety’’ developed in the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from 

Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/ 

Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, 

Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke 

By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene 

NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 

1989). The first step in this process is 

the determination of acceptable risk. 

The second step provides for an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health, 

which is the level at which the 

standards are set (unless a more 

stringent standard is required to 

prevent, taking into consideration costs, 

energy, safety, and other relevant 

factors, an adverse environmental 

effect). 

The terms ‘‘individual most exposed,’’ 

‘‘acceptable level,’’ and ‘‘ample margin of 

safety’’ are not specifically defined in 

the CAA. However, CAA section 

112(f)(2)(B) preserves the interpretation 

set out in the Benzene NESHAP, and the 

Court (in NRDC v. EPA) concluded that 

EPA’s interpretation of subsection 

112(f)(2) is a reasonable one. See NRDC 

v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 

2008), which says ‘‘[S]ubsection 

112(f)(2)(B) expressly incorporates 

EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air 

Act from the Benzene standard, 

complete with a citation to the Federal 

Register.’’ See also, A Legislative History 

of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990, volume 1, p. 877 (Senate debate 

on Conference Report). We notified 

Congress in the Residual Risk Report to 

Congress that we intended to use the 

Benzene NESHAP approach in making 

CAA section 112(f) residual risk 

determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. 

ES–11). 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated as 

an overall objective: 

* * * in protecting public health with an 

ample margin of safety, we strive to provide 

maximum feasible protection against risks to 

health from hazardous air pollutants by (1) 

protecting the greatest number of persons 

possible to an individual lifetime risk level 

no higher than approximately 1-in-1 million; 

and (2) limiting to no higher than 

approximately 1-in-10 thousand [i.e., 100-in1 million] the estimated risk that a person 

living near a facility would have if he or she 

were exposed to the maximum pollutant 

concentrations for 70 years. 

The EPA also stated that, ‘‘The EPA 

also considers incidence (the number of 

persons estimated to suffer cancer or 

other serious health effects as a result of 

exposure to a pollutant) to be an 

important measure of the health risk to 

the exposed population. Incidence 

measures the extent of health risk to the 

exposed population as a whole, by 

providing an estimate of the occurrence 

of cancer or other serious health effects 

in the exposed population.’’ The EPA 

went on to conclude, ‘‘estimated 

incidence would be weighed along with 

other health risk information in judging 

acceptability.’’ As explained more fully 

in our Residual Risk Report to Congress, 

EPA does not define ‘‘rigid line[s] of 

acceptability,’’ but considers rather 

broad objectives to be weighed with a 

series of other health measures and 

factors (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). 

The determination of what represents an 

‘‘acceptable’’ risk is based on a judgment 

of ‘‘what risks are acceptable in the 

world in which we live’’ (Residual Risk 

Report to Congress, p. 178, quoting the 

Vinyl Chloride decision at 824 F.2d 

1165) recognizing that our world is not 

risk-free. 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated 

that ‘‘EPA will generally presume that if 

the risk to [the maximum exposed] 

individual is no higher than 

approximately 1-in-10 thousand, that 

risk level is considered acceptable.’’ 54 

FR 38045. We discussed the maximum 

individual lifetime cancer risk as being 

‘‘the estimated risk that a person living 

near a plant would have if he or she 

were exposed to the maximum pollutant 

concentrations for 70 years.’’ Id. We 

explained that this measure of risk ‘‘is 

an estimate of the upper bound of risk 

based on conservative assumptions, 

such as continuous exposure for 24 

hours per day for 70 years.’’ Id. We 

acknowledge that maximum individual 

lifetime cancer risk ‘‘does not 

necessarily reflect the true risk, but 

displays a conservative risk level which 

is an upper-bound that is unlikely to be 

exceeded.’’ Id. 

Understanding that there are both 

benefits and limitations to using 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk as a metric for determining 

acceptability, we acknowledged in the 

1989 Benzene NESHAP that 

‘‘consideration of maximum individual 

risk * * * must take into account the 

strengths and weaknesses of this 

measure of risk.’’ Id. Consequently, the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
80224 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

2Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual 

risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one 

metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated 

risk were an individual exposed to the maximum 

level of a pollutant for a lifetime. 

3EPA previously provided estimates of total 

facility risk in a residual risk proposal for coke oven 

batteries (69 FR 48338, August 9, 2004). 

presumptive risk level of 100-in-1 

million (1-in-10 thousand) provides a 

benchmark for judging the acceptability 

of maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk, but does not constitute a rigid line 

for making that determination. 

The EPA also explained in the 1989 

Benzene NESHAP the following: ‘‘In 

establishing a presumption for MIR 

[maximum individual cancer risk], 

rather than a rigid line for acceptability, 

the Agency intends to weigh it with a 

series of other health measures and 

factors. These include the overall 

incidence of cancer or other serious 

health effects within the exposed 

population, the numbers of persons 

exposed within each individual lifetime 

risk range and associated incidence 

within, typically, a 50-km exposure 

radius around facilities, the science 

policy assumptions and estimation 

uncertainties associated with the risk 

measures, weight of the scientific 

evidence for human health effects, other 

quantified or unquantified health 

effects, effects due to co-location of 

facilities, and co-emission of 

pollutants.’’ Id. 

In some cases, these health measures 

and factors taken together may provide 

a more realistic description of the 

magnitude of risk in the exposed 

population than that provided by 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk alone. As explained in the Benzene 

NESHAP, ‘‘[e]ven though the risks 

judged ‘‘acceptable’’ by EPA in the first 

step of the Vinyl Chloride inquiry are 

already low, the second step of the 

inquiry, determining an ‘‘ample margin 

of safety,’’ again includes consideration 

of all of the health factors, and whether 

to reduce the risks even further.’’ In the 

ample margin of safety decision process, 

the EPA again considers all of the health 

risks and other health information 

considered in the first step. Beyond that 

information, additional factors relating 

to the appropriate level of control will 

also be considered, including costs and 

economic impacts of controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties, 

and any other relevant factors. 

Considering all of these factors, the EPA 

will establish the standard at a level that 

provides an ample margin of safety to 

protect the public health, as required by 

CAA section 112(f). 54 FR 38046. 

B. How did we consider the risk results 

in making decisions for this proposal? 

As discussed in section III.A of this 

preamble, we apply a two-step process 

for developing standards to address 

residual risk. In the first step, EPA 

determines if risks are acceptable. This 

determination ‘‘considers all health 

information, including risk estimation 

uncertainty, and includes a presumptive 

limit on MIR 2 of approximately 1-in-10 

thousand [i.e., 100-in-1 million].’’ 54 FR 

38045. In the second step of the process, 

EPA sets the standard at a level that 

provides an ample margin of safety ‘‘in 

consideration of all health information, 

including the number of persons at risk 

levels higher than approximately 1-in-1 

million, as well as other relevant factors, 

including costs and economic impacts, 

technological feasibility, and other 

factors relevant to each particular 

decision.’’ Id. 

In past residual risk determinations, 

EPA presented a number of human 

health risk metrics associated with 

emissions from the category under 

review, including: The MIR; the 

numbers of persons in various risk 

ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum 

non-cancer HI; and the maximum acute 

non-cancer hazard (72 FR 25138, May 3, 

2007; 71 FR 42724, July 27, 2006). EPA 

also discussed and considered risk 

estimation uncertainties. In our most 

recent proposal (75 FR 65068), EPA also 

presented and considered additional 

measures of health information to 

support our decision-making, including: 

Estimates of ‘‘total facility’’ risks (risks 

from all HAP emissions from the facility 

at which the source category is 

located); 3 demographic analyses 

(analyses of the distributions of HAPrelated risks across different social, 

demographic, and economic groups 

living near the facilities); and estimates 

of the risks associated with emissions 

allowed by the MACT standards (75 FR 

65068, October 21, 2010). EPA is 

providing this same type of information 

in support of the proposed actions 

described in this Federal Register 

notice. 

The EPA is considering all available 

health information to inform our 

determinations of risk acceptability and 

ample margin of safety under CAA 

section 112(f). Specifically, as explained 

in the Benzene NESHAP, ‘‘the first step 

judgment on acceptability cannot be 

reduced to any single factor’’ and thus 

‘‘[t]he Administrator believes that the 

acceptability of risk under section 112 is 

best judged on the basis of a broad set 

of health risk measures and 

information.’’ 54 FR 38044, 38046 (Sept. 

14, 1989). Similarly, with regard to 

making the ample margin of safety 

determination, as stated in the Benzene 

NESHAP ‘‘[I]n the ample margin 

decision, the EPA again considers all of 

the health risk and other health 

information considered in the first step. 

Beyond that information, additional 

factors relating to the appropriate level 

of control will also be considered, 

including cost and economic impacts of 

controls, technological feasibility, 

uncertainties, and any other relevant 

factors.’’ Id. 

The EPA acknowledges that flexibility 

is provided by the Benzene NESHAP 

regarding what factors EPA might 

consider in making determinations and 

how they might be weighed for each 

source category. In responding to 

comment on our policy under the 

Benzene NESHAP, EPA explained that: 

‘‘The policy chosen by the 

Administrator permits consideration of 

multiple measures of health risk. Not 

only can the MIR figure be considered, 

but also incidence, the presence of noncancer health effects, and the 

uncertainties of the risk estimates. In 

this way, the effect on the most exposed 

individuals can be reviewed as well as 

the impact on the general public. These 

factors can then be weighed in each 

individual case. This approach complies 

with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that 

the Administrator ascertain an 

acceptable level of risk to the public by 

employing [her] expertise to assess 

available data. It also complies with the 

Congressional intent behind the CAA, 

which did not exclude the use of any 

particular measure of public health risk 

from the EPA’s consideration with 

respect to CAA section 112 regulations, 

and, thereby, implicitly permits 

consideration of any and all measures of 

health risk which the Administrator, in 

[her] judgment, believes are appropriate 

to determining what will ‘protect the 

public health.’ ’’ 54 FR 38057. 

For example, the level of the MIR is 

only one factor to be weighed in 

determining acceptability of risks. It is 

explained in the Benzene NESHAP ‘‘an 

MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand 

should ordinarily be the upper end of 

the range of acceptability. As risks 

increase above this benchmark, they 

become presumptively less acceptable 

under CAA section 112, and would be 

weighed with the other health risk 

measures and information in making an 

overall judgment on acceptability. Or, 

the EPA may find, in a particular case, 

that a risk that includes MIR less than 

the presumptively acceptable level is 

unacceptable in the light of other health 

risk factors.’’ Id. at 38045. Similarly, 

with regard to the ample margin of 

safety analysis, it is stated in the 

Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘* * * EPA 

believes the relative weight of the many 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80225 

4EPA’s responses to this and all other key 

recommendations of the SAB’s advisory on RTR 

risk assessment methodologies (which is available 

at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 

4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/ 

EPA–SAB–10–007-unsigned.pdf) are outlined in a 

memo to this rulemaking docket from David 

Guinnup entitled, EPA’s Actions in Response to the 

Key Recommendations of the SAB Review of RTR 

Risk Assessment Methodologies. 

factors that can be considered in 

selecting an ample margin of safety can 

only be determined for each specific 

source category. This occurs mainly 

because technological and economic 

factors (along with the health-related 

factors) vary from source category to 

source category.’’ Id. at 38061. 

EPA wishes to point out that certain 

health information has not been 

considered in these decisions. In 

assessing risks to populations in the 

vicinity of the facilities in each category, 

we present estimates of risk associated 

with HAP emissions from the source 

category alone (source category risk 

estimates) and HAP emissions from the 

entire facilities at which the covered 

source categories are located (facilitywide risk estimates). We do not attempt 

to characterize the risks associated with 

all HAP emissions impacting the 

populations living near the sources in 

these categories. That is, we have not 

presented estimates of total HAP 

inhalation risks from all sources in the 

vicinity of the covered sources (e.g., the 

sum of the risks from ambient levels, 

emissions from the source category, 

facility-wide emissions, and emissions 

from other facilities nearby), nor have 

we attempted to include estimates of 

total HAP inhalation risks from indoor 

sources such as from cooking or 

degassing from consumer products. 

The EPA understands the potential 

importance of considering an 

individual’s total exposure to HAP in 

addition to considering exposure to 

HAP emissions from the source category 

and facility. While such considerations 

are relevant to both cancer and noncancer risk assessments, they can be 

particularly important when assessing 

cumulative non-cancer risks, where 

pollutant-specific risk-based exposure 

levels (e.g., RfC) are based on the 

assumption that thresholds exist for 

adverse health effects. For example, the 

EPA recognizes that, although exposures 

attributable to emissions from a source 

category or facility alone may not 

indicate the potential for increased risk 

of adverse non-cancer health effects in 

a population, the exposures resulting 

from emissions from the facility in 

combination with emissions from all of 

the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to 

which an individual is exposed, may be 

sufficient to result in increased risk of 

adverse non-cancer health effects. In 

May 2010, the SAB advised us ‘‘* * * 

that RTR assessments will be most 

useful to decision makers and 

communities if results are presented in 

the broader context of aggregate and 

cumulative risks, including background 

concentrations and contributions from 

other sources in the area.’’ 4

While we are interested in placing 

source category and facility-wide HAP 

risks in the context of total HAP risks 

from all sources combined in the 

vicinity of each source, we are 

concerned about the uncertainties of 

doing so. At this point, we believe that 

such estimates of total HAP risks will 

have significantly greater associated 

uncertainties than for the source 

category or facility-wide estimates, 

hence compounding the uncertainty in 

any such comparison. This is because 

we have not conducted a detailed 

technical review of HAP emissions data 

for source categories and facilities that 

have not previously undergone a RTR 

review or are not currently undergoing 

such review. We are requesting 

comment on whether and how best to 

estimate and evaluate total HAP 

exposure from outdoor sources in our 

assessments, and, in particular, on 

whether and how it might be 

appropriate to use information from 

EPA’s NATA to support such estimates. 

We also request comment whether and 

how to estimate total HAP exposure 

from indoor sources in the context of 

these assessments. We are also seeking 

comment on how best to consider 

various types and scales of risk 

estimates when making our 

acceptability and ample margin of safety 

determinations under CAA section 

112(f). Additionally, we are seeking 

comments and recommendations for 

any other comparative measures that 

may be useful in the assessment of the 

distribution of HAP risks across 

potentially affected demographic 

groups. 

C. What other actions are we addressing 

in this proposal? 

We are also proposing to revise 

requirements in these MACT standards 

related to emissions during periods of 

SSM. The United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit vacated portions of two 

provisions in EPA’s CAA section 112 

regulations governing the emissions of 

HAP during periods of SSM. Sierra Club 

v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), 

cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). 

Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM 

exemption contained in 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are 

part of a regulation, commonly referred 

to as the General Provisions Rule, that 

EPA promulgated under section 112 of 

the CAA. When incorporated into CAA 

section 112(d) regulations for specific 

source categories, these two provisions 

exempt sources from the requirement to 

comply with the otherwise applicable 

CAA section 112(d) emission standard 

during periods of SSM. 

We are proposing the elimination of 

the SSM exemption in both of the 

MACT standards addressed in this 

proposal. Consistent with Sierra Club v. 

EPA, EPA is proposing standards in 

these rules that apply at all times. In 

proposing the standards in these rules, 

EPA has taken into account startup and 

shutdown periods, and, because 

operations and emissions do not differ 

from normal operations during these 

periods, has not proposed different 

standards for these periods. We are also 

proposing several revisions to the 

General Provisions Applicability table in 

both of the MACT standards. For 

example, we are proposing to eliminate 

the incorporation of the General 

Provisions’ requirement that the source 

develop a SSM plan. We are also 

proposing to eliminate or revise certain 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the SSM 

exemption. EPA has attempted to ensure 

that we have not included in the 

proposed regulatory language any 

provisions that are inappropriate, 

unnecessary, or redundant in the 

absence of the SSM exemption. We are 

specifically seeking comment on 

whether there are any such provisions 

that we have inadvertently incorporated 

or overlooked. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

However, by contrast, malfunction is 

defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and 

not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner * * *’’ (40 CFR 63.2). EPA has 

determined that malfunctions should 

not be viewed as a distinct operating 

mode and, therefore, any emissions that 

occur at such times do not need to be 

factored into development of CAA 

section 112(d) standards, which, once 

promulgated, apply at all times. In 

Mossville Environmental Action Now v. 

EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1242 (DC Cir. 

2004), the Court upheld as reasonable 

standards that had factored in 

variability of emissions under all 

operating conditions. However, nothing 

in CAA section 112(d) or in case law 

requires that EPA anticipate and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
80226 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

account for the innumerable types of 

potential malfunction events in setting 

emission standards. See Weyerhaeuser 

v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (DC Cir. 

1978), (‘‘In the nature of things, no 

general limit, individual permit, or even 

any upset provision can anticipate all 

upset situations. After a certain point, 

the transgression of regulatory limits 

caused by ‘‘uncontrollable acts of third 

parties,’’ such as strikes, sabotage, 

operator intoxication or insanity, and a 

variety of other eventualities, must be a 

matter for the administrative exercise of 

case-by-case enforcement discretion, not 

for specification in advance by 

regulation.’’). Further, it is reasonable to 

interpret CAA section 112(d) as not 

requiring EPA to account for 

malfunctions in setting emissions 

standards. For example, we note that 

CAA section 112 uses the concept of 

‘‘best performing’’ sources in defining 

MACT, the level of stringency that 

major source standards must meet. 

Applying the concept of ‘‘best 

performing’’ to a source that is 

malfunctioning presents significant 

difficulties. The goal of best performing 

sources is to operate in such a way as 

to avoid malfunctions of their units. 

Moreover, even if malfunctions were 

considered a distinct operating mode, 

we believe it would be impracticable to 

take malfunctions into account in 

setting CAA section 112(d) standards for 

shipbuilding and ship repair (surface 

coating) and wood furniture 

manufacturing operations. As noted 

above, by definition, malfunctions are 

sudden and unexpected events, and it 

would be difficult to set a standard that 

takes into account the myriad different 

types of malfunctions that can occur 

across all sources in each source 

category. Malfunctions can also vary in 

frequency, degree, and duration, further 

complicating standard setting. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

112(d) standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. EPA would also consider 

whether the source’s failure to comply 

with the CAA section 112(d) standard 

was, in fact, ‘‘sudden, infrequent, not 

reasonably preventable’’ and was not 

instead ‘‘caused in part by poor 

maintenance or careless operation.’’ 40 

CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). 

Finally, EPA recognizes that even 

equipment that is properly designed and 

maintained can sometimes fail and that 

such failure can sometimes cause or 

contribute to an exceedance of the 

relevant emission standard. (See, e.g., 

State Implementation Plans: Policy 

Regarding Excessive Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown 

(September 20, 1999); Policy on Excess 

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, 

Maintenance, and Malfunctions 

(February 15, 1983)). EPA is, therefore, 

proposing to add to the final rule an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

exceedances of emission limits that are 

caused by malfunctions in both of the 

MACT standards addressed in this 

proposal. See 40 CFR 63.782 for sources 

subject to the Shipbuilding and Repair 

(Surface Coating) MACT standards, or 

40 CFR 63.801 for sources subject to the 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations MACT standards (defining 

‘‘affirmative defense’’ to mean, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding). We also 

are proposing other regulatory 

provisions to specify the elements that 

are necessary to establish this 

affirmative defense; a source subject to 

the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

(Surface Coating) MACT standards must 

prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that it has met all of the 

elements set forth in 40 CFR 63.781(d) 

and a source subject to the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations 

MACT standards must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that it 

has met all of the elements set forth in 

40 CFR 63.800(h). (See 40 CFR 22.24.) 

The criteria ensure that the affirmative 

defense is available only where the 

event that causes an exceedance of the 

emission limit meets the narrow 

definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 

(sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 

preventable and not caused by poor 

maintenance and or careless operation). 

For example to successfully assert the 

affirmative defense, the source must 

prove by a preponderance of evidence 

that excess emissions ‘‘[w]ere caused by 

a sudden, short, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution 

control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment, or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner. 

***’’ The criteria also are designed to 

ensure that steps are taken to correct the 

malfunction, to minimize emissions in 

accordance with 40 CFR 63.783(b)(1) for 

sources subject to the Shipbuilding and 

Ship Repair (Surface Coating) MACT 

standards, or 40 CFR 63.802(c) for 

sources subject to the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations MACT 

standards, and to prevent future 

malfunctions. For example the source 

must prove by a preponderance of 

evidence that ‘‘[r]epairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emission limitations were 

being exceeded* * *’’ and that ‘‘[a]ll 

possible steps were taken to minimize 

the impact of the excess emissions on 

ambient air quality, the environment 

and human health* * *’’ In any judicial 

or administrative proceeding, the 

Administrator may challenge the 

assertion of the affirmative defense and, 

if the respondent has not met its burden 

of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense, appropriate 

penalties may be assessed in accordance 

with section 113 of the CAA (see also 

40 CFR 22.77). 

IV. Analyses Performed 

As discussed above, in this notice, we 

are taking the following actions: (1) we 

are proposing action to address the RTR 

requirements of CAA sections 112(d)(6) 

and (f)(2) for both the Shipbuilding and 

Ship Repair (Surface Coating) and the 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations MACT standards; and, (2) 

we are proposing to revise the 

provisions in both of these MACT 

standards to address SSM to ensure that 

the SSM provisions are consistent with 

the Court decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019. In this section, we 

describe the analyses performed to 

support the proposed decisions for the 

RTRs for each of these source categories. 

A. How did we estimate risks posed by 

the source categories? 

The EPA conducted risk assessments 

that provided estimates of the MIR 

posed by the HAP emissions from each 

source in a category, and, by each 

source category, the distribution of 

cancer risks within the exposed 

populations, cancer incidence, HI for 

chronic exposures to HAP with the 

potential to cause non-cancer health 

effects, HQ for acute exposures to HAP 

with the potential to cause non-cancer 

health effects, and an evaluation of the 

potential for adverse environmental 

effects. The risk assessments consisted 

of seven primary steps, as discussed 

below. The docket for this rulemaking 

contains the following documents 

which provide more information on the 

risk assessment inputs and models: 

Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations Source Category, and Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80227 

5The NEI is a database that contains information 

about sources that emit criteria air pollutants and 

their precursors, and HAP. The database includes 

estimates of annual air pollutant emissions from 

point, non-point, and mobile sources in the 50 

states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands. The EPA collects this information 

and releases an updated version of the NEI database 

every three years. 

6U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air 

Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General 

Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion 

Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, 

November 9, 2005). 

7A census block is generally the smallest 

geographic area for which census statistics are 

tabulated. 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Source 

Category. 

1. Establishing the Nature and 

Magnitude of Actual Emissions and 

Identifying the Emissions Release 

Characteristics 

For the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

(Surface Coating) source category, we 

compiled preliminary datasets using 

readily-available information, reviewed 

the data, made changes where 

necessary, and shared these data with 

the public via an ANPRM. 72 FR 29287, 

March 29, 2007. The preliminary dataset 

was based on data in the 2002 National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) Final 

Inventory, Version 1 (made publicly 

available on February 26, 2006).5 The 

preliminary dataset was updated with 

information received in response to the 

ANPRM; data from the 2005 NEI, when 

that data became available; and 

additional data gathered by EPA. For 

more information see the Memoranda 

Documenting Changes to the RTR 

Dataset for the Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair (Surface Coating) Source 

Category, dated November 22, 2010, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action. The updated dataset contains 85 

facilities and was used to conduct the 

risk assessments and other analyses that 

form the basis for the proposed actions 

for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

(Surface Coating) source category. 

For the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations source 

category, we compiled preliminary 

datasets using the best data available, 

reviewed the data, and made changes 

where necessary. For this source 

category, we compiled the preliminary 

datasets using data in the 2005 NEI. 

After incorporation of changes to the 

dataset based on additional information 

gathered by EPA, an updated dataset 

was created. This updated dataset 

contains 385 facilities and was used to 

conduct the risk assessments and other 

analyses that form the basis for the 

proposed actions for the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations 

source category. 

2. Establishing the Relationship 

Between Actual Emissions and MACT– 

Allowable Emissions Levels 

The available emissions data in the 

NEI and from other sources typically 

represent the estimates of mass of 

emissions actually emitted during the 

specified annual time period. These 

‘‘actual’’ emission levels are often lower 

than the emission levels that a facility 

might be allowed to emit and still 

comply with the MACT standards. The 

emissions level allowed to be emitted by 

the MACT standards is referred to as the 

‘‘MACT-allowable’’ emissions level. This 

represents the highest emissions level 

that could be emitted by the facility 

without violating the MACT standards. 

We discussed the use of both MACTallowable and actual emissions in the 

final Coke Oven Batteries residual risk 

rule (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 

2005) and in the proposed and final 

HON residual risk rules (71 FR 34428, 

June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, 

December 21, 2006, respectively). In 

those previous actions, we noted that 

assessing the risks at the MACTallowable level is inherently reasonable 

since these risks reflect the maximum 

level sources could emit and still 

comply with national emission 

standards. But we also explained that it 

is reasonable to consider actual 

emissions, where such data are 

available, in both steps of the risk 

analysis, in accordance with the 

Benzene NESHAP. (54 FR 38044, 

September 14, 1989.) It is reasonable to 

consider actual emissions because 

sources typically seek to perform better 

than required by emission standards to 

provide an operational cushion to 

accommodate the variability in 

manufacturing processes and control 

device performance. 

As described above, the actual 

emissions data were compiled based on 

the NEI, information gathered from 

companies, individual facilities, 

industry trade associations, states, and 

information received in response to the 

ANPRM. To estimate emissions at the 

MACT-allowable level, we developed a 

ratio of MACT-allowable to actual 

emissions for each emissions source 

type in each source category, based on 

the level of control required by the 

MACT standards compared to the level 

of reported actual emissions and 

available information on the level of 

control achieved by the emissions 

controls in use. For example, if there 

was information to suggest several 

facilities in the Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair (Surface Coating) source category 

were using coatings that contain only 1 

Kg of VOHAP compounds per Kg of 

coating solids (kg VOHAP/kg solids) 

while the MACT standards required 

coatings to contain no more than 2 kg 

VOHAP/kg solids, we would estimate 

that MACT-allowable emissions from 

emission points using these coatings 

could be as much as 2 times higher 

(VOHAP content of 2 kg/kg solids 

allowed compared with VOHAP content 

of 1 kg/kg solids actually used), and the 

ratio of MACT-allowable to actual 

would be 2:1 for the emission points 

using these coatings at the facilities in 

this source category. After developing 

these ratios for each emission point type 

in each source category, we next applied 

these ratios on a facility-by-facility basis 

to the maximum chronic risk estimates 

from the inhalation risk assessment to 

obtain facility-specific maximum risk 

estimates based on MACT-allowable 

emissions. The estimates of MACTallowable emissions for the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations 

and Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

(Surface Coating) source categories are 

described in section V of this preamble. 

3. Conducting Dispersion Modeling, 

Determining Inhalation Exposures, and 

Estimating Individual and Population 

Inhalation Risks 

Both long-term and short-term 

inhalation exposure concentrations and 

health risks from each of the source 

categories addressed in this proposal 

were estimated using the HEM 

(Community and Sector HEM–3 version 

1.1.0). The HEM–3 performs three of the 

primary risk assessment activities listed 

above: (1) Conducting dispersion 

modeling to estimate the concentrations 

of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating 

long-term and short-term inhalation 

exposures to individuals residing within 

50 km of the modeled sources, and (3) 

estimating individual and populationlevel inhalation risks using the exposure 

estimates and quantitative doseresponse information. 

The dispersion model used by HEM– 

3 is AERMOD, which is one of EPA’s 

preferred models for assessing pollutant 

concentrations from industrial 

facilities.6 To perform the dispersion 

modeling and to develop the 

preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 

draws on three data libraries. The first 

is a library of meteorological data, 

which is used for dispersion 

calculations. This library includes one 

year of hourly surface and upper air 

observations for 130 meteorological 

stations, selected to provide coverage of 

the United States and Puerto Rico. A 

second library of United States Census 

Bureau census block 7 internal point 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
80228 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

8Conolly, RB, Kimbell, JS, Janszen, D, Schlosser, 

PM, Kalisak, D, Preston, J, and Miller, FJ. 2003. 

Biologically Motivated Computational Modeling of 

Formaldehyde Carcinogencity in the F344 Rat. Tox 

Sci 75: 432–447. 

9Conolly, RB, Kimbell, JS, Janszen, D, Schlosser, 

PM, Kalisak, D, Preston, J, and Miller, FJ. 2004. 

Human Respiratory Tract Cancer Risks of Inhaled 

Formaldehyde: Dose-Response Predictions Derived 

from Biologically-Motivated Computational 

Modeling of a Combined Rodent and Human 

Dataset. Tox Sci 82: 279–296. 

10Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology 

(CIIT). 1999. Formaldehyde: Hazard 

Characterization and Dose-Response Assessment 

for Carcinogenicity by the Route of Inhalation. CIIT, 

September 28, 1999. Research Triangle Park, NC. 

11U.S. EPA. Analysis of the Sensitivity and 

Uncertainty in 2–Stage Clonal Growth Models for 

Formaldehyde with Relevance to Other BiologicallyBased Dose Response (BBDR) Models. U.S. EPA, 

Washington, D.C., EPA/600/R–08/103, 2008. 

12Subramaniam, R; Chen, C; Crump, K; et al. 

(2008). Uncertainties in Biologically-Based 

Modeling of Formaldehyde-Induced Cancer Risk: 

Identification of Key Issues. Risk Anal 28 (4):907– 

923. 

13Subramaniam RP; Crump KS; Van Landingham 

C; White P; Chen C; Schlosser PM (2007). 

Uncertainties in the CIIT model for formaldehydeinduced carcinogenicity in the rat: A limited 

sensitivity analysis–I. Risk Anal, 27: 1237–1254. 

14Crump, K; Chen, C; Fox, J; et al. (2008). 

Sensitivity Analysis of Biologically Motivated Model 

for Formaldehyde-Induced Respiratory Cancer in 

Humans. Ann Occup Hyg 52:481–495. 

15Crump, K; Chen, C; Fox, J; et al. (2008). 

Sensitivity Analysis of Biologically Motivated Model 

for Formaldehyde-Induced Respiratory Cancer in 

Humans. Ann Occup Hyg 52:481–495. 

16Subramaniam RP; Crump KS; Van Landingham 

C; White P; Chen C; Schlosser PM (2007). 

Uncertainties in the CIIT model for formaldehydeinduced carcinogenicity in the rat: A limited 

sensitivity analysis–I. Risk Anal, 27: 1237–1254. 

17U.S. EPA, 2005. Performing risk assessments 

that include carcinogens described in the 

Supplemental Guidance as having a mutagenic 

mode of action. Science Policy Council Cancer 

Guidelines Implementation Work Group 

Communication II: Memo from W.H. Farland, dated 

October 4, 2005. 

18See the Risk Assessment for Source Categories 

document available in the docket for a list of HAP 

with a mutagenic mode of action. 

19U.S. EPA, 2005. Supplemental Guidance for 

Assessing Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens. EPA/ 

630/R–03/003F. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/ 

childrens_supplement_final.pdf. 

20U.S. EPA, 2006. Science Policy Council Cancer 

Guidelines Implementation Workgroup 

Communication II: Memo from W.H. Farland, dated 

June 14, 2006. 

locations and populations provides the 

basis of human exposure calculations 

(Census, 2000). In addition, for each 

census block, the census library 

includes the elevation and controlling 

hill height, which are also used in 

dispersion calculations. A third library 

of pollutant unit risk factors and other 

health benchmarks is used to estimate 

health risks. These risk factors and 

health benchmarks are the latest values 

recommended by EPA for HAP and 

other toxic air pollutants. These values 

are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/toxsource/summary.html and are 

discussed in more detail later in this 

section. 

In developing the risk assessment for 

chronic exposures, we used the 

estimated annual average ambient air 

concentration of each of the HAP 

emitted by each source for which we 

have emissions data in the source 

category. The air concentrations at each 

nearby census block centroid were used 

as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation 

exposure concentration for all the 

people who reside in that census block. 

We calculated the MIR for each facility 

as the cancer risk associated with a 

continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 

7 days per week, and 52 weeks per year 

for a 70-year period) exposure to the 

maximum concentration at the centroid 

of an inhabited census block. Individual 

cancer risks were calculated by 

multiplying the estimated lifetime 

exposure to the ambient concentration 

of each of the HAP (in micrograms per 

cubic meter) by its URE, which is an 

upper bound estimate of an individual’s 

probability of contracting cancer over a 

lifetime of exposure to a concentration 

of 1 microgram of the pollutant per 

cubic meter of air. For residual risk 

assessments, we generally use URE 

values from EPA’s IRIS. For 

carcinogenic pollutants without EPA 

IRIS values, we look to other reputable 

sources of cancer dose-response values, 

often using CalEPA URE values, where 

available. In cases where new, 

scientifically credible dose-response 

values have been developed in a manner 

consistent with EPA guidelines and 

have undergone a peer review process 

similar to that used by EPA, we may use 

such dose-response values in place of, 

or in addition to, other values, if 

appropriate. 

Formaldehyde is a unique case. In 

2004, EPA determined that the CIIT 

dose-response value for formaldehyde 

(5.5 x 10¥9 μg/m3) was based on better 

science than the IRIS dose-response 

value (1.3 x 10¥5 μg/m3), and we 

switched from using the IRIS value to 

the CIIT value in risk assessments 

supporting regulatory actions. This 

determination was based on a 

substantial body of research on the 

inhalation dosimetry for formaldehyde 

in rodents and primates by the CIIT 

Centers for Health Research (formerly 

the CIIT), with a focus on use of rodent 

data for refinement of the quantitative 

cancer dose-response assessment.8 9 10

The CIIT’s risk assessment of 

formaldehyde incorporated mechanistic 

and dosimetric information on 

formaldehyde. However, recent research 

published by EPA indicates that, when 

the CIIT’s two-stage modeling 

assumptions are varied, resulting doseresponse estimates can vary by several 

orders of magnitude.11 12 13 14 These 

findings are not supportive of 

interpreting the CIIT model results as 

providing a conservative (healthprotective) estimate of human risk.15

The recent EPA research also examined 

the contribution of the two-stage 

modeling for formaldehyde towards 

characterizing the relative weights of 

key events in the mode-of-action of a 

carcinogen. For example, in the EPA 

research, the model-based inference in 

the published CIIT study that 

formaldehyde’s direct mutagenic action 

is not relevant to the compound’s 

tumorigenicity was found not to hold 

under variations of modeling 

assumptions.16 As a result of these 

findings, we no longer considered the 

CIIT URE value health protective, and 

we are again using the EPA’s current 

value on IRIS, which was last revised in 

1991, and which is more than 2000 

times greater than the CIIT value. We 

note that a new IRIS re-assessment has 

been drafted and sent to the NAS for 

review. The NAS review is expected to 

be completed by March of 2011. We also 

note that POM, a carcinogenic HAP with 

a mutagenic mode of action, is emitted 

by some of the facilities in these two 

categories.17 For this compound 

group,18 the ADAF described in EPA’s 

Supplemental Guidance for Assessing 

Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure 

to Carcinogens 19 were applied. This 

adjustment has the effect of increasing 

the estimated lifetime risks for POM by 

a factor of 1.6. In addition, although 

only a small fraction of the total POM 

emissions were not reported as 

individual compounds, EPA expresses 

carcinogenic potency for compounds in 

this group in terms of benzo[a]pyrene 

equivalence, based on evidence that 

carcinogenic POM has the same 

mutagenic mechanism of action as 

benzo[a]pyrene. For this reason, EPA’s 

Science Policy Council 20 recommends 

applying the Supplemental Guidance to 

all carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons for which risk estimates 

are based on relative potency. 

Accordingly, we have applied the ADAF 

to the benzo[a]pyrene equivalent 

portion of all POM mixtures. 

Incremental individual lifetime 

cancer risks associated with emissions 

from the source category were estimated 

as the sum of the risks for each of the 

carcinogenic HAP (including those 

classified as carcinogenic to humans, 

likely to be carcinogenic to humans, and 

suggestive evidence of carcinogenic 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80229 

21These classifications also coincide with the 

terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and 

possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the 

terms advocated in the EPA’s previous Guidelines 

for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 

(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). Summing the 

risks of these individual compounds to obtain the 

cumulative cancer risks is an approach that was 

recommended by the EPA’s SAB in their 2002 peer 

review of EPA’s NATA entitled, NATA—Evaluating 

the National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 

Data—an SAB Advisory, available at: http:// 

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/214C6E915

BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/

ecadv02001.pdf. 

22National Academies of Science, 2001. Standing 

Operating Procedures for Developing Acute 

Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2. 

potential 21) emitted by the modeled 

source. Cancer incidence and the 

distribution of individual cancer risks 

for the population within 50 km of any 

source were also estimated for the 

source category as part of these 

assessments by summing individual 

risks. A distance of 50 km is consistent 

with both the analysis supporting the 

1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044) 

and the limitations of Gaussian 

dispersion models, including AERMOD. 

To assess risk of non-cancer health 

effects from chronic exposures, we 

summed the HQ for each of the HAP 

that affects a common target organ 

system to obtain the HI for that target 

organ system (or target organ-specific 

HI, TOSHI). The HQ for chronic 

exposures is the estimated chronic 

exposure divided by the chronic 

reference level, which is either the EPA 

RfC, defined as ‘‘an estimate (with 

uncertainty spanning perhaps an order 

of magnitude) of a continuous 

inhalation exposure to the human 

population (including sensitive 

subgroups) that is likely to be without 

an appreciable risk of deleterious effects 

during a lifetime,’’ or, in cases where an 

RfC from EPA’s IRIS database is not 

available, EPA will utilize the following 

prioritized sources for our chronic doseresponse values: (1) The ATSDR MRL, 

which is defined as ‘‘an estimate of daily 

human exposure to a substance that is 

likely to be without an appreciable risk 

of adverse effects (other than cancer) 

over a specified duration of exposure’’; 

(2) the CalEPA Chronic REL, which is 

defined as ‘‘the concentration level at or 

below which no adverse health effects 

are anticipated for a specified exposure 

duration;’’ and (3) as noted above, in 

cases where scientifically credible doseresponse values have been developed in 

a manner consistent with EPA 

guidelines and have undergone a peer 

review process similar to that used by 

EPA, we may use those dose-response 

values in place of, or in concert with 

other values. 

Screening estimates of acute 

exposures and risks were also evaluated 

for each of the HAP at the point of 

highest off-site exposure for each facility 

(i.e., not just the census block centroids) 

assuming that a person is located at this 

spot at a time when both the peak 

(hourly) emission rate and hourly 

dispersion conditions (1991 calendar 

year data) occur. The acute HQ is the 

estimated acute exposure divided by the 

acute dose-response value. In each case, 

acute HQ values were calculated using 

best available, short-term dose-response 

values. These acute dose-response 

values, which are described below, 

include the acute REL, AEGL, and ERPG 

for 1-hour exposure durations. As 

discussed below, we used conservative 

assumptions for emission rates, 

meteorology, and exposure location for 

our acute analysis. 

As described in the CalEPA’s Air 

Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk 

Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The 

Determination of Acute Reference 

Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, 

an acute REL value (http:// 

www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) 

is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at 

or below which no adverse health 

effects are anticipated for a specified 

exposure duration.’’ Acute REL values 

are based on the most sensitive, 

relevant, adverse health effect reported 

in the medical and toxicological 

literature. Acute REL values are 

designed to protect the most sensitive 

individuals in the population by the 

inclusion of margins of safety. Since 

margins of safety are incorporated to 

address data gaps and uncertainties, 

exceeding the acute REL does not 

automatically indicate an adverse health 

impact. 

Acute Exposure Guideline Levels 

values were derived in response to 

recommendations from the NRC. As 

described in Standing Operating 

Procedures (SOP) of the National 

Advisory Committee on Acute Exposure 

Guideline Levels for Hazardous 

Substances (http://www.epa.gov/ 

opptintr/aegl/pubs/sop.pdf),22 ‘‘the 

NRC’s previous name for acute exposure 

levels—community emergency exposure 

levels (CEEL)— was replaced by the 

term AEGL to reflect the broad 

application of these values to planning, 

response, and prevention in the 

community, the workplace, 

transportation, the military, and the 

remediation of Superfund sites.’’ This 

document also states that AEGL values 

‘‘represent threshold exposure limits for 

the general public and are applicable to 

emergency exposures ranging from 10 

minutes to eight hours.’’ The document 

lays out the purpose and objectives of 

AEGL by stating (page 21) that ‘‘the 

primary purpose of the AEGL program 

and the NAC/AEGL Committee is to 

develop guideline levels for once-in-alifetime, short-term exposures to 

airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, 

high-priority chemicals.’’ In detailing 

the intended application of AEGL 

values, the document states (page 31) 

that ‘‘[i]t is anticipated that the AEGL 

values will be used for regulatory and 

nonregulatory purposes by United 

States Federal and State agencies, and 

possibly the international community in 

conjunction with chemical emergency 

response, planning, and prevention 

programs. More specifically, the AEGL 

values will be used for conducting 

various risk assessments to aid in the 

development of emergency 

preparedness and prevention plans, as 

well as real-time emergency response 

actions, for accidental chemical releases 

at fixed facilities and from transport 

carriers.’’ 

The AEGL–1 value is then specifically 

defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration 

of a substance above which it is 

predicted that the general population, 

including susceptible individuals, could 

experience notable discomfort, 

irritation, or certain asymptomatic 

nonsensory effects. However, the effects 

are not disabling and are transient and 

reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ 

The document also notes (page 3) that, 

‘‘Airborne concentrations below AEGL– 

1 represent exposure levels that can 

produce mild and progressively 

increasing but transient and 

nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory 

irritation or certain asymptomatic, 

nonsensory effects.’’ Similarly, the 

document defines AEGL–2 values as 

‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed 

as ppm or mg/m3) of a substance above 

which it is predicted that the general 

population, including susceptible 

individuals, could experience 

irreversible or other serious, long-lasting 

adverse health effects or an impaired 

ability to escape.’’ 

Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines values are derived for use in 

emergency response, as described in the 

American Industrial Hygiene 

Association’s document entitled, 

Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines (ERPG) Procedures and 

Responsibilities (http://www.aiha.org/ 

1documents/committees/ 

ERPSOPs2006.pdf), which states that, 

‘‘Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines were developed for 

emergency planning and are intended as 

health based guideline concentrations 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
80230 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

23ERP Committee Procedures and 

Responsibilities. 1 November, 2006. American 

Industrial Hygiene Association. 

24See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/ 

field_ops/eer/index.html or docket to access the 

source of these data. 

for single exposures to chemicals.’’ 23

The ERPG–1 value is defined as ‘‘the 

maximum airborne concentration below 

which it is believed that nearly all 

individuals could be exposed for up to 

one hour without experiencing other 

than mild transient adverse health 

effects or without perceiving a clearly 

defined, objectionable odor.’’ Similarly, 

the ERPG–2 value is defined as ‘‘the 

maximum airborne concentration below 

which it is believed that nearly all 

individuals could be exposed for up to 

one hour without experiencing or 

developing irreversible or other serious 

health effects or symptoms which could 

impair an individual’s ability to take 

protective action.’’ 

As can be seen from the definitions 

above, the AEGL and ERPG values 

include the similarly-defined severity 

levels one and 2. For many chemicals, 

a severity level one value AEGL or 

ERPG has not been developed; in these 

instances, higher severity level AEGL–2 

or ERPG–2 values are compared to our 

modeled exposure levels to screen for 

potential acute concerns. 

Acute REL values for one hour 

exposure durations are typically lower 

than their corresponding AEGL–1 and 

ERPG–1 values. Even though their 

definitions are slightly different, 

AEGL–1 values are often the same as the 

corresponding ERPG–1 values, and 

AEGL–2 values are often equal to 

ERPG–2 values. Maximum HQ values 

from our acute screening risk 

assessments typically result when 

basing them on the acute REL value for 

a particular pollutant. In cases where 

our maximum acute HQ value exceeds 

1, we also report the HQ value based on 

the next highest acute dose-response 

value (usually the AEGL–1 and/or the 

ERPG–1 value). 

To develop screening estimates of 

acute exposures, we developed 

estimates of maximum hourly emission 

rates by multiplying the average actual 

annual hourly emission rates by a factor 

to cover routinely variable emissions. 

We chose the factor based on process 

knowledge and engineering judgment 

and with awareness of a Texas study of 

short-term emissions variability, which 

showed that most peak emission events, 

in a heavily-industrialized 4-county area 

(Harris, Galveston, Chambers, and 

Brazoria Counties, Texas) were less than 

twice the annual average hourly 

emission rate. The highest peak 

emission event was 74 times the annual 

average hourly emission rate, and the 

99th percentile ratio of peak hourly 

emission rate to the annual average 

hourly emission rate was 9.24 This 

analysis is provided in Appendix 4 of 

the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations, and Draft Residual Risk 

Assessment for Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair (Surface Coating) which are 

available in the docket for this action. 

Considering this analysis, unless 

specific process knowledge or data are 

available to provide an alternate value, 

to account for more than 99 percent of 

the peak hourly emissions, we apply a 

conservative screening multiplication 

factor of 10 to the average annual hourly 

emission rate in these acute exposure 

screening assessments. For the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating) source category, this factor of 

10 was applied. For the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations source 

category, a factor of 4 was applied, 

based on emissions data provided by 

industry. More information supporting 

the use of this factor for Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations is presented 

in the memorandum, Acute Effects 

Factor for Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations, dated 

November 23, 2010, which is available 

in the docket for this action. We solicit 

comment on this factor and the data 

used to calculate it. 

In cases where all acute HQ values 

from the screening step were less than 

or equal to 1, acute impacts were 

deemed negligible and no further 

analysis was performed. In the cases 

where an acute HQ from the screening 

step was greater than 1, additional sitespecific data were considered to 

develop a more refined estimate of the 

potential for acute impacts of concern. 

The data refinements employed for 

these source categories consisted of 

using the site-specific facility layout to 

distinguish facility property from an 

area where the public could be exposed. 

These refinements are discussed in the 

draft risk assessment documents, which 

are available in the docket, for each of 

these source categories. Ideally, we 

would prefer to have continuous 

measurements over time to see how the 

emissions vary by each hour over an 

entire year. Having a frequency 

distribution of hourly emission rates 

over a year would allow us to perform 

a probabilistic analysis to estimate 

potential threshold exceedances and 

their frequency of occurrence. Such an 

evaluation could include a more 

complete statistical treatment of the key 

parameters and elements adopted in this 

screening analysis. However, we 

recognize that having this level of data 

is rare, hence our use of the multiplier 

approach. 

4. Conducting Multi-Pathway Exposure 

and Risk Modeling 

The potential for significant human 

health risks due to exposures via routes 

other than inhalation (i.e., multipathway exposures) and the potential 

for adverse environmental impacts were 

evaluated in a three-step process. In the 

first step, we determined whether any 

facilities emitted any HAP known to be 

PB–HAP. There are 14 PB–HAP 

compounds or compound classes 

identified for this screening in EPA’s Air 

Toxics Risk Assessment Library 

(available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

fera/risk_atra_vol1.html). They are 

cadmium compounds, chlordane, 

chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, 

dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, 

heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, 

hexachlorocyclohexane, lead 

compounds, mercury compounds, 

methoxychlor, polychlorinated 

biphenyls, POM, toxaphene, and 

trifluralin. 

Since one or more of these PB–HAP 

are emitted by facilities in both source 

categories, we proceeded to the second 

step of the evaluation. In this step, we 

determined whether the facility-specific 

emission rates of each of the emitted 

PB–HAP were large enough to create the 

potential for significant non-inhalation 

risks. To facilitate this step, we have 

developed emission rate thresholds for 

each PB–HAP using a hypothetical 

screening exposure scenario developed 

for use in conjunction with the EPA’s 

TRIM.FaTE model. The hypothetical 

screening scenario was subjected to a 

sensitivity analysis to ensure that its key 

design parameters were established 

such that environmental media 

concentrations were not underestimated 

(i.e., to minimize the occurrence of false 

negatives, or results that suggest that 

risks might be acceptable when, in fact, 

actual risks are high), and to also 

minimize the occurrence of false 

positives for human health endpoints. 

We call this application of the 

TRIM.FaTE model TRIM–Screen. The 

facility-specific emission rates of each of 

the PB–HAP in each source category 

were compared to the emission 

threshold values for each of the PB– 

HAP identified in the source category 

datasets. 

For all of the facilities in the source 

categories addressed in this proposal, all 

of the PB–HAP emission rates were less 

than the emission threshold values. As 

a result of this, multi-pathway 

exposures and environmental risks were 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80231 

25For example, the report pertaining to the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) 

source category is entitled Risk and Technology 

Review—Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for 

Populations Living Near Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair (Surface Coating) Operations. 

deemed negligible and no further 

analysis was performed. If the emission 

rates of the PB–HAP had been above the 

emission threshold values, the source 

categories would have been further 

evaluated for potential non-inhalation 

risks and adverse environmental effects 

in a third step through site-specific 

refined assessments using EPA’s 

TRIM.FaTE model. 

For further information on the multipathway analysis approach, see the 

residual risk documentation as 

referenced in section IV.A of this 

preamble. 

5. Assessing Risks Considering 

Emissions Control Options 

In addition to assessing baseline 

inhalation risks and screening for 

potential multi-pathway risks, where 

appropriate, we also estimated risks 

considering the potential emission 

reductions that would be achieved by 

the particular control options under 

consideration. In these cases, the 

expected emissions reductions were 

applied to the specific HAP and 

emissions sources in the source category 

dataset to develop corresponding 

estimates of risk reductions. 

6. Conducting Other Risk-Related 

Analyses, Including Facility-Wide 

Assessments and Demographic Analyses 

a. Facility-Wide Risk 

To put the source category risks in 

context, we also examined the risks 

from the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the 

facility includes all HAP-emitting 

operations within a contiguous area and 

under common control. In other words, 

for each facility that includes one or 

more sources from one of the source 

categories under review, we examined 

the HAP emissions, not only from the 

source category of interest, but also 

emissions of HAP from all other 

emission sources at the facility. The 

emissions data for generating these 

‘‘facility-wide’’ risks were obtained from 

the 2005 NATA emissions inventory 

(available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/nata2005). We estimated the risks 

due to the inhalation of HAP that are 

emitted ‘‘facility-wide’’ for the 

populations residing within 50 km of 

each facility, consistent with the 

methods used for the source category 

analysis described above. For these 

facility-wide risk analyses, the modeled 

source category risks were compared to 

the facility-wide risks to determine the 

portion of facility-wide risks that could 

be attributed to the source categories 

addressed in this proposal. We 

specifically examined the facilities 

associated with the highest estimates of 

risk and determined the percentage of 

that risk attributable to the source 

category of interest. The risk 

documentation available through the 

docket for this action provides all the 

facility-wide risks and the percentage of 

source category contribution for all 

source categories assessed. 

The methodology and the results of 

the facility-wide analyses for each 

source category are included in the 

residual risk documentation as 

referenced in section IV.A of this 

preamble, which is available in the 

docket for this action. 

b. Demographic Analysis 

To examine the potential for any EJ 

issues that might be associated with 

each source category, we evaluated the 

distributions of HAP-related cancer and 

non-cancer risks across different social, 

demographic, and economic groups 

within the populations living near the 

facilities where these source categories 

are located. The development of 

demographic analyses to inform the 

consideration of EJ issues in EPA 

rulemakings is an evolving science. The 

EPA offers the demographic analyses in 

this rulemaking to inform the 

consideration of potential EJ issues, and 

invites public comment on the 

approaches used and the interpretations 

made from the results, with the hope 

that this will support the refinement 

and improve the utility of such analyses 

for future rulemakings. 

For the demographic analyses, we 

focus on the populations within 50 km 

of any facility estimated to have 

exposures to HAP which result in 

cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater, 

or non-cancer HI of 1 or greater (based 

on the emissions of the source category 

or the facility, respectively). We 

examine the distributions of those risks 

across various demographic groups, 

comparing the percentages of particular 

demographic groups to the total number 

of people in those demographic groups 

nationwide. The results, including other 

risk metrics, such as average risks for 

the exposed populations, are 

documented in source category-specific 

technical reports in the docket for both 

source categories covered in this 

proposal.25

The basis for the risk values used in 

these analyses were the modeling 

results based on actual emissions levels 

obtained from the HEM–3 model 

described above. The risk values for 

each census block were linked to a 

database of information from the 2000 

Decennial census that includes data on 

race and ethnicity, age distributions, 

poverty status, household incomes, and 

education level. The Census Department 

Landview® database was the source of 

the data on race and ethnicity, and the 

data on age distributions, poverty status, 

household incomes, and education level 

were obtained from the SF3 Long Form. 

While race and ethnicity census data are 

available at the census block level, the 

age and income census data are only 

available at the census block group level 

(which includes an average of 26 blocks 

or an average of 1,350 people). Where 

census data are available at the block 

group level but not the block level, we 

assumed that all census blocks within 

the block group have the same 

distribution of ages and incomes as the 

block group. 

For each source category, we focused 

on those census blocks where source 

category risk results show estimated 

lifetime inhalation cancer risks above 

1-in-1 million or chronic non-cancer 

indices above 1, and determined the 

relative percentage of different racial 

and ethnic groups, different age groups, 

adults with and without a high school 

diploma, people living in households 

below the national median income, and 

for people living below the poverty line 

within those census blocks. The specific 

census population categories studied 

include: 

• Total population 

• White 

• African American (or Black) 

• Native Americans 

• Other races and multiracial 

• Hispanic or Latino 

• Children 18 years of age and under 

• Adults 19 to 64 years of age 

• Adults 65 years of age and over 

• Adults without a high school 

diploma 

• Households earning under the 

national median income 

• People living below the poverty line 

It should be noted that these 

categories overlap in some instances, 

resulting in some populations being 

counted in more than one category (e.g., 

other races and multiracial and 

Hispanic). In addition, while not a 

specific census population category, we 

also examined risks to ‘‘Minorities,’’ a 

classification which is defined for these 

purposes as all race population 

categories except white. 

For further information about risks to 

the populations located near the 

facilities in these source categories, we 

also evaluated the estimated 

distribution of inhalation cancer and 

chronic non-cancer risks associated 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
80232 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

26Howard et al. (1998). Indoor Emissions from 

Conversion Varnishes. Aı`r & Waste Management 

Assoc. 48:924–930. 

27Short-term mobility is movement from one 

microenvironment to another over the course of 

hours or days. Long-term mobility is movement 

from one residence to another over the course of a 

lifetime. 

with the HAP emissions from all the 

emissions sources at the facility (i.e., 

facility-wide). This analysis used the 

facility-wide RTR modeling results and 

the census data described above. 

The methodology and the results of 

the demographic analyses for each 

source category are included in a source 

category-specific technical report for 

each of the categories, which are 

available in the docket for this action. 

7. Considering Uncertainties in Risk 

Assessment 

Uncertainty and the potential for bias 

are inherent in all risk assessments, 

including those performed for the 

source categories addressed in this 

proposal. Although uncertainty exists, 

we believe that our approach, which 

used conservative tools and 

assumptions, ensures that our decisions 

are health-protective. A brief discussion 

of the uncertainties in the emissions 

datasets, dispersion modeling, 

inhalation exposure estimates, and 

dose-response relationships follows 

below. A more thorough discussion of 

these uncertainties is included in the 

risk assessment documentation 

(referenced earlier) available in the 

docket for this action. 

a. Uncertainties in the Emissions 

Datasets 

Although the development of the RTR 

datasets involved quality assurance/ 

quality control processes, the accuracy 

of emissions values will vary depending 

on the source of the data, the degree to 

which data are incomplete or missing, 

the degree to which assumptions made 

to complete the datasets are inaccurate, 

errors in estimating emissions values, 

and other factors. The emission 

estimates considered in this analysis 

generally are annual totals for certain 

years that do not reflect short-term 

fluctuations during the course of a year 

or variations from year to year. 

Additionally, we are aware of a 

potential impact on emissions from a 

chemical reaction during the curing and 

gluing of parts in this source category,26

which may not be reflected in our 

emissions inventory. For example, we 

believe formaldehyde may be formed 

during the chemical process of curing of 

some coatings formulations, such as 

conversion varnishes, which are 

commonly used at some wood furniture 

manufacturing operations. Currently, 

there are no EPA-approved methods for 

estimating formaldehyde emissions 

from wood furniture coatings that could 

potentially be formed as a result of the 

curing process. This is an uncertainty 

that could potentially bias the risk 

estimates; however, the extent of this 

bias is unknown. We request comment 

on the extent to which wood furniture 

coatings covered by this source 

category, including but not limited to 

conversion varnishes, undergo a 

chemical reaction during the curing 

process that yields formaldehyde, and 

associated methods for quantifying the 

resultant impact on emission levels. 

The estimates of peak hourly emission 

rates for the acute effects screening 

assessment were based on 

multiplication factors applied to the 

average annual hourly emission rates 

(the default factor of 10 was used for 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating) and a factor of 4 was used for 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations), which are intended to 

account for emission fluctuations due to 

normal facility operations. Additionally, 

although we believe that we have data 

for most facilities in these two source 

categories in our RTR dataset, our 

dataset may not include data for all 

existing facilities. Moreover, there are 

significant uncertainties with regard to 

the identification of sources as major or 

area in the NEI for these source 

categories. While we published an 

ANPRM for Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair (Surface Coating) and received 

additional data, we did not publish an 

ANPRM for Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing due to time constraints. 

b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling 

While the analysis employed EPA’s 

recommended regulatory dispersion 

model, AERMOD, we recognize that 

there is uncertainty in ambient 

concentration estimates associated with 

any model, including AERMOD. In 

circumstances where we had to choose 

between various model options, where 

possible, model options (e.g., rural/ 

urban, plume depletion, chemistry) 

were selected to provide an 

overestimate of ambient air 

concentrations of the HAP rather than 

underestimates. However, because of 

practicality and data limitation reasons, 

some factors (e.g., meteorology, building 

downwash) have the potential in some 

situations to overestimate or 

underestimate ambient impacts. For 

example, meteorological data were 

taken from a single year (1991), and 

facility locations can be a significant 

distance from the site where these data 

were taken. Despite these uncertainties, 

we believe that at off-site locations and 

census block centroids, the approach 

considered in the dispersion modeling 

analysis should generally yield 

overestimates of ambient HAP 

concentrations. 

c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure 

The effects of human mobility on 

exposures were not included in the 

assessment. Specifically, short-term 

mobility and long-term mobility 

between census blocks in the modeling 

domain were not considered.27 As a 

result, this simplification will likely 

bias the assessment toward 

overestimating the highest exposures. In 

addition, the assessment predicted the 

chronic exposures at the centroid of 

each populated census block as 

surrogates for the exposure 

concentrations for all people living in 

that block. Using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

tends to over-predict exposures for 

people in the census block who live 

further from the facility, and underpredict exposures for people in the 

census block who live closer to the 

facility. Thus, using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

may lead to a potential understatement 

or overstatement of the true maximum 

impact, but is an unbiased estimate of 

average risk and incidence. 

The assessments evaluate the cancer 

inhalation risks associated with 

continuous pollutant exposures over a 

70-year period, which is the assumed 

lifetime of an individual. In reality, both 

the length of time that modeled 

emissions sources at facilities actually 

operate (i.e., more or less than 70 years), 

and the domestic growth or decline of 

the modeled industry (i.e., the increase 

or decrease in the number or size of 

United States facilities), will influence 

the risks posed by a given source 

category. Depending on the 

characteristics of the industry, these 

factors will, in most cases, result in an 

overestimate both in individual risk 

levels and in the total estimated number 

of cancer cases. However, in rare cases, 

where a facility maintains or increases 

its emission levels beyond 70 years, 

residents live beyond 70 years at the 

same location, and the residents spend 

most of their days at that location, then 

the risks could potentially be 

underestimated. Annual cancer 

incidence estimates from exposures to 

emissions from these sources would not 

be affected by uncertainty in the length 

of time emissions sources operate. 

The exposure estimates used in these 

analyses assume chronic exposures to 

ambient levels of pollutants. Because 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80233 

28U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment for 1996. (EPA 453/R–01–003; January 

2001; page 85.) 

29 IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/ 

help_gloss.htm). 

30An exception to this is the URE for benzene, 

which is considered to cover a range of values, each 

end of which is considered to be equally plausible, 

and which is based on maximum likelihood 

estimates. 

31According to the NRC report, Science and 

Judgment in Risk Assessment (NRC, 1994) ‘‘[Default] 

options are generic approaches, based on general 

scientific knowledge and policy judgment, that are 

applied to various elements of the risk assessment 

process when the correct scientific model is 

unknown or uncertain.’’ The 1983 NRC report, Risk 

Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing 

the Process, defined default option as ‘‘the option 

chosen on the basis of risk assessment policy that 

appears to be the best choice in the absence of data 

to the contrary’’ (NRC, 1983a, p. 63). Therefore, 

default options are not rules that bind the Agency; 

rather, the Agency may depart from them in 

evaluating the risks posed by a specific substance 

when it believes this to be appropriate. In keeping 

with EPA’s goal of protecting public health and the 

environment, default assumptions are used to 

ensure that risk to chemicals is not underestimated 

(although defaults are not intended to overtly 

overestimate risk). See EPA, 2004, An Examination 

of EPA Risk Assessment Principles and Practices, 

EPA/100/B–04/001 available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf. 

most people spend the majority of their 

time indoors, actual exposures may not 

be as high, depending on the 

characteristics of the pollutants 

modeled. For many of the HAP, indoor 

levels are roughly equivalent to ambient 

levels, but for very reactive pollutants or 

larger particles, these levels are 

typically lower. This factor has the 

potential to result in an overstatement of 

25 to 30 percent of exposures.28

In addition to the uncertainties 

highlighted above, there are several 

factors specific to the acute exposure 

assessment that should be highlighted. 

The accuracy of an acute inhalation 

exposure assessment depends on the 

simultaneous occurrence of 

independent factors that may vary 

greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, 

meteorology, and human activity 

patterns. In this assessment, we assume 

that individuals remain for one hour at 

the point of maximum ambient 

concentration as determined by the cooccurrence of peak emissions and worstcase meteorological conditions. These 

assumptions would tend to overestimate 

actual exposures since it is unlikely that 

a person would be located at the point 

of maximum exposure during the time 

of worst-case impact. 

d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response 

Relationships 

There are uncertainties inherent in 

the development of the dose-response 

values used in our risk assessments for 

cancer effects from chronic exposures 

and non-cancer effects from both 

chronic and acute exposures. Some 

uncertainties may be considered 

quantitatively, and others generally are 

expressed in qualitative terms. We note 

as a preface to this discussion a point on 

dose-response uncertainty that is 

brought out in EPA’s 2005 Cancer 

Guidelines; namely, that ‘‘the primary 

goal of EPA actions is protection of 

human health; accordingly, as an 

Agency policy, risk assessment 

procedures, including default options 

that are used in the absence of scientific 

data to the contrary, should be health 

protective.’’ (EPA 2005 Cancer 

Guidelines, pages 1–7.) This is the 

approach followed here as summarized 

in the next several paragraphs. A 

complete detailed discussion of 

uncertainties and variability in doseresponse relationships is given in the 

residual risk documentation as 

referenced in section IV.A of this 

preamble, which is available in the 

docket for this action. 

Cancer URE values used in our risk 

assessments are those that have been 

developed to generally provide an upper 

bound estimate of risk. That is, they 

represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the 

true value of a quantity’’ (although this 

is usually not a true statistical 

confidence limit).29 In some 

circumstances, the true risk could be as 

low as zero; however, in other 

circumstances the risk could also be 

greater.30 When developing an upper 

bound estimate of risk and to provide 

risk values that do not underestimate 

risk, health-protective default 

approaches are generally used. To err on 

the side of ensuring adequate healthprotection, EPA typically uses the upper 

bound estimates rather than lower 

bound or central tendency estimates in 

our risk assessments, an approach that 

may have limitations for other uses (e.g., 

priority-setting or expected benefits 

analysis). 

Chronic non-cancer reference (RfC 

and RfD) values represent chronic 

exposure levels that are intended to be 

health-protective levels. Specifically, 

these values provide an estimate (with 

uncertainty spanning perhaps an order 

of magnitude) of daily oral exposure 

(RfD) or of a continuous inhalation 

exposure (RfC) to the human population 

(including sensitive subgroups) that is 

likely to be without an appreciable risk 

of deleterious effects during a lifetime. 

To derive values that are intended to be 

‘‘without appreciable risk,’’ the 

methodology relies upon an UF 

approach (U.S. EPA, 1993, 1994) which 

includes consideration of both 

uncertainty and variability. When there 

are gaps in the available information, 

UF are applied to derive reference 

values that are intended to protect 

against appreciable risk of deleterious 

effects. The UF are commonly default 

values,31 e.g., factors of 10 or 3, used in 

the absence of compound-specific data; 

where data are available, UF may also 

be developed using compound-specific 

information. When data are limited, 

more assumptions are needed and more 

UF are used. Thus, there may be a 

greater tendency to overestimate risk in 

the sense that further study might 

support development of reference 

values that are higher (i.e., less potent) 

because fewer default assumptions are 

needed. However, for some pollutants, it 

is possible that risks may be 

underestimated. While collectively 

termed ‘‘UF,’’ these factors account for a 

number of different quantitative 

considerations when using observed 

animal (usually rodent) or human 

toxicity data in the development of the 

RfC. The UF are intended to account for: 

(1) Variation in susceptibility among the 

members of the human population (i.e., 

inter-individual variability); (2) 

uncertainty in extrapolating from 

experimental animal data to humans 

(i.e., interspecies differences); (3) 

uncertainty in extrapolating from data 

obtained in a study with less-thanlifetime exposure (i.e., extrapolating 

from sub-chronic to chronic exposure); 

(4) uncertainty in extrapolating the 

observed data to obtain an estimate of 

the exposure associated with no adverse 

effects; and (5) uncertainty when the 

database is incomplete or there are 

problems with the applicability of 

available studies. Many of the UF used 

to account for variability and 

uncertainty in the development of acute 

reference values are quite similar to 

those developed for chronic durations, 

but they more often use individual UF 

values that may be less than 10. 

Uncertainty factors are applied based on 

chemical-specific or health effectspecific information (e.g., simple 

irritation effects do not vary appreciably 

between human individuals, hence a 

value of 3 is typically used), or based on 

the purpose for the reference value (see 

the following paragraph). The UF 

applied in acute reference value 

derivation include: (1) Heterogeneity 

among humans; (2) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from animals to humans; 

(3) uncertainty in lowest observed 

adverse effect (exposure) level to no 

observed adverse effect (exposure) level 

adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in 

accounting for an incomplete database 

on toxic effects of potential concern. 

Additional adjustments are often 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
80234 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

applied to account for uncertainty in 

extrapolation from observations at one 

exposure duration (e.g., four hours) to 

derive an acute reference value at 

another exposure duration (e.g., one 

hour). 

Not all acute reference values are 

developed for the same purpose, and 

care must be taken when interpreting 

the results of an acute assessment of 

human health effects relative to the 

reference value or values being 

exceeded. Where relevant to the 

estimated exposures, the lack of shortterm dose-response values at different 

levels of severity should be factored into 

the risk characterization as potential 

uncertainties. 

Although every effort is made to 

identify peer-reviewed reference values 

for cancer and non-cancer effects for all 

pollutants emitted by the sources 

included in this assessment, some HAP 

continue to have no reference values for 

cancer or chronic non-cancer or acute 

effects. Since exposures to these 

pollutants cannot be included in a 

quantitative risk estimate, an 

understatement of risk for these 

pollutants at environmental exposure 

levels is possible. For a group of 

compounds that are either unspeciated 

or do not have reference values for every 

individual compound (e.g., glycol 

ethers), we conservatively use the most 

protective reference value to estimate 

risk from individual compounds in the 

group of compounds. 

Additionally, chronic reference values 

for several of the compounds included 

in this assessment are currently under 

EPA IRIS review, and revised 

assessments may determine that these 

pollutants are more or less potent than 

the current value. We may re-evaluate 

residual risks for the final rulemaking if, 

as a result of these reviews, a doseresponse metric changes enough to 

indicate that the risk assessment 

supporting this notice may significantly 

understate human health risk. 

e. Uncertainties in the Multi-Pathway 

and Environmental Effects Assessment 

We generally assume that when 

exposure levels are not anticipated to 

adversely affect human health, they also 

are not anticipated to adversely affect 

the environment. For each source 

category, we generally rely on the sitespecific levels of PB–HAP emissions to 

determine whether a full assessment of 

the multi-pathway and environmental 

effects is necessary. Because sitespecific PB–HAP emission levels were 

so far below levels which would trigger 

a refined assessment of multi-pathway 

impacts, we are confident that these 

types of impacts are insignificant for 

these source categories. 

f. Uncertainties in the Facility-Wide 

Risk Assessment 

Given that the same general analytical 

approach and the same models were 

used to generate facility-wide risk 

results as were used to generate the 

source category risk results, the same 

types of uncertainties discussed above 

for our source category risk assessments 

apply to the facility-wide risk 

assessments. Additionally, the degree of 

uncertainty associated with facilitywide emissions and risks is likely 

greater because we generally have not 

conducted a thorough engineering 

review of emissions data for source 

categories not currently undergoing an 

RTR review. 

g. Uncertainties in the Demographic 

Analysis 

Our analysis of the distribution of 

risks across various demographic groups 

is subject to the typical uncertainties 

associated with census data (e.g., errors 

in filling out and transcribing census 

forms), as well as the additional 

uncertainties associated with the 

extrapolation of census-block group data 

(e.g., income level and education level) 

down to the census block level. 

B. How did we perform the technology 

review? 

Our technology review is focused on 

the identification and evaluation of 

‘‘developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies’’ since the 

promulgation of the existing MACT 

standard. If a review of available 

information identifies such 

developments, then we conduct an 

analysis of the technical feasibility of 

requiring the implementation of these 

developments, along with the impacts 

(costs, emission reductions, risk 

reductions, etc.). We then make a 

decision on whether it is necessary to 

amend the regulation to require these 

developments. 

Based on specific knowledge of each 

source category, we began by identifying 

known developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies. For 

the purpose of this exercise, we 

considered any of the following to be a 

‘‘development’’: 

• Any add-on control technology or 

other equipment that was not identified 

and considered during MACT 

development; 

• Any improvements in add-on 

control technology or other equipment 

(that was identified and considered 

during MACT development) that could 

result in significant additional emission 

reduction; 

• Any work practice or operational 

procedure that was not identified and 

considered during MACT development; 

and 

• Any process change or pollution 

prevention alternative that could be 

broadly applied that was not identified 

and considered during MACT 

development. 

In addition to looking back at 

practices, processes, or control 

technologies reviewed at the time we 

developed the MACT standards, we 

reviewed a variety of sources of data to 

aid in our evaluation of whether there 

were additional practices, processes, or 

controls to consider. One of these 

sources of data was subsequent air 

toxics rules. Since the promulgation of 

the MACT standards for the source 

categories addressed in this proposal, 

EPA has developed air toxics 

regulations for a number of additional 

source categories. We reviewed the 

regulatory requirements and/or 

technical analyses associated with these 

subsequent regulatory actions to 

identify any practices, processes, and 

control technologies considered in these 

efforts that could possibly be applied to 

emission sources in the source 

categories under this current RTR 

review. 

We also consulted EPA’s RBLC. The 

terms ‘‘RACT,’’ ‘‘BACT,’’ and ‘‘LAER’’ are 

acronyms for different program 

requirements under the CAA provisions 

addressing the national ambient air 

quality standards. Control technologies 

classified as RACT, BACT, or LAER 

apply to stationary sources depending 

on whether the source is existing or 

new, and on the size, age, and location 

of the facility. Best Available Control 

Technology and LAER (and sometimes 

RACT) are determined on a case-by-case 

basis, usually by state or local 

permitting agencies. EPA established 

the RBLC to provide a central database 

of air pollution technology information 

(including technologies required in 

source-specific permits) to promote the 

sharing of information among 

permitting agencies and to aid in 

identifying future possible control 

technology options that might apply 

broadly to numerous sources within a 

category or apply only on a source-bysource basis. The RBLC contains over 

5,000 air pollution control permit 

determinations that can help identify 

appropriate technologies to mitigate 

many air pollutant emission streams. 

We searched this database to determine 

whether any practices, processes, or 

control technologies are included for the 

types of processes used for emission 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80235 

sources (e.g., spray booths) in the source 

categories under consideration in this 

proposal. 

We also requested information from 

industry regarding developments in 

practices, processes, or control 

technology. Finally, we reviewed other 

information sources, such as state or 

local permitting agency databases and 

industry-supported databases. 

V. Analyses Results and Proposed 

Decisions 

This section of the preamble provides 

background information on the MACT 

standards and source categories, the 

results of our RTR for each source 

category, and our proposed decisions 

concerning the SSM provisions in each 

MACT standard. 

A. What are the results and proposed 

decisions for the Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair (Surface Coating) source 

category? 

1. Overview of the Source Category and 

MACT Standards 

The National Emission Standards for 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating) were promulgated on 

December 15, 1995 (60 FR 64330) and 

codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart II. 

The Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

(Surface Coating) MACT standards (i.e., 

Shipbuilding MACT standards) apply to 

shipbuilding and ship repair operations 

at any facility that is a major source of 

HAP. We estimate that there are 

approximately 85 shipbuilding and ship 

repair facilities currently subject to the 

Shipbuilding MACT standards. 

The shipbuilding and ship repair 

industry consists of establishments that 

build, repair, repaint, convert, and alter 

ships, which are marine or fresh-water 

vessels used for military or commercial 

operations. In general, activities and 

processes involved in ship repair and 

new ship construction are relatively 

similar. Operations include fabrication 

of basic components from raw materials, 

welding components and parts together, 

painting and repainting, overhauls, ship 

conversions, and other alterations. 

Nearly all shipyards that construct new 

ships also perform ship repairs. The 

source category covered by this MACT 

standard only includes the surface 

coating operations that occur at these 

facilities during shipbuilding and ship 

repair. 

Emissions of VOHAP from surface 

coating operations at shipbuilding and 

ship repair facilities result from the 

application of coatings and the use of 

cleaning solvents containing VOHAP 

during ship repair and shipbuilding 

operations. To reduce VOHAP 

emissions, the Shipbuilding MACT 

standards limit the coatings that can be 

used to those with as-applied VOHAP 

content less than or equal to the 

applicable level specified in Table 2 to 

Subpart II of Part 63—Volatile Organic 

HAP Limits for Marine Coatings. This 

table contains as-applied VOHAP 

content limits of a variety of marine 

surface coatings categories, including a 

general use category and 22 specialty 

coatings categories. The Shipbuilding 

MACT standards also specify work 

practice standards that minimize 

evaporative emissions and spills from 

the handling, transfer, and storage of 

VOHAP-containing materials such as 

organic thinning solvents and paint 

wastes. 

2. What data were used in our risk 

analyses? 

We initially created a preliminary 

dataset for the source category using 

data in the 2002 NEI Final Inventory, 

Version 1 (made publicly available on 

February 26, 2006). We reviewed the 

NEI dataset and made changes where 

necessary to ensure that the proper 

facilities were included and that the 

proper processes were allocated to the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating) source category. We also 

reviewed the emissions and other data 

to identify data anomalies that could 

affect risk estimates. On March 29, 2007, 

we published an ANPRM (72 FR 29287) 

for the express purpose of requesting 

comments and updates to this dataset, 

as well as to the datasets for the other 

source categories addressed in that 

ANPRM. Approximately 20 comments, 

received in response to the ANPRM, 

were reviewed and considered, and we 

made adjustments to the dataset where 

we concluded the comments supported 

such adjustment. Adjustments were also 

made to the dataset to reflect updates 

made to the data in the 2005 NEI and 

to remove emissions from the dataset 

that were from sources that are not part 

of the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

(Surface Coating) source category, as 

determined through further engineering 

review. Based on the data collection and 

review process, we developed model 

input files to be used in the risk analysis 

for 71 facilities. As mentioned 

previously, there are a total of 

approximately 85 facilities subject to the 

Shipbuilding MACT standards. 

Therefore, we developed model input 

files for about 84 percent of the total 

facilities. 

Nevertheless, after the adjustments 

described above were made to the 

dataset, approximately 40 facilities 

included in our list of 85 facilities still 

had some missing or incomplete HAP 

emissions data, based on NEI and EPA’s 

Toxics Release Inventory searches. 

Thus, a HAP profile was developed to 

populate the Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair (Surface Coating) dataset with 

representative data for these 40 

facilities, using several assumptions and 

decisions. For more information see 

Memoranda Documenting Changes to 

the RTR Dataset for the Shipbuilding 

and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) 

Source Category, dated November 22, 

2010, which includes the memorandum 

Default Emissions Assumptions for 

Shipbuilding RTR Dataset. For three 

facilities that provided VOC emissions 

data, but did not provide HAP 

emissions data, we speciated the VOC 

emissions into specific HAP emissions, 

making the worst-case assumption that 

all the VOC were HAP. The HAP profile 

we developed and applied to the VOC 

emissions for these three facilities was 

based on the top three solvents reported 

by the other facilities in the source 

category, which accounted for more 

than 90 percent of the total HAP 

emissions at those facilities. This HAP 

speciation profile was: Xylene (all 

isomers)—78 percent; ethyl benzene— 

15 percent; and toluene—7 percent. 

There were also 44 facilities subject to 

the Shipbuilding MACT standards with 

no available emissions data, and we 

decided to assign them to one of two 

possible categories based on available 

information from company Web sites, 

operating permits, previous MACT 

project information, or similar facilities. 

The first category included 11 facilities 

that emitted greater than or equal to 25 

TPY of total HAP. The second category 

included 33 facilities that emitted less 

than 25 TPY. Based on a small number 

of available operating permits and 

industry information collected for the 

original MACT rule, we determined 

which facilities belonged in each 

category. We then used the available 

emissions data reported for those 

facilities to calculate average total HAP 

emissions for each source type. The 

average HAP emissions level for 

facilities in the first category was 

estimated to be about 25 TPY, and the 

average HAP emissions level for 

facilities in the second category was 

estimated to be 7 TPY. Thus, the 11 

facilities in the first category with no 

emissions data were assigned emissions 

of 25 tons total HAP per year, and 33 

facilities in the second category with no 

emissions data were assigned emissions 

of 7 tons total HAP per year. The same 

default HAP solvent profile discussed 

above was used to speciate the HAP 

emissions for these facilities. For a more 

complete description of the default 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
80236 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

assumptions used to populate the 

dataset, see Default Emissions 

Assumptions for Shipbuilding RTR 

Dataset memorandum, dated August 30, 

2010, which is available in the docket 

for this action. These updated data were 

used to conduct the risk assessments 

and other analyses that form the basis 

for this proposed action. 

Mixed xylenes and ethyl benzene 

account for the majority of the HAP 

emissions from the Shipbuilding and 

Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source 

category (approximately 855 TPY, or 90 

percent of the total HAP emissions by 

mass). These estimates are based on 

actual reported emissions data. These 

facilities also reported relatively small 

emissions of 33 other HAP. For more 

detail, see the memorandum in the 

docket for this action describing the risk 

assessment inputs and models for the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating) source category. 

We estimate that MACT-allowable 

emissions from this source category 

could be up to 2 times greater than the 

actual emissions for some types of 

coatings, based on information obtained 

for the highest usage coating categories 

at several major source facilities. 

However, we do not have facilityspecific information for all facilities or 

all coatings, and we request comment 

on this estimate. For more detail about 

how this estimate of the ratio of actual 

to MACT-allowable emissions was 

derived, see the Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Allowable 

Emission Estimates memorandum, 

dated August 5, 2010, in the docket for 

this action describing the estimation of 

MACT-allowable emission levels and 

associated risks and impacts. For the 

‘‘facility-wide’’ risk analysis, facilityspecific emissions data from the 2005 

NEI were used. 

3. What are the results of the risk 

assessments and analyses? 

We conducted an inhalation risk 

assessment for the Shipbuilding and 

Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source 

category. We also conducted an 

assessment of facility-wide risk and 

performed a demographic analysis of 

population risks. Details of the risk 

assessments and analyses can be found 

in the residual risk documentation 

referenced in section IV.A of this 

preamble, which is available in the 

docket for this action. 

a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 

Table 3 provides an overall summary 

of the results of the inhalation risk 

assessment. 

TABLE 3—SHIPBUILDING AND SHIP REPAIR (SURFACE COATING) INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of 

facilities 1

Maximum individual cancer 

risk (in 1 million) 2 Estimated 

population 

at risk ≥ 1- 

in-1 million 

Estimated 

annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum chronic 

non-cancer TOSHI 3

Maximum off-site acute 

Actual non-cancer HQ 4

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

Level 

85 ...................................... 10 20 4,000 0.003 0.5 1 HQREL = 0.1 glycol ethers. 

1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 

2Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 

3 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category is the reproductive system. 4The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term dose-response values to develop an array of HQ 

values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute dose-response value, which, in most cases, is the REL. See section IV.A of this preamble for explanation of acute dose-response values. 

As shown in Table 3, the results of the 

inhalation risk assessment performed 

using actual emissions data indicate the 

maximum lifetime individual cancer 

risk could be as high as 10-in-1 million, 

due to ethyl benzene emissions; the 

maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI 

value could be as high as 0.5, due to 

mixed xylenes emissions; and the 

maximum off-site acute HQ value could 

be as high as 0.1, based on the REL 

value for glycol ethers. The total 

estimated cancer incidence from these 

facilities based on actual emission levels 

is 0.003 excess cancer cases per year, or 

1 in every 333 years. 

As explained above, our analysis of 

potential differences between actual 

emission levels and emissions allowable 

under the Shipbuilding MACT 

standards indicate that MACT-allowable 

emission levels may be up to 2 times 

greater than actual emission levels. 

Considering this difference, the risk 

results from the inhalation risk 

assessment indicate the maximum 

lifetime individual cancer risk could be 

as high as 20-in-1 million, and the 

maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI 

value could be as high as 1 at the 

MACT-allowable emissions level. 

Facility-wide Risk Assessment Results 

A facility-wide risk analysis was also 

conducted based on actual emissions 

levels. Table 4 displays the results of the 

facility-wide risk assessment. For 

detailed facility-specific results, see 

Table 2 of Appendix 6 of the ‘‘Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating) Source Category in the docket 

for this rulemaking. 

TABLE 4. SHIPBUILDING AND SHIP REPAIR (SURFACE COATING) FACILITY-WIDE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities analyzed 85 

Cancer Risk ................................. Estimated maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 million) .................................................... 200 

Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more ...... 4 

Number of facilities at which the shipbuilding and ship repair (surface coating) source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer risks of 100-in-1 million or more.0 

Number of facilities with facility-wide individual cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or more ........................... 41 

Number of facilities at which the shipbuilding and ship repair (surface coating) source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or more.15 

Chronic Non-cancer Risk ............. Maximum facility-wide chronic non-cancer TOSHI ................................................................................. 10 

Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum non-cancer TOSHI greater than 1 .............................. 6 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80237 

32http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/nettables.pdf. 33http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/ 

2005inventory.html#inventorydata. 

TABLE 4. SHIPBUILDING AND SHIP REPAIR (SURFACE COATING) FACILITY-WIDE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS—Continued 

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

The maximum individual cancer risk 

from all HAP emissions at any facility 

that contains sources subject to the 

Shipbuilding MACT standards is 

estimated to be 200-in-1 million based 

on actual emissions. Of the 85 facilities 

included in this analysis, four have 

facility-wide maximum individual 

cancer risks of 100-in-1 million or 

greater. At these shipbuilding and ship 

repair facilities, surface coating 

operations account for about 1 percent 

of the total facility-wide risk. There are 

41 facilities with facility-wide 

maximum individual cancer risks of 1- 

in-1 million or greater. Of these 41 

facilities, 15 have shipbuilding and ship 

repair (surface coating) operations that 

contribute greater than 50 percent to the 

facility-wide risks. The facility-wide 

cancer risks at these 41 facilities, and at 

the four facilities with risks of 100-ina million or more, are primarily driven 

by emissions of hexavalent chromium 

from welding and abrasive blasting 

operations. However, we note that there 

are uncertainties in the amount and 

form of chromium emitted from these 

facilities. For many of the facilities, the 

emissions inventory used for the risk 

assessment included estimates for the 

two main forms of chromium (i.e., 

hexavalent and trivalent chromium). 

However, for other facilities, we only 

had estimates of total chromium 

emitted. For those facilities, we applied 

a default assumption that 34 percent of 

the total chromium emissions were 

hexavalent and 66 percent were 

trivalent chromium,32 based on the best 

judgment of EPA. Chromium speciation 

profiles can be found on the EPA 

Technology Transfer Network Web site 

for emissions inventories 33 under the 

‘‘Point Sources’’ section. Although, 

hexavalent chromium is toxic and is a 

known human carcinogen, trivalent 

chromium is less toxic and is currently 

‘‘not classified as to its human 

carcinogenicity.’’ Therefore, the relative 

emissions of these two forms can have 

a significant effect on the cancer risk 

estimates. We request comment on the 

distribution of the default emissions 

assumptions for chromium emissions 

applied to the Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair (Surface Coating) source 

category. 

The facility-wide maximum 

individual chronic non-cancer TOSHI is 

estimated to be 10 based on actual 

emissions. Of the 85 facilities included 

in this analysis, 6 have facility-wide 

maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI 

values greater than 1 (the facilityspecific TOSHI values are 2,2,2,3,4, and 

10). Of these 6 facilities, none had 

shipbuilding and ship repair (surface 

coating) operations that contributed 

greater than 50 percent to these facilitywide risks. The chronic non-cancer risks 

at these 6 facilities are primarily driven 

by manganese emissions from welding 

and abrasive blasting operations. 

Finally, as discussed previously, the 

welding and abrasive blasting 

operations that occur during 

shipbuilding and ship repair are sources 

of HAP at these major source facilities, 

and could involve different types of 

metals (welding) and minerals (abrasive 

blasting and welding). We therefore 

intend to list welding and blasting 

operations that occur at shipbuilding 

and ship repair facilities as a major 

source category under Section 112(c)(5) 

of the CAA. We request additional 

information on the HAP emitted by 

these activities. Once we have this 

information, we will be in a better 

position to identify the appropriate 

scope of the major source category to be 

listed. 

c. Demographic Risk Analysis Results 

The results of the demographic 

analyses performed to investigate the 

distribution of cancer risks at or above 

1-in-1 million among the surrounding 

population are summarized in Table 5 

below. These results, for various 

demographic groups, are based on 

actual emissions levels for the 

population living within 50 km of the 

facilities. 

TABLE 5—SHIPBUILDING AND SHIP REPAIR DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS

Nationwide 

Population with cancer risk greater 

than 1 in a million due to . . . 

Source category 

HAP emissions 

Facility-wide HAP 

emissions 

Total population ......................................................................................................... 285,000,000 4,000 392,000 

Race by percent 

White .......................................................................................................................... 75 54 71 

All Other Races ......................................................................................................... 25 46 29 

Race by percent 

White .......................................................................................................................... 75 54 71 

African American ....................................................................................................... 12 42 20

Native American ........................................................................................................ 0 .9 0 .4 0 .6 

Other and Multiracial ................................................................................................. 12 4 8 

Ethnicity by percent 

Hispanic ..................................................................................................................... 14 3 9 

Non-Hispanic ............................................................................................................. 86 97 91 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
80238 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5—SHIPBUILDING AND SHIP REPAIR DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS—Continued 

Nationwide 

Population with cancer risk greater 

than 1 in a million due to . . . 

Source category 

HAP emissions 

Facility-wide HAP 

emissions 

Income by percent 

Below poverty level .................................................................................................... 13 24 16

Above poverty level ................................................................................................... 87 76 84 

Education by percent 

Over 25 and without high school diploma ................................................................. 13 15 13 

Over 25 and with a high school diploma ................................................................... 87 85 87 

The results of the Shipbuilding and 

Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source 

category demographic analysis indicate 

that there are approximately 4,000 

people exposed to a cancer risk greater 

than 1-in-1 million due to emissions 

from the source category. Of this 

population, an estimated 46 percent can 

be classified as a minority (listed as ‘‘All 

Other Races’’ in the table above), 

including 42 percent in the ‘‘African 

American’’ demographic group. Of the 

4,000 people with estimated cancer 

risks above 1-in-1 million from the 

source category, 24 percent are in the 

‘‘Below Poverty’’ demographic group, 

and 15 percent are in the ‘‘Over 25 

Without High School Diploma’’ 

demographic group, results which are 

11 and two percentage points higher, 

respectively, than the respective 

percentages for these demographic 

groups across the United States. The 

percentages for the other demographic 

groups are lower than their respective 

nationwide percentages. The table also 

shows that there are approximately 

392,000 people exposed to an estimated 

cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million 

due to facility-wide emissions. Of this 

population, an estimated 29 percent can 

be classified as a minority, including 20 

percent in the ‘‘African American’’ 

demographic group. Of the 392,000 with 

estimated cancer risk greater than 1-in1 million from the source category, 16 

percent are in the ‘‘Below Poverty’’ 

demographic group, a result which is 

three percentage points higher than the 

respective percentage for this 

demographic group across the United 

States. The percentages for the other 

demographic groups are equal to, or 

lower than their respective nationwide 

percentages. 

4. What are our proposed decisions on 

risk acceptability and ample margin of 

safety? 

a. Risk Acceptability 

As noted in section III.B of this 

preamble, we weigh all health risk 

factors and measures in our risk 

acceptability determination, including 

cancer risks to the individual most 

exposed, risk estimation uncertainty, 

and other health information. For the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating) source category, the risk 

analysis we performed indicates that the 

cancer risks to the individual most 

exposed could be as high as 10-in-1 

million due to actual emissions and as 

high as 20-in-1 million due to MACTallowable emissions. These risks are 

considerably less than 100-in-1 million, 

which is the presumptive limit of 

acceptability. The risk analysis also 

shows low cancer incidence (1 case in 

every 333 years), no potential for 

adverse environmental effects or human 

health multi-pathway effects, and that 

chronic and acute non-cancer health 

impacts are unlikely. While our 

additional analysis of facility-wide risks 

showed that there are four facilities with 

maximum facility-wide cancer risk of 

100-in-1 million or greater and 6 

facilities with a maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 and less 

than or equal to 10, it also showed that 

shipbuilding and ship repair (surface 

coating) operations did not drive these 

risks. Our additional analysis of the 

demographics of the exposed 

population indicates that disparities in 

risks between demographic groups may 

exist; however, the number of people 

exposed to cancer risks of 1-in-1 million 

or greater due to emissions from the 

source category is relatively low (4,000). 

Considering these factors and the 

uncertainties discussed in section 

IV.A.7 of this preamble, we propose that 

the risks from the Shipbuilding and 

Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source 

category are acceptable. 

b. Ample Margin of Safety 

Although we are proposing that the 

risks from the Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair (Surface Coating) source category 

are acceptable, risk estimates for 4,000 

individuals in the exposed population 

are above 1-in-1 million. Consequently, 

we considered whether the MACT 

standard provides an ample margin of 

safety. In this analysis, we investigated 

available emissions control options that 

might reduce the risk associated with 

emissions from the source category and 

considered this information along with 

all of the health risks and other health 

information considered in the risk 

acceptability determination. 

One option we considered was to 

require the use of marine coatings with 

lower overall VOHAP content or lower 

toxicity VOHAP content. However, we 

have not identified any data regarding 

the availability, use, performance, and 

emissions associated with the use of any 

such marine coating. We are soliciting 

comment on the availability of such 

coatings and any issues related to the 

use and performance of those coatings. 

We also considered requiring the 

enclosure of some or all of the coating 

operations and requiring emissions to be 

routed to a control device, such as a 

regenerative thermal oxidizer. However, 

because these facilities repair and 

repaint ships, as well as perform new 

construction painting operations, any 

enclosures would need to be large 

enough to accommodate the entire ship 

or a large portion (i.e., half) of a ship at 

one time. We determined that this is not 

practicable or technically feasible in 

many cases, would not be cost-effective, 

and we are not aware of any facility 

using an enclosure of this size. 

Additional information on the 

feasibility and costs of controls is 

discussed in the Technology Review 

section (section 5) of this preamble and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80239 

in the memorandum Cost Analyses for 

Add-on Controls for Surface Coating 

Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair Facilities, dated September 2, 

2010, in the docket for this action. 

In accordance with the approach 

established in the Benzene NESHAP, 

EPA weighed all health risk measures 

and information considered in the risk 

acceptability determination, along with 

the costs and economic impacts of 

emissions controls, technological 

feasibility, uncertainties, and other 

relevant factors, in making our ample 

margin of safety determination. 

Considering the health risk information, 

the uncertainty and lack of data 

associated with one potential risk 

reduction option identified, and the 

technological infeasibility of the other 

option identified, we propose that the 

existing MACT standards provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health. Thus, we are proposing to readopt the existing MACT standards to 

satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA. 

While we are proposing that the 

emissions covered by the Shipbuilding 

MACT standards provide an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health, 

we are concerned about the estimated 

facility-wide risks identified through 

these screening analyses. As described 

previously, the estimated cancer risks 

are due to emissions of chromium 

compounds and are largely dependent 

on the estimates of the fraction of total 

chromium that is in the hexavalent 

form. Welding and abrasive blasting 

operations (which are not part of this 

source category) that occur during 

shipbuilding and ship repair are sources 

of HAP at these major source facilities, 

and could involve different types of 

metals (welding) and minerals (abrasive 

blasting and welding). 

5. What are the results and proposed 

decisions from the technology review? 

We evaluated developments in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies potentially applicable to 

the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

(Surface Coating) source category. This 

included a search of the RBLC 

Clearinghouse, the California BACT 

Clearinghouse, the Internet, and 

correspondence with state agencies and 

industry. We found an advance in addon control technology since the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair MACT 

standards were originally developed in 

1995, and we have determined that 

there are more stringent VOC-based 

coating limits for certain marine coating 

categories for shipbuilding and ship 

repair facilities in some areas of 

California. 

We identified an add-on control 

device, a concentrator/RTO, recently 

installed (2009) at one shipbuilding and 

ship repair facility in California. The 

control device consisted of rotary 

concentrators followed by RTOs on five 

large, custom-built spray booths to 

control volatile organic emissions from 

some of the coating operations. The 

system is capable of achieving 95 

percent control efficiency for the 

VOHAP emissions captured by the 

spray booths (which are estimated to 

capture 90 percent of the VOHAP 

emissions). For this type of add-on 

control to be effective, a facility must 

perform regular or continuous modular 

(ship sections or components) coating 

operations, a process that is normally 

performed at large shipyards during 

new ship construction. Due to the size 

of the booths required to handle large 

ship modules, a facility would also 

require a large physical land space to 

build or retrofit the spray booths. Such 

spray booths must be located near the 

final ship assembly area (e.g., dry-dock 

or graving dock) to facilitate the logistics 

of moving the ship modules into place 

and attaching them to other modules. 

Large coating booths would not be 

effective at shipyards that perform 

repairs on finished vessels or during 

dockside coating, since only a small 

amount of the total coating could be 

applied in such spray booths. 

Nationwide, based on recently 

awarded contracts for new ship 

construction, we estimate that fewer 

than 20 facilities have significant new 

ship construction business, are large 

enough to adopt this type of technology, 

and are able to retrofit existing spray 

booths. We estimate cost-effectiveness 

of the concentrator/RTO system to be 

$305,000 per ton of VOHAP, with an 

estimated industry-wide emission 

reduction of 48 tons of VOHAP per year 

(if installed at the approximately 20 

facilities large enough to use the 

technology). Based on facility level 

sales, we determined that this option is 

not affordable. The cost as a percent of 

revenues was estimated to be 42 percent 

or greater. Additional information on 

the affordability of controls is discussed 

in the memorandum Affordability of 

Add-on Controls for Surface Coating 

Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair Facilities, dated October 28, 

2010, in the docket for this action. The 

large add-on controls also require a 

substantial amount of fuel, which 

produces NOX emissions, a byproduct of 

combustion. The extra fuel use and 

emissions of NOX would be negative 

consequences of the use of such add-on 

controls. Moreover, we believe the costs 

of these controls would be 

disproportionate to the emission 

reduction that would be achieved. Thus, 

we are proposing that it is not necessary 

to revise the existing MACT standards 

to require this technology pursuant to 

section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. 

In our review of developments in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies, we also identified four 

California air quality districts that have 

adopted more stringent VOC marine 

coating emission limits than those 

specified in the 1995 Shipbuilding and 

Ship Repair (Surface Coating) MACT 

Standard. Based on information from 

major source facilities, when the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair MACT 

standards were originally developed, 

the relationship between VOC content 

and VOHAP content in marine coatings 

was approximately 3:1, where 

approximately 30 percent of all solvents 

used for painting and thinning were 

VOHAP solvents. For more information 

on the relationship between VOC and 

VOHAP, see the Background 

Information Document for the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating) proposed rule, dated February, 

1994. However, we note that the 

California limits are not uniformly 

applied across each coating category or 

in each of the four districts. 

Furthermore, the 1995 MACT standard 

includes cold weather VOHAP limits 

such that, if the temperature is below 

4.5 °C (40 °F) at the time the coating is 

applied and the source needs to thin 

that coating beyond the applicable 

VOHAP limit, the applicable coldweather VOHAP limit may be used. 

Since the California limits do not have 

similar allowances for cold weather, and 

California generally has a more 

temperate climate than many parts of 

the country, the ability to apply coatings 

effectively could be compromised in 

areas of the country with colder 

climates if the more stringent California 

limits were required nationwide. We 

currently do not have data to determine 

whether these lower-VOC content 

coatings could be applied nationwide. 

Considering the technical feasibility 

uncertainties associated with the use of 

lower-VOHAP coatings, we are 

proposing that it is not necessary to 

revise the existing MACT standards to 

require lower-VOHAP coatings pursuant 

to section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. 

However, we solicit comment and data 

on low-VOHAP marine coatings that 

may be available for use at these 

facilities and that could be applied at 

facilities nationwide. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
80240 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

6. What other actions are we proposing? 

We are proposing the elimination of 

the SSM exemption in the Shipbuilding 

(Surface Coating) MACT Standards. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA 

is proposing standards in this rule that 

apply at all times. We are proposing 

several revisions to subpart II. 

Specifically, we are proposing to revise 

Table 1 to Subpart II of Part 63—General 

Provisions of Applicability to Subpart II 

to indicate that the requirements of 40 

CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) of the General 

Provisions do not apply, including at 

facilities complying with the standards 

by using an add-on control device. The 

40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) requires owners or 

operators to act according to the general 

duty to ‘‘operate and maintain any 

affected source, including associated air 

pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment, in a manner 

consistent with safety and good air 

pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions.’’ We are 

separately proposing to incorporate this 

general duty to minimize into 40 CFR 

63.783(b)(1). The 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) 

requires the owner or operator of an 

affected source to develop a written 

SSM plan. We are proposing to remove 

the SSM plan requirement. We are also 

proposing to: (1) Add 40 CFR 63.786(e) 

to specify the conditions for 

performance tests; (2) revise the SSMassociated reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.788 to 

require reporting and recordkeeping for 

periods of malfunction; (3) revise Table 

1 to Subpart II of Part 63—General 

Provisions of Applicability to Subpart II 

to specify that 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and 

(ii), 63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1); 40 CFR 

63.7(e)(1), 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii), 

and the last sentence of 63.8(d)(3); 40 

CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i),(ii), (iv), and (v); 40 

CFR 63.10(c)(10), (11), and (15); and, 40 

CFR 63.10(d)(5) of the General 

Provisions do not apply. In addition, as 

explained above, we are proposing to 

add an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for exceedances of emission 

limits caused by malfunctions, as well 

as criteria for establishing the 

affirmative defense. 

EPA has attempted to ensure that we 

have neither overlooked nor failed to 

propose to remove from the existing text 

any provisions that are inappropriate, 

unnecessary, or redundant in the 

absence of the SSM exemption, nor 

included any such provisions in the 

proposed new regulatory language. We 

are specifically seeking comment on 

whether there are any such provisions 

that we have inadvertently overlooked 

or incorporated. 

Finally, we intend to list welding and 

blasting operations that occur at 

shipbuilding and ship repair facilities as 

a major source category under section 

112(c)(5) of the CAA and are requesting 

additional information on the HAP 

emitted by these activities. Once we 

have this information, we will be in a 

better position to identify the 

appropriate scope of the major source 

category to be listed. 

B. What are the results and proposed 

decisions for the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations source 

category? 

1. Overview of the Source Category and 

MACT Standard 

The National Emission Standards for 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations were promulgated on 

December 7, 1995 (60 FR 62930) and 

codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ. 

The Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations MACT standards (i.e., Wood 

Furniture MACT standards) apply to 

wood furniture manufacturing 

operations at any facility that is a major 

source of HAP. We estimate that there 

are approximately 406 wood furniture 

manufacturing facilities subject to the 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations MACT standards. In some 

instances, wood furniture 

manufacturing operations may be 

located at facilities that also have 

operations regulated by the NESHAP for 

Surface Coating of Metal Furniture (40 

CFR part 63, subpart RRRR), the 

NESHAP for Surface Coating of Wood 

Building Products (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart QQQQ), or NESHAP for 

Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

(Subpart DDDD). 

The Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations source category includes 

operations related to the production of 

a range of wood products, including 

wood kitchen cabinets, wood residential 

furniture, upholstered residential and 

office furniture, wood office furniture 

and fixtures, partitions, shelving, 

lockers, and other wood furniture not 

included in one of the other categories 

listed above. 

Finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff operations are processes that take 

place during wood furniture 

manufacturing that result in VHAP 

emissions, and are regulated by the 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations MACT standards. 

Finishing materials include, but are 

not limited, to stains, basecoats, 

washcoats, sealers, enamels, and 

topcoats. All of these finishing materials 

may contain VHAP that would be 

emitted during application. After a 

finishing material is applied, the wood 

substrate typically enters a flash-off area 

where the more volatile solvents in the 

finishing materials (including VHAP) 

evaporate, and the finishing material 

begins to cure. Then, the wood substrate 

enters an oven where curing of the 

finishing material and evaporation of 

the volatile solvents continues. 

The only gluing operations that occur 

at wood furniture manufacturing 

facilities that are part of the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations 

source category are contact adhesives. 

Cleaning activities include the use of 

solvents to dissolve resins into the 

coating mix and to remove dried 

coatings. These industrial solvents 

sometimes contain VHAP which 

evaporate when the solvent is exposed 

to the air and subsequently discharged 

to the atmosphere via ventilation air. 

To meet the requirements of the Wood 

Furniture MACT Standards, facilities 

typically use compliant coatings, 

finishing materials that meet the 

individual VHAP content requirements 

by material type, and work practice 

standards. Work practice standards 

include inspection and maintenance 

plans to prevent leaks, as well as using 

covers on tanks. 

Another option, installing destructive 

control devices such as thermal 

oxidizers, is allowed by the Wood 

Furniture MACT standards as an 

alternative to using compliant coatings, 

but is not often used by the industry. 

For more information see memorandum 

Developments in Practices, Processes, 

and Control Technologies for the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations, 

dated August 24, 2010. 

2. What data were used in our risk 

analyses? 

For the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations source 

category, we compiled preliminary 

datasets using data in the 2005 NEI. We 

reviewed and verified these data and 

made changes where necessary. In this 

review and verification process, we 

contacted several facilities to verify 

existing information on emissions of 

several different pollutants, including 

speciated glycol ether emissions, as 

reported in the NEI. We obtained 

updated emissions data and process 

information (generally 2008 or 2009 

data), found that some plants had 

closed, and that others no longer 

manufacture wood furniture. For more 

detail, see the memorandum Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing—Updated 

Data for Modeling File, dated June 8, 

2010, in the docket for this action. 

In addition to contacting individual 

facilities, we consulted with four trade 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80241 

34We note that this MIR value would be reduced 

by 50 percent if the CIIT URE for formaldehyde 

were used instead of the IRIS URE. 

associations that are heavily involved in 

wood furniture manufacturing 

operations. We asked KCMA, the AHFA, 

the BIFMA, and the ACA to verify 

existing information in the NEI 

database. Specifically, we asked the 

trade associations to verify addresses, 

operational status (i.e., operational or 

shut down), and whether the facilities 

belonged in the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing source category. With 

their assistance, we were able to update 

the facility status for another 85 

facilities. For more detail, see the memo 

Review and Verification of Wood 

Furniture Facilities in NEI Database, 

dated October 22, 2010, in the docket 

for this action. 

A speciation profile was created and 

applied to the generically-reported 

glycol ethers in the NEI data set. A total 

of 66 wood furniture manufacturing 

facilities in the RTR dataset reported 

generic glycol ethers that totaled 70 

TPY. For more information about glycol 

ethers and the glycol ether speciation 

profile, see the memorandum Review of 

Glycol Ether Emissions Associated with 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing Source 

Category, dated October 22, 2010, in the 

docket for this action. 

This updated dataset was used to 

conduct the risk assessments and other 

analyses that form the basis for this 

proposed action. Toluene and mixed 

xylenes account for the majority of the 

VHAP emissions from the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations 

source category (approximately 3,500 

TPY and 62 percent of the total VHAP 

emissions by mass). Lower levels of 

emissions of 68 other VHAP were also 

reported from facilities in the source 

category. For more detail, see the 

memorandum Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing—Updates for Modeling 

File, dated June 8, 2010, in the docket 

for this action describing the risk 

assessment inputs and models for the 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations source category. 

We estimate that MACT-allowable 

emissions from this source category 

could be up to 2 times greater than the 

actual emissions, as the compliant 

coatings used typically have lower 

VHAP content than required by the 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Standards to allow for operational and 

market variability. However, we do not 

have facility-specific information for all 

facilities or all coatings, and we request 

comment on this estimate. For more 

detail about how we estimated this ratio 

of actual-to-MACT-allowable emissions, 

see the memorandum Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Allowable Emission Estimates, dated 

September 9, 2010, in the docket for this 

action. 

3. What are the results of the risk 

assessments and analyses? 

We have conducted an inhalation risk 

assessment for the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations source 

category. We have also conducted an 

assessment of facility-wide risks and 

performed a demographic analysis of 

population risks. Details of the risk 

assessments and analyses can be found 

in the residual risk documentation 

referenced in section IV.A of this 

preamble, which is available in the 

docket for this action. 

a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 

Table 6 provides an overall summary 

of the inhalation risk assessment results 

for the source category. 

TABLE 6—WOOD FURNITURE MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities 1

Maximum individual cancer 

risk (in 1 million) 2 Estimated 

population 

at risk ≥ 1- 

in-1 million 

Estimated 

annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum chronic 

non-cancer TOSHI 3

Maximum off-site acute 

non-cancer HQ 4

Actual emissions level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Actual emissions level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

385 .................................... 20 40 20,000 0.005 0.4 0.8 HQREL = 10 (propyl 

cellosolve) 5

HQREL = 7 (formaldehyde) 

HQAEGL–1= 0.35 (formaldehyde) 

HQREL = 2 (toluene) 

HQERPG–1 = 0.35 (toluene) 

HQAEGL–1 = 0.09 (toluene) 

1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 

2Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. We note that the MIR values would be reduced by 50 percent, and the cancer incidence would be reduced by 30 percent if the CIIT URE for formaldehyde were used instead of the IRIS URE. 3 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category is the nervous 

system. 4The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term dose-response values to develop an array of HQ 

values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute dose-response value, which in most cases is the REL. Note that the REL for EGME 

was used to evaluate propyl cellosolve. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. See section IV.A of this preamble for explanation of acute dose-response values. 5 Note the HQ value for propyl cellosolve is the maximum acute pollutant HQ of all speciated glycol ethers modeled. The REL for EGME was 

used to evaluate propyl cellosolve and all speciated glycol ethers that do not have an acute dose response value. There are no AEGL or ERPG 

values available for glycol ethers to aid in further interpretation of potential acute risks. 

The inhalation risk modeling was 

performed using actual emissions data. 

As shown in Table 6, the results of the 

inhalation risk assessment indicate the 

maximum lifetime individual cancer 

risk could be as high as 20-in-1 million 

due to emissions of formaldehyde.34

The total estimated cancer incidence 

due to actual emissions from the source 

category is 0.005 excess cancer cases per 

year, or one case in every 200 years. The 

maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI 

value could be up to 0.4, due to 

emissions of hexane; and the maximum 

acute HQ value could be up to 10 for 

propyl cellosolve with propyl cellosolve 

representing the maximum acute HQ 

among all the speciated glycol ethers 

using the REL value for EGME as a 

surrogate. We estimate that emissions of 

glycol ethers (mainly propyl cellosolve) 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
80242 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

from eight facilities (or about two 

percent of the total facilities) result in 

maximum acute HQs greater than 1. 

Additionally, the maximum acute HQ 

for formaldehyde could be up to 7 based 

on the REL value for formaldehyde. We 

estimate that emissions of formaldehyde 

from 11 facilities (about three percent of 

the total facilities) result in maximum 

acute HQs between 1 and 7 (the actual 

maximum HQ values for these 11 

facilities are 7, 7, 6, 6, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 

and 2). The maximum acute level of 

formaldehyde did not exceed the one 

hour AEGL–1 for formaldehyde; the 

estimated maximum HQ using the 

AEGL–1 was 0.35. We also identified 

one facility with a potential to exceed 

the acute REL for toluene (with a 

maximum estimated acute HQREL of 2, 

a maximum estimated acute HQAEGL–1

of 0.09, and a maximum estimated acute 

HQERPG–1 of 0.35.). It is important to 

note, as described earlier in this 

preamble, the acute assessment includes 

multiple conservative assumptions. For 

example, the modeling approach 

assumes that peak emissions occur at 

the same time as worst case one hour 

meteorology and that a person is located 

directly downwind at that time. 

Moreover, for glycol ethers, we used the 

lowest acute REL of any of the glycol 

ethers with such health values (i.e., 

EGME) to assess the other glycol ethers 

without such values. There are no AEGL 

or ERPG values available for any glycol 

ethers; this limits our ability to further 

interpret the potential acute impacts of 

propyl cellosolve. Nonetheless, overall, 

we believe it is unlikely that HAP 

emissions from this source category 

pose significant acute health risks. 

Nevertheless, we are seeking comments 

and data to refine the risk assessment 

and resolve the uncertainties that led to 

the use of conservative assumptions. 

Some of the specific information and 

data that we are seeking are described 

below. 

As explained above, our analysis of 

potential differences between actual 

emission levels and emissions allowable 

under the MACT standards indicates 

that MACT-allowable emission levels 

may be up to 2 times greater than actual 

emission levels. Considering this 

difference, the risk results from the 

inhalation risk assessment indicate the 

maximum lifetime individual cancer 

risk could be as high as 40-in-1 million, 

and the maximum chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI value could be up to 0.8 at the 

MACT-allowable emissions level. 

The risk assessment for chronic noncancer risks was performed consistent 

with the approach taken in previous risk 

and technology review for other source 

categories, i.e., we used our existing 

hierarchy of reference values (EPA 

1999—Residual Risk Report to 

Congress), which favors the use of an 

IRIS value when available, and favors 

using values which have been 

developed and peer-reviewed using 

processes similar to the IRIS process 

under the sponsorship of a state or 

federal government agency, the 

documentation of which can be easily 

accessed by the public (such as those 

from ATSDR or the California EPA) 

when IRIS values are not available. The 

use of a surrogate reference value for 

chemicals in a chemical group (e.g., 

glycol ethers) is part of this approach 

when specific chemicals in the group do 

not have available reference values, 

and/or emissions are reported 

generically for the chemical group and 

not specific chemicals. In this case, the 

IRIS RfC for EGME is the lowest (i.e., 

most health protective) of the available 

reference values for glycol ethers from 

our hierarchy of reference values. Using 

the surrogate approach described above, 

the maximum chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI for the source category could be 

as high as 0.4 (based on actual 

emissions) and 0.8 (based on allowable 

emissions), with emissions of n-hexane 

dominating. 

In reviewing data sources for this 

residual risk assessment, we identified a 

PPRTV for assessing chronic noncancer 

health risks from inhalation of DGBE, 

which is emitted by some facilities in 

this source category. PPRTV are 

reference values, developed by EPA for 

use specifically in EPA’s Superfund 

Program when an acceptable reference 

value, such as those found in EPA’s IRIS 

database, is not otherwise available. 

The DGBE PPRTV was prepared for 

EPA’s Superfund Program in 2009. 

Inhalation toxicity information for 

DGBE is essentially limited to the 

results of a single 5-week study in rats 

(Gushow et al., 1984), which resulted in 

slight vacuolization of the liver cells 

consistent with fatty change. An 

uncertainty factor of 3000 was applied 

in deriving the PPRTV, and confidence 

in the provisional RfC (p-RfC) value is 

low. 

Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity 

Values differ from IRIS values in that 

PPRTVs do not receive the 

multiprogram review provided for IRIS 

values. As stated in the DGBE PPRTV 

document, this is because ‘‘* * * IRIS 

values are generally intended to be used 

in all U.S. EPA programs, while PPRTVs 

are developed specifically for the 

Superfund Program.’’ The EPA’s 

Superfund Program uses PPRTVs in 

conjunction with assessments to 

support site-specific clean-up decisions. 

PPRTVs are applied to high quality 

exposure data developed for each 

Superfund site using measurements of 

the specific chemical for which the 

PPRTV was developed. Each final 

cleanup decision, as memorialized in a 

Record of Decision, is subject to public 

notice and comment, and it is at this 

stage of the process that a public review 

of how a PPRTV was used in that sitespecific context may occur, which may 

include consideration of comments on 

the development of the PPRTV itself 

(i.e., the PPRTV development document 

is not explicitly the subject of a separate 

public review or comment period). The 

current process for development of the 

reference values used to support these 

proposed decisions includes a public 

comment period prior to a final external 

peer review of the assessment. This 

more rigorous review process prior to 

the release of the values enables 

immediate use of the derived values 

across multiple EPA Program Offices, 

including providing support for national 

regulatory decisions (e.g., RTR). 

Contrasting the site-specific 

Superfund application of PPRTVs and 

related Records of Decision, the Wood 

Furniture RTR proposal is of national 

scope and will not be subject to ongoing 

review related to each application to a 

facility. Based on the foregoing 

discussion, EPA has determined that 

reliance on the DGBE PPRTV value in 

this RTR rule is beyond the specific 

purpose for which it was developed, 

and would exacerbate the cumulative 

uncertainty in the baseline Wood 

Furniture risk assessment stemming 

from limitations in the underlying 

exposure and toxicity data. Accordingly, 

EPA has not used the DGBE PPRTV 

value in the risk assessment supporting 

this proposed action, noting that a 

suitable alternative value (in this case, 

it is the RfC for EGME from IRIS) is 

available to represent the toxicity of 

glycol ethers without hierarchically 

based non-cancer reference values in the 

assessment. 

In characterizing the potential cancer 

and non-cancer risks, it is important to 

consider the uncertainties related to the 

risk assessments, particularly for 

formaldehyde and glycol ethers. Some 

of the general uncertainties with health 

values and the modeling approach were 

described earlier in this preamble. With 

regard to emissions, there are various 

areas of potential uncertainty for these 

HAP. First, only about 23 percent of the 

facilities reported glycol ether emissions 

and about half reported formaldehyde. 

We recognize that not all facilities 

necessarily emit these HAP. 

Nevertheless, we believe the actual 

number of facilities with emissions of 

glycol ethers and formaldehyde could 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80243 

possibly be higher than the number we 

have in our data set because of the 

uncertainties in the NEI database, 

including the lack of quantified 

emissions from curing and gluing. 

Second, most facilities reporting glycol 

ether emissions reported them 

generically as the class ‘‘glycol ethers’’ 

and not as particular species. We 

developed a profile to speciate these 

generic glycol ethers, which was 

generated from a composite of reported 

speciated glycol ethers emissions data 

from facilities across the source 

category; however, there is uncertainty 

regarding how representative this 

profile is for the other facilities in the 

source category since the profile is 

based on limited data. Additionally, as 

previously discussed, a limited number 

of the glycol ether compounds have 

non-cancer reference values and 

therefore a surrogate value was used. 

For the acute assessment, glycol ethers 

were assessed individually and not as a 

combined group. Third, the reported 

levels of formaldehyde in the NEI are 

likely derived from coatings and contact 

adhesives content and may not account 

for curing or other types of gluing 

operations that may create and emit 

VHAP (including formaldehyde). 

Recognizing that there is no approved 

method for estimating formaldehyde 

emissions from curing, this is an 

uncertainty that could possibly bias the 

risk estimates low, but the extent of 

underestimation, if any, is unknown. 

With regard to the acute inhalation 

assessment, the maximum acute noncancer HQs of 7 for formaldehyde with 

the REL and 0.35 with the AEGL and 10 

for propyl cellosolve were derived 

partly based on using an acute 

multiplier of 4 from the annual average 

hourly emissions. The factor of 4 is 

based on readily available information 

for the emissions driving the risk. The 

information we have may not be 

representative of all sources in the 

category. For more information on this 

factor, see the memorandum Acute 

Effects Factor for Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations, dated 

November 23, 2010, in the docket for 

this action. 

Thus, because of the uncertainties 

described above, we solicit additional 

data and comments that would improve 

our emissions estimates. Specifically, 

we solicit data on glycol ethers 

(speciated to the extent known) and 

formaldehyde used in coatings at wood 

furniture manufacturing facilities. We 

solicit data regarding facilities that use 

coatings that may form formaldehyde or 

other VHAP during the curing process 

and data on VHAP emissions related to 

gluing operations. We solicit comment 

on the emissions estimates and 

assumptions we have used in this 

proposal and whether there are 

scientifically credible methods to 

estimate curing and gluing emissions, 

based on known coatings or other 

methods. We also solicit comment on 

potential options for reducing the use in 

this source category of specific glycol 

ethers which are known to have (or are 

suspected to have) higher toxicity than 

other compounds in the class. 

Moreover, we request that comments 

include, if possible, the following types 

of data and information that might help 

reduce the uncertainties: (1) Ranges of 

the VHAP content in coating products 

and variability between product runs for 

different types of facilities; (2) ranges 

within the annual averages of VHAP per 

pound of coating solids; (3) information 

regarding whether control devices are 

used and, if so, what types and at how 

many facilities. 

b. Facility-wide Risk Assessment 

Results 

Table 7 displays the results of the 

facility-wide risk assessment. This 

assessment was conducted based on 

actual emission levels. For detailed 

facility-specific results, see Table 2 of 

Appendix 6 of the ‘‘Draft Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Source Category’’ in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

TABLE 7—WOOD FURNITURE MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS FACILITY-WIDE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities analyzed 385 

Cancer Risk ................................. Estimated maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 million) .................................................... 100 

Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide individual cancer risks of 100-in-1 million or more ..... 1 

Number of wood furniture manufacturing operations contributing 50 percent or more to facility-wide 

individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more.

0 

Number of facilities with facility-wide individual cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or more ........................... 74 

Number of wood furniture manufacturing operations contributing 50 percent or more to facility-wide 

individual cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or more.

64 

Chronic Non-cancer Risk ............. Maximum facility-wide chronic non-cancer TOSHI ................................................................................. 3 

Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum non-cancer TOSHI greater than 1 .............................. 2 

Number of wood furniture manufacturing operations contributing 50 percent or more to facility-wide 

maximum non-cancer TOSHI of 1 or more.

0 

The maximum individual cancer risk 

from all HAP emissions at a facility that 

contains sources subject to the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing MACT 

standards is estimated to be 100-in-1 

million. Of the 385 facilities included in 

this analysis, one has a facility-wide 

maximum individual cancer risk of 100- 

in-1 million or greater. At this facility, 

the wood furniture manufacturing 

operations contribute approximately 

one percent to these facility-wide risks. 

Based on the data we have, the 

emissions source driving this higher 

cancer risk is a boiler, which is subject 

to the proposed Boiler NESHAP (see 75 

FR 32006, June 4, 2010) which is 

scheduled to be finalized in the near 

future. 

There are 74 facilities with facilitywide maximum individual cancer risks 

of 1-in-1 million or greater. Of these 74 

facilities, 64 have wood furniture 

manufacturing operations that 

contribute 50 percent or greater to the 

facility-wide risks. The facility-wide 

cancer risks at most of these 74 facilities 

are primarily driven by emissions of 

ethyl benzene from wood furniture 

manufacturing operations. 

The facility-wide maximum 

individual chronic non-cancer TOSHI is 

estimated to be 3. Of the 385 facilities 

included in this analysis, two have 

facility-wide maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI values between 1 and 3 

(the individual TOSHI values are 2 and 

3); all the rest are 1 or below. Of these 

three facilities, no facility had wood 

furniture manufacturing operations that 

contributed 50 percent or greater to 

these facility-wide risks. The chronic 

non-cancer risks at these facilities are 

primarily driven by emissions of 

manganese and acrolein from boilers. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
80244 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

35We note that these MIR values would be 

reduced by 50 percent if the CIIT URE for 

formaldehyde were used instead of the IRIS URE. 36We note that the cancer incidence would be 

reduced by 30 percent if the CIIT URE for 

formaldehyde were used instead of the IRIS URE. 

c. Demographic Risk Analysis Results 

The results of the demographic 

analyses performed to investigate the 

distribution of cancer risks at or above 

1-in-1 million to the surrounding 

population are summarized in Table 8 

below. These results, for various 

demographic groups, are based on 

actual emissions levels for the 

population living within 50 km of the 

facilities. 

TABLE 8—WOOD FURNITURE MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS

Nationwide 

Population with cancer risk greater 

than 1 in a million due to 

Source category 

HAP emissions 

Facility-wide HAP 

emissions 

Total population ......................................................................................................... 285,000,000 20,000 26,000 

Race by percent 

White .......................................................................................................................... 75 63 65 

All Other Races ......................................................................................................... 25 37 35 

Race by percent 

White .......................................................................................................................... 75 63 65 

African American ....................................................................................................... 12 13 17

Native American ........................................................................................................ 0 .9 0 .7 0 .6 

Other and Multiracial ................................................................................................. 12 23 17 

Ethnicity by percent 

Hispanic ..................................................................................................................... 14 34 24 

Non-Hispanic ............................................................................................................. 86 66 76 

Income by percent 

Below poverty ............................................................................................................ 13 16 16 

Above poverty ............................................................................................................ 87 84 84 

Education by percent 

Over 25 and without high school diploma ................................................................. 13 19 19 

Over 25 and with a high school diploma ................................................................... 87 81 81 

The results of the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations source 

category demographic analysis indicate 

that there are 20,000 people exposed to 

a cancer risk greater than or equal to 1- 

in-1 million based on HAP emissions 

from the source category. Of this 

population, an estimated 37 percent can 

be classified as a minority (listed as ‘‘All 

Other Races’’ in the table above), 

including 13 percent in the ‘‘African 

American’’ demographic group, and 23 

percent in the ‘‘Other and Multiracial’’ 

demographic group). Of the 20,000 

people with estimated cancer risks 

above 1-in-1-million from the source 

category, 34 percent are in the 

‘‘Hispanic’’ demographic group, 16 

percent are in the ‘‘Below Poverty’’ 

demographic group, and 19 percent are 

in the ‘‘Over 25 and Without High 

School Diploma’’ demographic group; 

these percentages are higher than their 

respective percentages for these 

demographic groups across the United 

States by 20, 3, and 6 percentage points. 

The percentages for the other 

demographic groups are lower than 

their respective nationwide values. The 

table also shows that there are 

approximately 26,000 people exposed to 

an estimated cancer risk greater than or 

equal to 1-in-1 million based on facilitywide emissions. Of this population, the 

results of the facility-wide demographic 

analysis indicate that the percentages 

are higher than nationwide percentages 

for those included in the ‘‘African 

American,’’ ‘‘Other and Multiracial,’’ 

‘‘Hispanic,’’ ‘‘Below Poverty’’ level,’’ and 

the ‘‘Over 25 and Without High School 

Diploma’’ demographic groups, by 5, 5, 

10, 3, and 6 percentage points, 

respectively. The percentages for the 

other demographic groups are lower 

than their respective nationwide values. 

4. What are our proposed decisions on 

risk acceptability and ample margin of 

safety? 

a. Risk Acceptability 

As noted in section III.B of this 

preamble, we weigh all health risk 

factors and measures in our risk 

acceptability determination, including 

cancer risks to the individual most 

exposed, risk estimation uncertainty, 

and other health information. For the 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations source category, the risk 

analysis we performed indicates that the 

cancer risks to the individual most 

exposed could be up to 20-in-1 million 

due to actual emissions and up to 40-in1 million due to MACT-allowable 

emissions.35 These values are 

considerably less than 100-in-1 million, 

which is the presumptive limit of 

acceptability. The risk analysis also 

shows low cancer incidence (1 in every 

200 years),36 no potential for adverse 

environmental effects or human health 

multi-pathway effects, and that chronic 

non-cancer health impacts are unlikely. 

When estimated maximum 1-hour 

peak emissions estimates for speciated 

glycol ethers (i.e., propyl cellosolve) are 

compared to the REL for EGME (used as 

a surrogate for propyl cellosolve), the 

assessment indicates that a maximum 

acute non-cancer HQ up to 10 could 

occur at one facility. Eight facilities (or 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80245 

37We estimate that lower-VHAP coatings could 

be applied nationwide for the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations source category because 

the coatings are applied inside buildings at the 

facilities and the external temperature is not a 

limiting factor. 

38We estimate this requirement to lower VHAP 

content from wood furniture coatings would reduce 

the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk and 

the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value by 

approximately one percent. However, as the 

maximum individual risk values are presented with 

one significant digit due to the precision of the data 

used to estimate these values, the risk values would 

still be presented as 20 for the maximum individual 

cancer risk, 0.4 for the maximum individual noncancer TOSHI, and 10 for the maximum acute HQ 

value. 

2 percent of the total) had an estimated 

HQ greater than 1. All other facilities 

modeled had HQ less than 1. 

Nevertheless, exposures above the REL 

do not necessarily indicate that adverse 

effects will occur. There are no other 

appropriate acute reference values 

available for glycol ethers that may be 

used to assess acute risks for glycol 

ethers. 

When estimated one-hour peak 

emissions estimates for formaldehyde 

are compared to the formaldehyde REL, 

the assessment indicates a maximum 

acute non-cancer HQ up to 7 could 

occur. Eleven facilities (or three percent 

of the total) had an estimated HQ greater 

than 1 and up to 7 for formaldehyde. All 

other facilities modeled had HQs less 

than 1. The maximum acute HQ for 

formaldehyde based on an AEGL–1 or 

ERPG–1 value is 0.35. Exposures 

immediately above the REL do not 

necessarily indicate that adverse effects 

will occur (i.e., they do not define a 

threshold for an effect); on the other 

hand, AEGL–1 and ERPG–1 are levels 

above which you may have mild, but 

reversible, non-disabling effects. 

A detailed discussion of our acute 

assessment for formaldehyde along with 

the interpretation of potential acute 

risks is provided in the Draft Risk 

Assessment for the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Source Category, in the 

docket for this rulemaking. We solicit 

comment on the acute assessment and 

on the interpretation of potential acute 

formaldehyde risks. 

Nevertheless, as described earlier in 

this preamble, the acute assessment 

includes some conservative 

assumptions and some uncertainties. 

Moreover, the RELs are protective and 

designed to protect the most sensitive 

individuals in the population by 

inclusion of margins of safety. 

Therefore, overall we believe that it is 

unlikely that HAP emissions from this 

source category pose unacceptable acute 

non-cancer risks. However, as described 

below, we still have concerns about the 

uncertainties associated with acute noncancer risks. 

While our additional analysis of 

facility-wide risks indicates that there is 

one facility with a maximum facilitywide cancer risk of 100-in-1 million and 

three facilities with a maximum chronic 

non-cancer TOSHI of 1 or more, it also 

shows that wood furniture 

manufacturing operations do not drive 

these risks. Our additional analysis of 

the demographics of the exposed 

population indicates disparities in risks 

between demographic groups may exist; 

however, the overall risks are not high 

and the total number of people exposed 

to cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or 

greater due to emissions from the source 

category is relatively low (20,000). 

EPA has weighed the various health 

measures and factors and uncertainties 

discussed above and in section IV.A.7 of 

this preamble, and is proposing that the 

risks from the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations source 

category are acceptable. We are 

proposing that the risks are acceptable 

after weighing concerns about possible 

acute non-cancer risks, especially acute 

non-cancer risks due to formaldehyde 

(acute HQ up to 7 with the REL and up 

to 0.35 with the AEGL) and glycol ethers 

(acute HQ up to 10), and uncertainties 

in the emissions data as described 

above. We have considered these HAP 

further under the ample margin of safety 

analyses, as described below, and are 

seeking data and comments to help us 

refine the assessments. 

b. Ample Margin of Safety 

Although we are proposing that the 

risks from the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations source 

category are acceptable, risk estimates 

for 20,000 individuals in the exposed 

population are above 1-in-1 million, and 

while there is uncertainty associated 

with our assessment of acute non-cancer 

risks, we remain concerned about the 

potential for them. Consequently, we 

considered whether the Wood Furniture 

MACT standards provide an ample 

margin of safety. In this analysis, we 

investigated available emissions control 

options that might reduce the risks 

associated with emissions from the 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations source category and 

considered this information along with 

all of the health risks and other health 

information considered in the risk 

acceptability determination. 

i. Emissions Control Options 

We evaluated the emissions 

reductions and cost associated with 

various control options for the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations 

source category. One option would 

require lower VHAP content in wood 

furniture coatings, which we estimate 

could reduce VHAP emissions from this 

source category by up to 56 TPY from 

the estimated baseline level of 5,900 

TPY.37 The estimated capital and 

annualized costs for this option would 

be $12,200,000 and $2,800,000, 

respectively. We estimate the costeffectiveness would be about $30,000 

per ton of HAP emissions reduced. We 

estimate this requirement to lower 

VHAP content from wood furniture 

coatings would not appreciably reduce 

the maximum lifetime individual cancer 

risk, the maximum chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI value, or the maximum acute 

non-cancer TOSHI value. These values 

would remain at about 20-in-1 million 

for the maximum lifetime individual 

cancer risk, 0.4 for the maximum 

chronic non-cancer TOSHI value, and 

10 for the maximum acute HQ value 

using the REL.38 Table 9 summarizes the 

nationwide costs and cost-effectiveness 

of this option. 

TABLE 9—LOWER VOC COATING LIMITS FOR WOOD FURNITURE MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS—COSTS AND RISK

REDUCTIONS

Control option 

Number of 

affected 

facilities 

Emission 

reduction 

(TPY) 

Capital costs 

($ million) 

Annualized 

costs 

($ million/yr) 

Cost-effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Max MIR 

after control 

(in 1 million) 

Max TOSHI 

after control 

Max Acute 

HQ after 

control 

Lower VOC coating limits .............................. 406 56 $12.2 $2.8 $30,000 20 0.4 10 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
80246 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

39We note that the estimated reduction in cancer 

MIR would be negligible if the CIIT URE for 

formaldehyde were used instead of the IRIS URE. 

Another potential emissions 

reduction option involving an RTO addon control device was investigated but 

found not to be feasible for 

implementation by the majority of the 

facilities in the source category. This 

control technology is discussed below 

in section IV.B.5 of this preamble. 

A third emissions reduction option is 

to limit formaldehyde emissions by 

restricting formaldehyde use to 400 

pounds per rolling 12 month period, or 

if a control device is used, to an amount 

adjusted from 400 pounds per rolling 12 

month period based on the overall 

control efficiency of the control system. 

The limit would apply to wood 

furniture coatings and contact 

adhesives. This emissions level is 

currently included in Table 5 to Subpart 

JJ of Part 63—List of VHAP of Potential 

Concern Identified by Industry of the 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations MACT standards as part of 

the work practice requirement to have a 

Formulation Assessment Plan for 

finishing operations. The usage level 

provided in Table 5 to Subpart JJ of Part 

63—List of VHAP of Potential Concern 

Identified by Industry of the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations 

MACT standards is 0.2 TPY. Under the 

current Wood Furniture MACT 

standards, if a facility’s annual usage of 

formaldehyde exceeds its baseline level, 

the owner or operator of the facility 

provides a written notification to the 

permitting authority describing the 

amount of the increase and explains the 

reasons for exceedance of the baseline 

level. If the exceedance is no more than 

15 percent above the baseline, or if 

usage is below the level in Table 5 to 

Subpart JJ of Part 63—List of VHAP of 

Potential Concern Identified by 

Industry, then no further explanation is 

required. See 40 CFR 63.803(l). This 

third emissions reduction option would 

change the formaldehyde usage level in 

the existing Wood Furniture Operations 

MACT standards to a limit not to be 

exceeded at any time. Based on the 

updated dataset described in section 

V.B.2, 39 of the 385 facilities use (and 

emit) more than 400 pounds per rolling 

12-month period of formaldehyde. By 

setting a usage limit of 400 pounds per 

rolling 12-month period, we estimate 

that the formaldehyde emissions from 

these 39 facilities will be reduced from 

20.125 TPY to 10.665 TPY, a 9.46 TPY 

or 47 percent reduction. 

As described in the risk assessment 

section above, we estimate that 

formaldehyde emissions from 11 

facilities (about three percent) could 

result in exceedances of the acute REL, 

indicating a potential for acute noncancer risks of concern. We did not see 

a potential for any facility to cause 

exceedances of the acute ERPG–1 or 

AEGL–1 levels. These 11 facilities are 

among the 39 facilities that use and emit 

formaldehyde in excess of 400 pounds 

per year. Moreover, formaldehyde 

emissions from these facilities also drive 

the maximum lifetime individual cancer 

risks. Therefore, reductions in 

formaldehyde emissions will reduce 

these risks. We estimate that limiting 

formaldehyde use to no more than 400 

pounds per rolling 12 month period will 

reduce the maximum acute HQ value 

based on the REL for formaldehyde from 

7 to 3, and will reduce the maximum 

lifetime individual cancer risk from 20- 

in-1 million to approximately 10-in-1 

million, both based on the actual 

emissions level.39

There are many coatings and 

adhesives available from several 

suppliers that contain no or low 

quantities of formaldehyde and that are 

approximately equivalent in cost to the 

coatings and adhesives that contain 

formaldehyde. Many facilities currently 

use these no- or low-formaldehyde 

coatings and adhesives. Based on our 

data, the wood furniture manufacturing 

operations at the facilities using more 

than 400 pounds per rolling 12 month 

period of formaldehyde are similar to 

operations at facilities currently using 

less than 400 pounds per rolling 12 

month period of formaldehyde. 

Therefore, we believe it is feasible for 

the remaining facilities (including the 

11 facilities with HQ greater than 1) to 

switch to coatings and adhesives 

containing no or low amounts of 

formaldehyde, at little or no extra cost, 

and reduce their overall usage to no 

more than 400 pounds per rolling 12 

month period. 

We are proposing to limit the 

formaldehyde usage to 400 pounds per 

12 month rolling period as a means of 

reducing emissions of formaldehyde. 

This limit will reduce the maximum 

acute HQ value for formaldehyde from 

7 to 3, and reduce the maximum 

lifetime individual cancer risk from 20- 

in-1 million to approximately 10-in-1 

million. All affected sources are 

expected to meet this limit by using noor low-formaldehyde coatings. We 

solicit comment on these estimated risk 

reductions, compliant coatings as a 

method for reducing the risk associated 

with formaldehyde, the appropriateness 

of the 400 lb per rolling 12-month 

period emissions limit on formaldehyde 

usage, and the feasibility and cost 

associated with using compliant 

coatings to achieve the limit on 

formaldehyde usage. 

The proposed emission limit is being 

developed primarily under CAA section 

112(f)(2), and has a 2-year compliance 

date for existing sources pursuant to 

CAA section 112(f)(4). We are soliciting 

comment on whether the proposed 

formaldehyde emission limit should be 

issued under CAA section 112(d)(6). 

Standards developed under section 

112(d)(6) would provide up to a three 

year compliance date for existing 

sources. We recognize that affected 

sources may need time to ensure that 

compliant coatings are available for 

their wood furniture manufacturing 

operations. 

ii. Ample Margin of Safety Evaluation 

In accordance with the approach 

established in the Benzene NESHAP, 

EPA weighed all health risk measures 

and information considered in the risk 

acceptability determination, along with 

the costs and economic impacts of 

emissions controls, technological 

feasibility, uncertainties, and other 

relevant factors, in making our ample 

margin of safety determination. We 

considered all of these factors in our 

ample margin of safety decision, and 

concluded that the costs of the add-on 

control options analyzed are not 

reasonable considering the emissions 

reductions and health benefits 

potentially achievable with the controls. 

However, as discussed above, we 

believe it is feasible for facilities to limit 

formaldehyde use to less than 400 

pounds per rolling 12 month period by 

using no- or low-formaldehyde coatings 

and adhesives. This limit on 

formaldehyde use will also result in 

reduced emissions. As a result, we 

propose to establish a usage limit of 400 

pounds per rolling 12 month period for 

formaldehyde under section 112(f) of 

the CAA. 

We chose this level (of 400 pounds 

per rolling 12 month period) as the 

proposed usage limit since it is 

currently used in the MACT standard 

and since limiting emissions to this 

level will lead to reductions in cancer 

risks and the potential for acute noncancer risks of concern. This limit 

would reduce formaldehyde emissions 

by an estimated 9.46 TPY from the 

baseline level of 20.125 TPY. The 

estimated maximum lifetime individual 

cancer risk would be reduced to 

approximately 10-in-1 million from the 

baseline of 20-in-1 million, the 

estimated cancer incidence due to 

emissions from the source category 

would be reduced by about 15 percent 

nationwide, and the estimated 

maximum acute HQ would be reduced 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80247 

40Case Studies comparing HAP and VOC content 

of wood furniture coatings at http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/atw/wood/low/casebyco.html. 

from 7 to 3, based on the REL for 

formaldehyde, and from 0.35 to 0.15, 

based on the AEGL–1 for formaldehyde. 

We estimate that there would be either 

no or minimal additional costs 

associated with this option, as the cost 

of no- or low-formaldehyde coatings and 

adhesives are approximately equal to 

other coating and adhesive products 

containing larger quantities of 

formaldehyde. Also, there are minimal 

costs associated with the recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements for 

compliance with the rule. See EPA ICR 

number 1716.07 for detailed 

information. We believe this 

formaldehyde limit is technically 

feasible for all wood manufacturing 

operations and is a cost-effective 

measure to achieve emissions and 

health risk reductions. Therefore, we 

propose that with this formaldehyde 

limit, the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations MACT 

standards provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. 

Nevertheless, we are seeking comments 

on the proposed formaldehyde limit of 

400 pounds per rolling 12-month 

period, and whether there may be an 

alternative level that we should 

consider. In addition, we are seeking 

comments and data on the cost and 

feasibility of using coatings, solvents, 

adhesives, and any other products 

covered by the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations MACT 

standards that have lower VHAP 

content, or contain less toxic VHAP, as 

well as information that would help us 

to refine our assessment of the chronic 

or acute risks of formaldehyde 

emissions from this source category. 

While we propose that the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations 

MACT standards, revised to include the 

400 pounds per rolling 12-month period 

formaldehyde emissions limit, will 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health, uncertainties 

remain concerning that an acute HQ of 

up to 10 may occur due to emissions of 

glycol ethers based on our screening 

level assessment. The potential risk 

reduction options identified would not 

appreciably reduce emissions or the 

potential acute risks associated with 

glycol ethers. Therefore, we are seeking 

comments and data regarding the use of 

glycol ethers in wood furniture 

manufacturing operations. This 

information includes the quantities of 

coatings and adhesives used (TPY); the 

speciated glycol ethers content in these 

products; whether the use of these 

products is in the kitchen cabinet, 

business furniture, or home furnishings 

sector; and the availability and 

feasibility of using coatings and 

adhesive products with a lower content 

of glycol ethers. 

5. What are our proposed decisions on 

the technology review? 

We evaluated developments in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies applicable to the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations 

source category. This included an 

internet search, a search of the RBLC 

Clearinghouse, a review of relevant 

subsequently developed regulations, 

and contacts with industry. We found 

one advance in add-on control 

technology since the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations MACT 

standards were promulgated, we have 

determined that there are more stringent 

VOC-based coatings limits for wood 

furniture manufacturing facilities in one 

area of California, and we have found 

that fewer conventional spray guns are 

in use. For more detail, see the 

memorandum Developments in 

Practices, Processes, and Control 

Technologies, dated August 24, 2010, in 

the docket for this action that describes 

the technology review for the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations 

source category. 

With regard to add-on technology, we 

identified one facility in Indiana that 

manufactures kitchen cabinets and uses 

an RTO to control spray booth 

emissions from its wood furniture 

manufacturing operations. The facility 

coats flat panels using an automated 

process with high speed lines. We 

estimate cost-effectiveness of the RTO 

system at this facility to be $20,000 per 

ton of HAP reduced. 

Nationwide, we estimate that fewer 

than five facilities manufacture wood 

furniture using automated, high speed 

lines, and could install this type of addon control device. Therefore, the RTO 

control technology is not applicable 

across the entire wood furniture source 

category. The estimated emissions 

reduction, based on these five facilities, 

is 98 tons of HAP per year. The cost to 

treat low-HAP concentration, high 

volume air streams routed to the RTO is 

estimated to be $20,000 per ton of HAP 

reduced, and is considered 

economically prohibitive when 

compared to the amount of emissions 

reduced. Based on per facility sales, we 

determined that this option is not 

affordable. The cost as a percentage of 

revenues was estimated to be 73 percent 

or greater. Additional information on 

the affordability of controls is discussed 

in the memorandum Affordability of 

Lower VHAP Coatings and Add-on 

Controls for Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations, dated 

October 28, 2010, in the docket for this 

action. The large amount of fuel 

required for this type of add-on control 

would be a significant disadvantage and 

the fuel produces NOX emissions, a byproduct of combustion. Finally, 

facilities must have a large physical 

land space to house the RTO. For these 

reasons, we determined that the 

installation of a RTO on spray booths is 

not a viable option for the wood 

furniture manufacturing industry. For 

more detail, see the memo Cost 

Analyses for Control Options, dated 

September 27, 2010, in the docket for 

this action that describes the cost 

analysis for the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations source 

category. 

In our review of developments in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies, we identified the Bay Area 

Air Quality Management District in 

California as having adopted more 

stringent VOC coating emission limits 

than the VHAP coating emission limits 

in the Wood Furniture MACT standards. 

However, the California limits came into 

effect in July 2010, and we do not have 

data to demonstrate whether the 

facilities in this area have been able to 

achieve compliance with these limits or 

the measures they may be taking to 

comply with them. The California limits 

are VOC-based, and coating limits in the 

Wood Furniture MACT standard are 

VHAP-based. We do not have 

information on the exact correlation 

between lower-VOC content and lowerHAP content in coatings (e.g., if lower 

VOC content leads to lower HAP 

content). We believe that coatings used 

in the industry average approximately 

50 percent HAP and 50 percent nonHAP VOC, however the HAP and nonHAP VOC content varies between 

specific coating products.40 Using this 

assumed average HAP-to-VOC content, 

we estimate that by adopting the 

California VOC limits, the industrywide emission reduction would be 56 

tons of HAP per year at a cost of $30,000 

per ton of HAP reduced for the 

approximately 406 facilities in the 

source category. Based on per facility 

sales, we determined that this option 

may be affordable. The cost as a 

percentage of revenues was estimated to 

be less than four percent. Additional 

information on the affordability of lower 

VHAP coatings is discussed in the 

memorandum Affordability of Lower 

VHAP Coatings and Add-on Controls for 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations, dated October 28, 2010, in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
80248 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the docket for this action. Nevertheless, 

due to the factors described above 

including the limited emissions 

reduction potential and the cost 

effectiveness, we are not proposing to 

require lowering the VHAP content in 

coatings in the MACT standards. 

However, we solicit comments and data 

regarding lower VHAP coatings and 

information on the types of wood 

furniture manufacturing coating 

operations for which they may be 

applicable. 

When the Wood Furniture MACT 

standards were promulgated, 

conventional guns were used 

extensively by industry. Since 

promulgation, the use of conventional 

guns in the wood furniture industry has 

diminished drastically, and they are 

now rarely used. We are proposing to 

remove the provision in the Wood 

Furniture MACT standards that allows 

the use of conventional air spray guns; 

thereby codifying current industry 

practice. This proposed action will 

prevent future increases in the use of 

conventional spray guns, which have 

lower transfer efficiencies and higher 

emissions than other spray gun types. 

Based on our findings, it is possible to 

replace conventional air spraying with 

more efficient spray application 

methods such as air assisted airless 

spraying. We anticipate no changes in 

coating formulation will be needed to 

use air assisted airless spray guns rather 

than conventional spray guns. As 

conventional spray guns are now rarely 

used, we do not estimate there will be 

any appreciable emission reductions as 

a result of this proposed provision. For 

more details, see Impacts of Prohibiting 

the Use of Conventional Spray Guns in 

the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations Source Category, dated 

October 19, 2010. 

The associated cost of discontinuing 

use of conventional air spray guns is 

believed to be minimal. Overall, we do 

not believe many conventional guns are 

in use and need to be replaced. 

However, for the remaining 

conventional spray guns, we also 

estimate there to be a net cost savings 

by switching to air assisted airless spray 

guns. While an air assisted airless spray 

gun is estimated to cost approximately 

$300 more than a conventional spray 

gun, the 10 percent increase in transfer 

efficiency results in an equally lower 

coating use and cost savings. We 

estimate that for a single spray gun, if 

the coating cost is $10/gallon and the 

rate of coating use is at least 1.1 gallons 

per day, the initial cost difference 

between the guns is made up within a 

year. For more expensive coatings, the 

cost difference is made up more quickly. 

In addition, the expected life of a 

conventional spray gun is estimated to 

be, at most, 2 years. The compliance 

period of the rule is three years; 

therefore, no air assisted airless guns 

would be required to replace a 

conventional spray gun before the end 

of its useful life as a result of the revised 

Wood Furniture MACT standards. For 

more details, see Impacts of Prohibiting 

the Use of Conventional Spray Guns in 

the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations Source Category, dated 

October 19, 2010 in the docket for this 

action. We solicit comment on the 

accuracy of our assumptions about 

coating use, coating costs, transfer 

efficiency of spray guns, spray gun 

replacement frequency, any additional 

cost associated with switching gun 

technology such as attachment 

replacements, the need for additional 

training associated with switching spray 

guns and the costs of training, if needed 

and the extent to which facilities are 

already using air assisted airless spray 

guns. 

In summary, as a result of the 

technology review under section 

112(d)(6) of the CAA, we are proposing 

to prohibit the use of conventional spray 

guns by facilities regulated by the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations 

MACT standard. Existing sources would 

be required to comply with this 

proposed change by 3 years after the 

effective date. 

6. What other actions are we proposing? 

We are proposing the elimination of 

the SSM exemption in the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations 

MACT standards. Consistent with Sierra 

Club v. EPA, EPA is proposing 

standards in this rule that apply at all 

times. We are proposing several 

revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ 

regarding the standards that apply 

during periods of SSM. Specifically, we 

are proposing to revise Table 1 to 

Subpart JJ of Part 63—General 

Provisions Applicability to Subpart JJ to 

indicate that the requirements in 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(1)(i) of the General Provisions do 

not apply. Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) requires 

owners or operators to act according to 

the general duty to ‘‘operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions.’’ We are 

separately proposing to incorporate this 

general duty to minimize emissions into 

section 63.802(c). Section 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(3) also requires the owner or 

operator of an affected source to develop 

a written SSM plan. We are proposing 

to remove the SSM plan requirement. 

We are also proposing to add SSMassociated reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.806 and 

63.807 to require reporting and 

recordkeeping for periods of 

malfunction, add a requirement in 40 

CFR 63.805 to require performance tests 

to be performed under normal operating 

conditions, and to revise Table 1 to 

Subpart JJ of Part 63—General 

Provisions Applicability to Subpart JJ to 

specify that 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and (ii), 

63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1), 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), 

40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii), and the 

last sentence of 63.8(d)(3), 40 CFR 

63.10(b)(2)(i),(ii), (iv), and (v), 

63.10(c)(10), (11), and (15), and 

63.10(d)(5) of the General Provisions do 

not apply. In addition, as explained 

above, we are proposing to add an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

exceedances of emission limits caused 

by malfunctions, as well as criteria for 

establishing the affirmative defense in 

section 63.800. EPA has attempted to 

ensure that we have not included in the 

proposed regulatory language any 

provisions that are inappropriate, 

unnecessary, or redundant in the 

absence of the SSM exemption. We are 

specifically seeking comment on 

whether there are any such provisions 

that we have inadvertently incorporated 

or overlooked. 

VI. Proposed Action 

A. What actions are we proposing as a 

result of the technology review? 

For the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

(Surface Coating) source category, we 

have determined that there have been 

no developments in practices, 

processes, or control technologies since 

the promulgation of the MACT 

standards that are feasible for the 

facilities in these source categories to 

implement at this time, and we are 

proposing that it is not necessary to 

revise the existing MACT requirements 

based on our CAA section 112(d)(6) 

review. 

For the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations source 

category, we are proposing to amend the 

rule to prohibit the use of conventional 

spray guns under the authority of CAA 

section 112(d)(6). 

B. What actions are we proposing as a 

result of the residual risk review? 

For the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

(Surface Coating) source category, we 

propose that the MACT standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health and prevent 

adverse environmental effects. Thus, we 

are proposing to re-adopt these 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80249 

standards for the purpose of meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 112(f)(2). 

For the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations source 

category, to provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health and 

prevent adverse environmental effects 

for the purpose of meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 112(f)(2), 

we propose to limit usage of 

formaldehyde in coatings and contact 

adhesives to 400 pounds per rolling 12 

month period. 

Existing sources would be required to 

comply with this proposed change by 2 

years after the effective date. 

C. What other actions are we proposing? 

We propose to amend the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating) and Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations MACT 

standards to remove the language that 

exempts facilities from the emissions 

standards that would otherwise be 

applicable during periods of SSM, and 

to add an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for exceedances of emission 

standards caused by malfunctions. 

These changes are being made to ensure 

these rules are consistent with the 

court’s ruling in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 

F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008). 

We also propose to clarify the 

applicability language for Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations to 

be consistent with surface coating rules 

issued after the promulgation of the 

Wood Furniture MACT standards in 

1995. These include subparts MMMM, 

PPPP, QQQQ, and RRRR of part 63. 

Subparts MMMM, PPPP, QQQQ, and 

RRRR exempt surface coating operations 

that are subject to other subparts of Part 

63, such as the Wood Furniture 

Operations MACT standards. (See 40 

CFR §§ 63.3881(c)(6), 63.4481(c)(7), 

63.4681(c)(2), 63.4881(c)(2)). Similarly, 

we propose to amend the Wood 

Furniture Operations MACT standards 

to acknowledge that surface coating 

operations that are subject to subparts 

MMMM, PPPP, QQQQ, or RRRR of Part 

63 are not subject to the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations standards. 

Subparts MMMM, PPPP, and QQQQ 

also include provisions providing 

compliance options for facilities 

potentially subject to more than one 

subpart applicable to surface coating 

operations. (See 40 CFR §§ 63.3881(e), 

63.4481(e), 63.4681(d)). 

VII. Request for Comments 

We are soliciting comments on all 

aspects of this proposed action. All 

comments received during the comment 

period will be considered. In addition to 

general comments on the proposed 

actions, we are also interested in any 

additional data that may help to reduce 

the uncertainties inherent in the risk 

assessments. We are specifically 

interested in receiving corrections to the 

datasets used for risk modeling. Such 

data should include supporting 

documentation in sufficient detail to 

allow characterization of the quality and 

representativeness of the data or 

information. Please see the following 

section for more information on 

submitting data. We are also interested 

in comments and information regarding 

add-on controls and any lower-HAP 

coatings available for use by these 

source categories and the types of 

coating activities for which they could 

be used. We are also seeking comments 

on the potential for lower HAP content 

in other products used in the Wood 

Furniture Production industry, 

including glues, resins and adhesives. 

VIII. Submitting Data Corrections 

The facility-specific data used in the 

source category risk analyses, facilitywide analyses, and demographic 

analyses for each source category 

subject to this action are available for 

download on the RTR Web Page at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/ 

rtrpg.html. These data files include 

detailed information for each HAP 

emissions release point at each facility 

included in the source category and all 

other HAP emissions sources at these 

facilities (facility-wide emissions 

sources). However, it is important to 

note that the source category risk 

analysis included only those emissions 

tagged with the MACT code associated 

with the source category subject to the 

risk analysis. 

If you believe the data are not 

representative or are inaccurate, please 

identify the data in question, provide 

your reason for concern, and provide 

any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if 

available. When you submit data, we 

request that you provide documentation 

of the basis for the revised values to 

support your suggested changes. To 

submit comments on the data 

downloaded from the RTR Web page, 

complete the following steps: 

1. Within this downloaded file, enter 

suggested revisions to the data fields 

appropriate for that information. The 

data fields that may be revised include 

the following: 

Data element Definition 

Control Measure ............................. Are control measures in place? (yes or no). 

Control Measure Comment ............. Select control measure from list provided, and briefly describe the control measure. 

Delete .............................................. Indicate here if the facility or record should be deleted. 

Delete Comment ............................. Describes the reason for deletion. 

Emission Calculation Method Code 

For Revised Emissions.

Code description of the method used to derive emissions. For example, CEM, material balance, stack test, 

etc. 

Emission Process Group ................ Enter the general type of emission process associated with the specified emission point. 

Fugitive Angle ................................. Enter release angle (clockwise from true North); orientation of the y-dimension relative to true North, measured positive for clockwise starting at 0 degrees (maximum 89 degrees). 

Fugitive Length ............................... Enter dimension of the source in the east-west (x-) direction, commonly referred to as length (ft). 

Fugitive Width ................................. Enter dimension of the source in the north-south (y-) direction, commonly referred to as width (ft). 

Malfunction Emissions .................... Enter total annual emissions due to malfunctions (TPY). 

Malfunction Emissions Max Hourly Enter maximum hourly malfunction emissions here (lb/hr). 

North American Datum ................... Enter datum for latitude/longitude coordinates (NAD27 or NAD83); if left blank, NAD83 is assumed. 

Process Comment .......................... Enter general comments about process sources of emissions. 

REVISED Address .......................... Enter revised physical street address for MACT facility here. 

REVISED City ................................. Enter revised city name here. 

REVISED County Name ................. Enter revised county name here. 

REVISED Emission Release Point 

Type.

Enter revised Emission Release Point Type here. 

REVISED End Date ........................ Enter revised End Date here. 

REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate ........ Enter revised Exit Gas Flowrate here (ft3/sec). 

REVISED Exit Gas Temperature .... Enter revised Exit Gas Temperature here (F). 

REVISED Exit Gas Velocity ............ Enter revised Exit Gas Velocity here (ft/sec). 

REVISED Facility Category Code .. Enter revised Facility Category Code here, which indicates whether facility is a major or area source. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
80250 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Data element Definition 

REVISED Facility Name ................. Enter revised Facility Name here. 

REVISED Facility Registry Identifier Enter revised Facility Registry Identifier here, which is an ID assigned by the EPA Facility Registry System. 

REVISED HAP Emissions Performance Level Code.Enter revised HAP Emissions Performance Level here. 

REVISED Latitude .......................... Enter revised Latitude here (decimal degrees). 

REVISED Longitude ....................... Enter revised Longitude here (decimal degrees). 

REVISED MACT Code ................... Enter revised MACT Code here. 

REVISED Pollutant Code ............... Enter revised Pollutant Code here. 

REVISED Routine Emissions ......... Enter revised routine emissions value here (TPY). 

REVISED SCC Code ...................... Enter revised SCC Code here. 

REVISED Stack Diameter .............. Enter revised Stack Diameter here (ft). 

REVISED Stack Height ................... Enter revised Stack Height here (Ft). 

REVISED Start Date ....................... Enter revised Start Date here. 

REVISED State ............................... Enter revised State here. 

REVISED Tribal Code .................... Enter revised Tribal Code here. 

REVISED Zip Code ........................ Enter revised Zip Code here. 

Shutdown Emissions ....................... Enter total annual emissions due to shutdown events (TPY). 

Shutdown Emissions Max Hourly ... Enter maximum hourly shutdown emissions here (lb/hr). 

Stack Comment .............................. Enter general comments about emission release points. 

Startup Emissions ........................... Enter total annual emissions due to startup events (TPY). 

Startup Emissions Max Hourly ....... Enter maximum hourly startup emissions here (lb/hr). 

Year Closed .................................... Enter date facility stopped operations. 

2. Fill in the commenter information 

fields for each suggested revision (i.e., 

commenter name, commenter 

organization, commenter e-mail address, 

commenter phone number, and revision 

comments). 

3. Gather documentation for any 

suggested emissions revisions (e.g., 

performance test reports, material 

balance calculations, etc.). 

4. Send the entire downloaded file 

with suggested revisions in Microsoft®

Access format and all accompanying 

documentation to Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0786 (through one 

of the methods described in the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble). To 

expedite review of the revisions, it 

would also be helpful if you submitted 

a copy of your revisions to the EPA 

directly at RTR@epa.gov in addition to 

submitting them to the docket. 

5. If you are providing comments on 

a facility with multiple source 

categories, you need only submit one 

file for that facility, which should 

contain all suggested changes for all 

source categories at that facility. We 

request that all data revision comments 

be submitted in the form of updated 

Microsoft® Access files, which are 

provided on the http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html Web page. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

significant regulatory action because it 

raises novel legal and policy issues. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to OMB for review under Executive 

Order 12866 and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to OMB 

under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. 

The ICR document prepared by EPA has 

been assigned EPA ICR number 1716.07. 

The proposed revisions to the SSM 

provisions for the standards being 

amended with this proposed rule will 

reduce the reporting burden associated 

with having to prepare and submit a 

SSM report. However, we are proposing 

new paperwork requirements to the 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations MACT standards. The 

proposed standards would require 

regulated entities to submit reports and 

keep records in accordance with Section 

V.B. We are not proposing any new 

paperwork requirements for the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating) source category. 

We estimate that there are 

approximately 406 regulated entities 

currently subject to the National 

Emission Standards for Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations and that 

approximately 150 of those entities will 

be subject to the proposed rule 

involving the 12-month rolling average 

formaldehyde limit. New and existing 

regulated entities would have no capital 

costs associated with the information 

collection requirements in the proposed 

rule. 

The estimated annual average 

recordkeeping and reporting burden 

after the effective date of the proposed 

rule is estimated to be 2,001 labor hours 

at a cost of approximately $200,000.00. 

This estimate includes the cost of 

reporting, including reading 

instructions, and information gathering. 

Recordkeeping cost estimates include 

reading instructions, planning activities, 

calculation of formaldehyde usage, and 

maintenance of 12-month rolling data. 

The average hours and cost per 

regulated entity would be 15 hours and 

$1,400.00. About 406 facilities would 

respond per year. Burden is defined at 

5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, EPA has established 

a public docket for this rule, which 

includes this ICR, under Docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010. Submit 

any comments related to the ICR to EPA 

and OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this notice for where to 

submit comments to EPA. Send 

comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB, 725 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk 

Office for EPA. Since OMB is required 

to make a decision concerning the ICR 

between 30 and 60 days after December 

21, 2010, a comment to OMB is best 

assured of having its full effect if OMB 

receives it by January 20, 2011. The 

final rule will respond to any OMB or 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80251 

public comments on the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the APA or any other statute 

unless the agency certifies that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Small entities include small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of this 

proposed rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

that is a small industrial entity as 

defined by the SBA’s regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The costs associated with the proposed 

requirements in this proposed rule (i.e., 

the formaldehyde emissions limit and 

conventional spray gun prohibition) are 

negligible as discussed above. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed rule does not contain 

a federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for state, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or to the private sector 

in any one year. This proposed rule 

does mandate a lowering of 

formaldehyde usage and a ban on the 

use of conventional spray guns but the 

nationwide annualized cost of these 

mandates are estimated to be 

approximately $200,000 for affected 

sources. Thus, this proposed rule is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 or 205 of UMRA. 

This proposed rule is also not subject 

to the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments 

because it contains no requirements that 

apply to such governments nor does it 

impose obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The burden to 

the respondents and the states is less 

than $500,000 for the entire source 

category. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this proposed rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and state and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from state and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Subject to the Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) EPA 

may not issue a regulation that has tribal 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by tribal governments, or 

EPA consults with tribal officials early 

in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation and develops a 

tribal summary impact statement. EPA 

has concluded that this proposed rule 

will not have tribal implications, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. It 

will not have substantial direct effect on 

tribal governments, on the relationship 

between the federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

federal government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action would not relax 

the control measures on existing 

regulated sources. EPA’s risk 

assessments (included in the docket for 

this proposed rule) demonstrate that the 

existing regulations are associated with 

an acceptable level of risk and that the 

proposed additional requirements for 

the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations source category will provide 

an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is 

not likely to have significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy. This action will not create 

any new requirements for sources in the 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

sectors. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, 

Public Law 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) directs EPA to use VCS in its 

regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA 

directs EPA to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when the 

EPA decides not to use available and 

applicable VCS. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on EJ. Its main 

provision directs federal agencies, to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make EJ part of 

their mission by identifying and 

addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and 

low-income populations in the United 

States. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
80252 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

To examine the potential for any EJ 

issues that might be associated with 

each source category, we evaluated the 

distributions of HAP-related cancer and 

non-cancer risks across different social, 

demographic, and economic groups 

within the populations living near the 

facilities where these source categories 

are located. The methods used to 

conduct demographic analyses for this 

rule are described in section IV.A of the 

preamble for this rule. The development 

of demographic analyses to inform the 

consideration of EJ issues in EPA 

rulemakings is an evolving science. The 

EPA offers the demographic analyses in 

this proposed rulemaking as examples 

of how such analyses might be 

developed to inform such consideration, 

and invites public comment on the 

approaches used and the interpretations 

made from the results, with the hope 

that this will support the refinement 

and improve utility of such analyses for 

future rulemakings. 

For the demographic analyses, we 

focused on the populations within 50 

km of any facility estimated to have 

exposures to HAP which result in 

cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater, 

or non-cancer HI of 1 or greater (based 

on the emissions of the source category 

or the facility, respectively). We 

examined the distributions of those 

risks across various demographic 

groups, comparing the percentages of 

particular demographic groups to the 

total number of people in those 

demographic groups nationwide. The 

results, including other risk metrics, 

such as average risks for the exposed 

populations, are documented in source 

category-specific technical reports in the 

docket for both source categories 

covered in this proposal. 

As described in the preamble, for the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating) and Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations MACT 

standard source categories, our risk 

assessments demonstrate that the 

regulations are associated with an 

acceptable level of risk and that the 

proposed additional requirements for 

the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations source category will provide 

an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health. 

Our analyses also show that, for these 

source categories, there is no potential 

for an adverse environmental effect or 

human health multi-pathway effects, 

and that acute and chronic non-cancer 

health impacts are unlikely. EPA has 

determined that although there may be 

an existing disparity in HAP risks from 

these sources between some 

demographic groups, no demographic 

group is exposed to an unacceptable 

level of risk. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: December 3, 2010. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency proposes to amend title 40, 

chapter I of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart II—[AMENDED] 

2. Section 63.781 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.781 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(d) If you are authorized in 

accordance with 40 CFR 63.783(c) to use 

an add-on control system as an 

alternative means of limiting emissions 

from coating operations, in response to 

an action to enforce the standards set 

forth in this subpart, you may assert an 

affirmative defense to a claim for civil 

penalties for exceedances of such 

standards that are caused by 

malfunction, as defined in 40 CFR 63.2. 

Appropriate penalties may be assessed, 

however, if the respondent fails to meet 

its burden of proving all the 

requirements in the affirmative defense. 

The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(1) To establish the affirmative 

defense in any action to enforce such a 

limit, the owners or operators of 

facilities must timely meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph 

(d)(2) of this section, and must prove by 

a preponderance of evidence that: 

(i) The excess emissions: 

(A) Were caused by a sudden, short, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner; and 

(B) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(C) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for; and 

(D) Were not part of a recurring 

pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(ii) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emission limitations were 

being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime 

labor were used, to the extent 

practicable to make these repairs; and 

(iii) The frequency, amount and 

duration of the excess emissions 

(including any bypass) were minimized 

to the maximum extent practicable 

during periods of such emissions; and 

(iv) If the excess emissions resulted 

from a bypass of control equipment or 

a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

severe personal injury, or severe 

property damage; and 

(v) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment, and human health; and 

(vi) All emissions monitoring and 

control systems were kept in operation 

if at all possible; and 

(vii) All of the actions in response to 

the excess emissions were documented 

by properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 

(viii) At all times, the facility was 

operated in a manner consistent with 

good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(ix) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared to determine, correct and 

eliminate the primary causes of the 

malfunction and the excess emissions 

resulting from the malfunction event at 

issue. The analysis shall also specify, 

using best monitoring methods and 

engineering judgment, the amount of 

excess emissions that were the result of 

the malfunction. 

(2) Notification. The owner or 

operator of the facility experiencing an 

exceedance of its emission limit(s) 

during a malfunction shall notify the 

Administrator by telephone or facsimile 

transmission as soon as possible, but no 

later than two business days after the 

initial occurrence of the malfunction, if 

it wishes to avail itself of an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for that 

malfunction. The owner or operator 

seeking to assert an affirmative defense 

shall also submit a written report to the 

Administrator within 30 days of the 

initial occurrence of the exceedance of 

the standard in this subpart to 

demonstrate, with all necessary 

supporting documentation, that it has 

met the requirements set forth in 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section. 

3. Section 63.782 is amended by 

adding a definition for ‘‘affirmative 

defense’’ to read as follows: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80253 

§ 63.782 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or a defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

* * * * * 

4. Section 63.783 is amended by 

redesignating paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(b)(2) as (b)(2) and (b)(3) and adding a 

new paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 63.783 Standards. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) At all times the owner or operator 

must operate and maintain any affected 

source, including associated air 

pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment, in a manner 

consistent with safety and good air 

pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. Determination of 

whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

will be based on information available 

to the Administrator which may 

include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation 

and maintenance procedures, review of 

operation and maintenance records, and 

inspection of the source. 

* * * * * 

5. Section 63.785 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 63.785 Compliance procedures. 

* * * * * 

(e) Continuous compliance 

requirements. You must demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the 

emissions standards and operating 

limits by using the performance test 

methods and procedures in § 63.786 for 

each affected source. 

(1) General requirements. (i) You must 

monitor and collect data, and provide a 

site specific monitoring plan, as 

required by §§ 63.783, 63.785, 63.786 

and 63.787. 

(ii) Except for periods of monitoring 

system malfunctions, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions, 

and required monitoring system quality 

assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration 

checks and required zero and span 

adjustments), you must operate the 

monitoring system and collect data at all 

required intervals at all times the 

affected source is operating, and periods 

of malfunction. Any period for which 

data collection is required and the 

operation of the CEMS is not otherwise 

exempt and for which the monitoring 

system is out-of-control and data are not 

available for required calculations 

constitutes a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements. 

(iii) You may not use data recorded 

during monitoring system malfunctions, 

repairs associated with monitoring 

system malfunctions, or required 

monitoring system quality assurance or 

control activities in calculations used to 

report emissions or operating levels. A 

monitoring system malfunction is any 

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 

preventable failure of the monitoring 

system to provide valid data. 

Monitoring system failures that are 

caused in part by poor maintenance or 

careless operation are not malfunctions. 

The owner or operator must use all the 

data collected during all other periods 

in assessing the operation of the control 

device and associated control system. 

(2) [Reserved] 

6. Section 63.786 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 63.786 Test methods and procedures. 

* * * * * 

(e) For add-on control systems 

approved for use in limiting emissions 

from coating operations pursuant to 

§ 63.783(c), performance tests shall be 

conducted under such conditions as the 

Administrator specifies to the owner or 

operator based on representative 

performance of the affected source for 

the period being tested. Upon request, 

the owner or operator shall make 

available to the Administrator such 

records as may be necessary to 

determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

7. Section 63.788 is amended by 

adding paragraph (b)(5) and revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 63.788 Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) Each owner or operator that 

receives approval pursuant to 

§ 63.783(c) to use an add-on control 

system to control coating emissions 

shall maintain records of the occurrence 

and duration of each malfunction of 

operation (i.e., process equipment) or 

the required air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment. Each owner or 

operator shall maintain records of 

actions taken during periods of 

malfunction to minimize emissions in 

accordance with § 63.783(b)(1), 

including corrective actions to restore 

malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment to its normal or usual 

manner of operation. 

(c) Reporting requirements. Before the 

60th day following completion of each 

6-month period after the compliance 

date specified in § 63.784, each owner 

or operator of an affected source shall 

submit a report to the Administrator for 

each of the previous six months. The 

report shall include all of the 

information that must be retained 

pursuant to paragraphs (b)(2) through 

(3) of this section, except for that 

information specified in paragraphs 

(b)(2)(i) through (ii), (b)(2)(v), 

(b)(3)(i)(A), (b)(3)(ii)(A), and 

(b)(3)(iii)(A). If a violation at an affected 

source is detected, the owner or 

operator of the affected source shall also 

report the information specified in 

paragraph (b)(4) of this section for the 

reporting period during which the 

violation(s) occurred. To the extent 

possible, the report shall be organized 

according to the compliance 

procedure(s) followed each month by 

the affected source. If there was a 

malfunction during the reporting 

period, the report must also include the 

number, duration, and a brief 

description of each malfunction which 

occurred during the reporting period 

and which caused or may have caused 

any applicable emission limitation to be 

exceeded. The report must also include 

a description of actions taken by an 

owner or operator during a malfunction 

of an affected source to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.783(b)(1), including actions taken 

to correct a malfunction. 

8. Table 1 to subpart II of part 63 is 

amended: 

a. By removing entry 63.6(e)–(f); 

b. By adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i), 

63.6(e)(1)(ii), 63.6(e)(1)(iii); 63.6(e)(2), 

63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1), and 63.6(f)(2)– 

(f)(3); 

c. By removing entry 63.7; 

d. By adding entries 63.7(a)–(d), 

63.7(e)(1), and 63.7(e)(2)–(e)(4); 

e. By revising entry 63.8; 

f. By removing entry 63.10(a)–(b); 

g. By adding entries 63.10(a), 

63.10(b)(1), 63.10(b)(2)(i), 63.10(b)(2)(ii), 

63.10(b)(2)(iii), 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(b)(2)(v), 

63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(b)(2)(xiv), and 

63.10(b)(3); 

h. By removing entries 63.10(c); 

i. By adding entries 63.10(c)(1)–(9), 

63.10(c)(10)–(11), 63.10(c)(12)–(14), and 

63.10(c)(15); 

j. By removing entry 63.10(d); and 

k. By adding entries 63.10(d)(1)–(4) 

and 63.10(d)(5). 

The revisions read as follows: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
80254 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART II OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS OF APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART II 

Reference Applies to 

subpart II Comment 

*******

63.6(e)(1)(i) .............................................................................................. No ................ See § 63.783(b)(1) for general duty requirement. 

63.6(e)(1)(ii) ............................................................................................. No ................

63.6(e)(1)(iii) ............................................................................................ Yes ...............

63.6(e)(2) ................................................................................................. No ................ Section reserved. 

63.6(e)(3) ................................................................................................. No ................

63.6(f)(1) .................................................................................................. No ................

63.6(f)(2)–(f)(3) ........................................................................................ No ................ If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an 

add-on control system) is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with § 63.783(c), then this section does apply. 

* * * * * * * 

63.7(a)–(d) ............................................................................................... No ................ If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an 

add-on control system) is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with § 63.783(c), then these 

sections do apply. 

63.7(e)(1) ................................................................................................. No ................ If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an 

add-on control system) is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with § 63.783(c), then see 

§ 63.786(e). 

63.7(e)(2)–(e)(4) ...................................................................................... No ................ If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an 

add-on control system) is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with § 63.783(c), then these 

sections do apply. 

*******

63.8 .......................................................................................................... No ................ If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an 

add-on control system) is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with § 63.783(c), then this section does apply, with the exception of § 63.8(c)(1)(i), 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii), and the last sentence of § 63.8(d)(3). 

*******

63.10(a) ................................................................................................... Yes ...............

63.10(b)(1) ............................................................................................... Yes ...............

63.10(b)(2)(i) ............................................................................................ No ................

63.10(b)(2)(ii) ........................................................................................... No ................ See § 63.788(b)(5) for recordkeeping of occurrence, duration, and actions taken during malfunctions. 

63.10(b)(2)(iii) .......................................................................................... Yes ...............

63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(b)(2)(v) ........................................................................... No ................

63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(b)(2)(xiv) ........................................................................ Yes ...............

63.10(b)(3) ............................................................................................... Yes ...............

63.10(c)(1)–(9) ......................................................................................... No ................ If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an 

add-on control system) is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with § 63.783(c), then these 

sections do apply. 

63.10(c)(10)–(11) ..................................................................................... No ................ If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an 

add-on control system) is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with § 63.783(c), then see 

§ 63.788(b)(5) for records of malfunctions. 

63.10(c)(12)–(14) ..................................................................................... No ................ If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an 

add-on control system) is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with § 63.783(c), then these 

sections do apply. 

63.10(c)(15) ............................................................................................. No ................

63.10(d)(1)–(4) ......................................................................................... Yes ...............

63.10(d)(5) ............................................................................................... No ................ See § 63.788(c) for reporting malfunctions. 

*******

9. Table 3 to subpart II of part 63 is 

amended by revising entry 

‘‘Determination of whether containers 

meet the standards described in 

§ 63.783(b)(2)’’ to read as follows: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80255 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART II OF PART 63—SUMMARY OF RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS abc

Requirement 

All Opts. Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 

Rec Rep Rec Rep Rec Rep Rec Rep 

*******

Determination of whether containers meet the standards described in § 63.783(b)(3) ............... X X 

*******

aAffected sources that comply with the cold-weather limits must record and report additional information, as specified in § 63.788(b)(3)(ii)(C), 

(iii)(C), and (iv)(D). bAffected sources that detect a violation must record and report additional information, as specified in § 63.788(b)(4). 

cOPTION 4: the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Option 4 are identical to those of Options 1, 2, or 3, depending on whether and 

how thinners are used. However, when using Option 4, the term ‘‘VOHAP’’ shall be used in lieu of the term ‘‘VOC,’’ and the owner or operator 

shall record and report the Administrator-approved VOHAP test method or certification procedure. 

* * * * * 

Subpart JJ—[AMENDED] 

10. Section 63.800 is amended: 

a. By redesignating paragraphs (f) and 

(g) as paragraphs (h) and (i); 

b. By redesignating paragraphs (d) and 

(e) as paragraphs (e) and (f); 

c. By adding new paragraphs (d) and 

(g); and 

d. By adding paragraph (j) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.800 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(d) This subpart does not apply to any 

surface coating or coating operation that 

meets any of the criteria of paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (4) of this section. 

(1) Surface coating of metal parts and 

products other than metal components 

of wood furniture that meets the 

applicability criteria for miscellaneous 

metal parts and products surface coating 

(subpart MMMM of this part). 

(2) Surface coating of plastic parts and 

products other than plastic components 

of wood furniture that meets the 

applicability criteria for plastic parts 

and products surface coating (subpart 

PPPP of this part). 

(3) Surface coating of wood building 

products that meets the applicability 

criteria for wood building products 

surface coating (subpart QQQQ of this 

part). The surface coating of millwork 

and trim associated with cabinet 

manufacturing are subject to subpart JJ. 

(4) Surface coating of metal furniture 

that meets the applicability criteria for 

metal furniture surface coating (subpart 

RRRR of this part). Surface coating of 

metal components of wood furniture 

performed at a wood furniture or wood 

furniture component manufacturing 

facility are subject to subpart JJ. 

* * * * * 

(g) Existing affected sources shall be 

in compliance with § 63.802(a)(4) no 

later than [DATE 2 YEARS FROM DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and 

§ 63.803(h) no later than [DATE three 

YEARS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION 

OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. The owner or operator of an 

existing area source that increases its 

emissions of (or its potential to emit) 

HAP such that the source becomes a 

major source that is subject to this 

subpart shall comply with this subpart 

one year after becoming a major source. 

* * * * * 

(j) If the owner or operator, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 63.804, uses a 

control system as a means of limiting 

emissions, in response to an action to 

enforce the standards set forth in this 

subpart, you may assert an affirmative 

defense to a claim for civil penalties for 

exceedances of such standards that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined in 40 

CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be 

assessed, however, if the respondent 

fails to meet its burden of proving all 

the requirements in the affirmative 

defense. The affirmative defense shall 

not be available for claims for injunctive 

relief. 

(1) To establish the affirmative 

defense in any action to enforce such a 

limit, the owner or operator of facilities 

must timely meet the notification 

requirements in paragraph (j)(2) of this 

section, and must prove by a 

preponderance of evidence that: 

(i) The excess emissions: 

(A) Were caused by a sudden, short, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner; and 

(B) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(C) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for; and 

(D) Were not part of a recurring 

pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(ii) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emission limitations were 

being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime 

labor were used, to the extent 

practicable to make these repairs; and 

(iii) The frequency, amount and 

duration of the excess emissions 

(including any bypass) were minimized 

to the maximum extent practicable 

during periods of such emissions; and 

(iv) If the excess emissions resulted 

from a bypass of control equipment or 

a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

severe personal injury, or severe 

property damage; and 

(v) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment, and human health; and 

(vi) All emissions monitoring and 

control systems were kept in operation 

if at all possible; and 

(vii) All of the actions in response to 

the excess emissions were documented 

by properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 

(viii) At all times, the facility was 

operated in a manner consistent with 

good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(ix) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared to determine, correct and 

eliminate the primary causes of the 

malfunction and the excess emissions 

resulting from the malfunction event at 

issue. The analysis shall also specify, 

using best monitoring methods and 

engineering judgment, the amount of 

excess emissions that were the result of 

the malfunction. 

(2) Notification. The owner or 

operator of the facility experiencing an 

exceedance of its emission limit(s) 

during a malfunction shall notify the 

Administrator by telephone or facsimile 

transmission as soon as possible, but no 

later than two business days after the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
80256 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

initial occurrence of the malfunction, if 

it wishes to avail itself of an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for that 

malfunction. The owner or operator 

seeking to assert an affirmative defense 

shall also submit a written report to the 

Administrator within 30 days of the 

initial occurrence of the exceedance of 

the standard in this subpart to 

demonstrate, with all necessary 

supporting documentation, that it has 

met the requirements set forth in 

paragraph (h)(1) of this section. 

11. Section 63.801 is amended by: 

a. Adding a definition for ‘‘affirmative 

defense’’ and revising the definition for 

‘‘wood furniture’’ in paragraph (a); and 

b. Adding (b)(24) through (b)(28). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.801 Definitions. 

(a) * * * 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or a defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

* * * * * 

Wood furniture means any product 

made of wood, a wood product such as 

rattan or wicker, or an engineered wood 

product such as particleboard that is 

manufactured at any facility that is 

engaged, either in part or in whole, in 

the manufacture of wood furniture or 

wood furniture components, including, 

but not limited to, facilities under any 

of the following standard industrial 

classification codes: 2434, 2511, 2512, 

2517, 2519, 2521, 2531, 2541, 2599, or 

5712. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(24) Cf =the formaldehyde content of a 

finishing material (c), in pounds of 

formaldehyde per gallon of coating (lb/ 

gal). 

(25) Ftotal= total formaldehyde 

emissions in each rolling 12-month 

period. 

(26) Gf =the formaldehyde content of 

a contact adhesive (g), in pounds of 

formaldehyde per gallon of contact 

adhesive (lb/gal). 

(27) Vc=the volume of formaldehydecontaining finishing material (c), in gal. 

(28) Vg=the volume of formaldehydecontaining contact adhesive (g), in gal. 

12. Section 63.802 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (a)(4), (b)(4), and (c) 

to read as follows: 

§ 63.802 Emission limits. 

(a) * * * 

(4) Limit total formaldehyde (Ftotal) 

emissions from finishing operations and 

contact adhesives to no more than 400 

lb per rolling 12-month period. 

(b) * * * 

(4) Limit total formaldehyde (Ftotal) 

emissions from finishing operations and 

contact adhesives to no more than 400 

lb per rolling 12-month period. 

(c) At all times, the owner or operator 

must operate and maintain any affected 

source, including associated air 

pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment, in a manner 

consistent with safety and good air 

pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. Determination of 

whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

will be based on information available 

to the Administrator which may 

include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation 

and maintenance procedures, review of 

operation and maintenance records, and 

inspection of the source. 

13. Section 63.803 is amended by 

revising paragraph (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.803 Work practice standards. 

* * * * * 

(h) Application equipment 

requirements. Each owner or operator of 

an affected source shall not use 

conventional air spray guns. 

* * * * * 

14. Section 63.804 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (g)(9) and (h) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.804 Compliance procedures and 

monitoring requirements. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(9) Continuous compliance 

requirements. You must demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the 

emissions standards and operating 

limits by using the performance test 

methods and procedures in § 63.805 for 

each affected source. 

(i) General requirements. (A) You 

must monitor and collect data, and 

provide a site specific monitoring plan 

as required by §§ 63.804, 63.806 and 

63.807. 

(B) Except for periods of monitoring 

system malfunctions, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions, 

and required monitoring system quality 

assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration 

checks and required zero and span 

adjustments), you must operate the 

monitoring system and collect data at all 

required intervals at all times the 

affected source is operating and periods 

of malfunction. Any period for which 

data collection is required and the 

operation of the CEMS is not otherwise 

exempt and for which the monitoring 

system is out-of-control and data are not 

available for required calculations 

constitutes a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements. 

(C) You may not use data recorded 

during monitoring system malfunctions, 

repairs associated with monitoring 

system malfunctions, or required 

monitoring system quality assurance or 

control activities in calculations used to 

report emissions or operating levels. A 

monitoring system malfunction is any 

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 

preventable failure of the monitoring 

system to provide valid data. 

Monitoring system failures that are 

caused in part by poor maintenance or 

careless operation are not malfunctions. 

The owner or operator must use all the 

data collected during all other periods 

in assessing the operation of the control 

device and associated control system. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(h) The owner or operator of an 

existing or new affected source subject 

to § 63.802(a)(4) or (b)(4) shall comply 

with those provisions by using either of 

the methods presented in § 63.804(h)(1) 

and (2). 

(1) Calculate total formaldehyde 

emissions from all finishing materials 

and contact adhesives used at the 

facility using Equation 5 and maintain 

a value of Ftotal no more than 400 lb per 

rolling 12-month period. 

Ftotal=(Cf1Vc1 + Cf2Vc2 + * * * + CfnVcn

+ Gf1Vg1 + Gf2Vg2 + * * * + GfnVgn) 

Equation 5 

(2) Use a control system with an 

overall control efficiency (R) such that 

the calculated value of Ftotal in Equation 

6 is no more than 400 lb per rolling 12- 

month period. 

Ftotal=(Cf1Vc1 + Cf2Vc2 + * * * + CfnVcn

+ GfiVg1 + Gf2Vg2 + * * * + GfnVgn)* 

(1–R) Equation 6 

15. Section 63.805 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.805 Performance test methods. 

(a)(1) * * * 

(2) Performance tests shall be 

conducted under such conditions as the 

Administrator specifies to the owner or 

operator based on representative 

performance of the affected source for 

the period being tested. Upon request, 

the owner or operator shall make 

available to the Administrator such 

records as may be necessary to 

determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

* * * * * 

16. Section 63.806 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (e)(4) 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80257 

and adding paragraphs (b)(4) and (k) to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.806 Recordkeeping requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) The formaldehyde content, in lb/ 

gal, as applied, of each finishing 

material and contact adhesive subject to 

the emission limits in § 63.802. 

* * * * * 

(k) The owner or operator of an 

affected source subject to this subpart 

shall maintain records of the occurrence 

and duration of each malfunction of 

operation (i.e., process equipment) or 

the air pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment. The owner or 

operator shall maintain records of 

actions taken during periods of 

malfunction to minimize emissions in 

accordance with § 63.802(c), including 

corrective actions to restore 

malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment to its normal or usual 

manner of operation. 

17. Section 63.807 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c) introductory text 

and (c)(3) and the first sentence in 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 63.807 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) The owner or operator of an 

affected source demonstrating 

compliance in accordance with 

§ 63.804(g)(1), (2), (3), (5), (7), (8), and 

(h)(1) shall submit a report covering the 

previous six months of wood furniture 

manufacturing operations. 

* * * * * 

(3) The semiannual reports shall 

include the information required by 

§ 63.804(g) (1), (2), (3), (5), (7), (8), and 

(h)(1), a statement of whether the 

affected source was in compliance or 

noncompliance, and, if the affected 

source was in noncompliance, the 

measures taken to bring the affected 

source into compliance. If there was a 

malfunction during the reporting 

period, the report shall also include the 

number, duration, and a brief 

description for each type of malfunction 

which occurred during the reporting 

period and which caused or may have 

caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded. The report 

must also include a description of 

actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected 

source to minimize emissions in 

accordance with § 63.802(c), including 

actions taken to correct a malfunction. 

* * * * * 

(d) The owner or operator of an 

affected source demonstrating 

compliance in accordance with 

§ 63.804(g)(4), (6), and (h)(2) of this 

subpart shall submit the excess 

emissions and continuous monitoring 

system performance report and 

summary report required by § 63.10(e) 

of subpart A. * * * 

* * * * * 

Subpart JJ [Amended] 

18. Table 1 to Subpart JJ of part 63 is 

amended: 

a. By removing entry 63.6(e)(1); 

b. By adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i), 

63.6(e)(1)(ii), 63.6(e)(1)(iii); 

c. By revising entries 63.6(e)(2) and 

(3); 

d. By removing entries 63.7 and 63.8; 

e. By adding entries 63.7(a)–(d), 

63.7(e)(1), 63.7(e)(2)–(e)(4), 63.8(a)–(b), 

63.8(c)(1)(i), 63.8(c)(1)(ii), 63.8(c)(1)(iii), 

63.8(c)(2)–(d)(2), 63.8(d)(3), and 63.8(e)– 

(f); 

f. By removing entry 63.10(b)(2); 

g. By adding entries 63.10(b)(2)(i), 

63.10(b)(2)(ii), 63.10(b)(2)(iii), 

63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(b)(2)(v), 63.10(b)(2)(vi)– 

(b)(2)(xiv); 

h. By removing entry 63.10(c); 

i. By adding entries 63.10(c)(1)–(9), 

63.10(c)(10)–(11), 63.10(c)(12)–(c)(14), 

and 63.10(c)(15); and 

j. By revising entry 63.10(d)(5). 

The revisions read as follows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART JJ OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART JJ 

Reference Applies to 

subpart JJ Comment 

*******

63.6(e)(1)(i) .............................................................................................. No ................ See 63.802(c) for general duty requirement. 

63.6(e)(1)(ii) ............................................................................................. No ................

63.6(e)(1)(iii) ............................................................................................ Yes ...............

63.6(e)(2) ................................................................................................. No ................ Section reserved. 

63.6(e)(3) ................................................................................................. No ................

63.6(f)(1) .................................................................................................. No ................

§ 63.7(a)–(d) ............................................................................................ Yes ............... Applies only to affected sources using a control device 

to comply with the rule. 

§ 63.7(e)(1) .............................................................................................. No ................ See 63.805(a)(1). 

§ 63.7(e)(2)–(e)(4) .................................................................................... Yes ............... Applies only to affected sources using a control device 

to comply with the rule. 

63.8(a)–(b) ............................................................................................... Yes ............... Applies only to affected sources using a control device 

to comply with the rule. 

63.8(c)(1)(i) .............................................................................................. No ................

63.8(c)(1)(ii) ............................................................................................. Yes ............... Applies only to affected sources using a control device 

to comply with the rule. 

63.8(c)(1)(iii) ............................................................................................ No ................

63.8(c)(2)–(d)(2) ...................................................................................... Yes ............... Applies only to affected sources using a control device 

to comply with the rule. 

63.8(d)(3) ................................................................................................. Yes, except 

for last 

sentence.

Applies only to affected sources using a control device 

to comply with the rule. 

63.8(e)–(g) ............................................................................................... Yes ............... Applies only to affected sources using a control device 

to comply with the rule. 

* * * * * * * 

63.10(b)(2)(i) ............................................................................................ No ................


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
80258 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART JJ OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART JJ—Continued 

Reference Applies to 

subpart JJ Comment 

63.10(b)(2)(ii) ........................................................................................... No ................ See 63.806(k) for recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of malfunctions and recordkeeping of actions 

taken during malfunction. 

63.10(b)(2)(iii) .......................................................................................... Yes ............... Applies only to affected sources using a control device 

to comply with the rule. 

63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(b)(2)(v) ........................................................................... No ................

63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(b)(2)(xiv) ........................................................................ Yes ............... Applies only to affected sources using a control device 

to comply with the rule. 

* * * * * * * 

63.10(c)(1)–(9) ......................................................................................... Yes ...............

63.10(c)(10)–(11) ..................................................................................... No ................ See 63.806(k) for recordkeeping of malfunctions. 

63.10(c)(12)–(c)(14) ................................................................................. Yes ...............

63.10(c)(15) ............................................................................................. No ................

* * * * * * * 

63.10(d)(5) ............................................................................................... No ................ See 63.807(c)(3) for reporting of malfunctions. 

* * * * * * * 

19. Table 3 to Subpart JJ of part 63 is 

amended by adding entry (e) under 

‘‘Finishing Operations’’ to read as 

follows: 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART JJ OF PART 63—SUMMARY OF EMISSION LIMITS

Emission point Existing 

source New source 

*******

(e) Achieve total free formaldehyde emissions across all finishing operations and contact adhesives, lb per rolling 

12-month period, as applied ........................................................................................................................................ 400 400 

*******

Table 5 to Subpart JJ of Part 63 

[Amended] 

20. Table 5 to Subpart JJ of part 63 is 

amended by removing the entry for 

‘‘Formaldehyde.’’ 

[FR Doc. 2010–31091 Filed 12–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3