***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

EO12866_NESHAPShipbuildingWoodFurn_FRM_2060AQ42_20110929.doc

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPAEPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0786; FRL- ]

RIN 2060–AQ42

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating); 

National Emission Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology 

review conducted for two industrial source categories regulated 

by separate national emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants. The two national emission standards for hazardous 

air pollutants are: National Emissions Standards for 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) and National 

Emissions Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations. 

This action also finalizes revisions to the regulatory 

provisions related to emissions during periods of startup, 

shutdown and malfunction.

DATES: This final action is effective on [INSERT DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 2 of 125

under Docket ID Number the EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0786. All documents 

in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov website.

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., confidential business information or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 

other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet, and will be publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 

electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at

the EPA Docket Center, the EPA West Building, Room Number 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time, Monday through Friday. The telephone number for 

the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744 and the telephone 

number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 

is (202) 566–1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final 

action regarding the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP), contact Mr. Nicholas Swanson, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, 

Natural Resources Group (E143-03), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 3 of 125

(919) 541–4080; fax number: (919) 685–3219; and email address:

swanson.nicholas@epa.gov. For questions about this final action

regarding the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating)

NESHAP, contact Ms. Tina Ndoh, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Minerals 

and Manufacturing Group (E243-04), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:

(919) 541–2750; fax number: (919) 685–5450; and email address:

ndoh.tina@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

For specific information regarding the modeling 

methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts 

Division, Air Toxics Assessment Group (C539–02), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541–0881; fax number: (919) 541–

0840; and email address: hirtz.james@epa.gov. For information 

about the applicability of these two NESHAP to a particular 

entity, contact Dr. Rafael Sanchez, Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-7028; fax 

number: (202) 564-0050; and email address: 

sanchez.rafael@epa.gov. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 4 of 125

Background Information Document. On December 21, 2010 (75 FR 

80220), the EPA proposed revisions to the Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair (Surface Coating) NESHAP and the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations NESHAP, which were evaluated in our 

residual risk and technology review (RTR). A summary of the 

public comments on the proposal and the EPA‘s responses to the 

comments is available in Docket ID Number the EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-

0786.

Organization of this Document. The following outline is provided 

to aid in locating information in the preamble.

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

C. Judicial Review

II. Background 

III. Summary of the Final Rules

A. What are the final rule amendments for the Shipbuilding and 

 Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category?

B. What are the final rule amendments for the Wood Furniture 

 Manufacturing Operations source category?

C. What are the requirements during periods of startup, shutdown 

 and malfunction?

D. What are the effective and compliance dates of the

 standards?

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal

A. What changes did we make to the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

 (Surface Coating) NESHAP since proposal?

B. What changes did we make to the Wood Furniture Manufacturing

 Operations NESHAP since proposal?

V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

A. Comments for both Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

 Coating) and Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations

B. Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations

C. Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating)

VI. Impacts of the Final Rules

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 5 of 125

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and

 Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

 Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that

 Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

 Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-

 Income Populations

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this action include:

NESHAP and Source Category NAICS1 Code

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating)

336611

Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations 3371, 3372, 

3379

1 North American Industry Classification System

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by the final action for the source categories listed. 

To determine whether your facility would be affected, you should 

examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 6 of 125

you have any questions regarding the applicability of either of 

these NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in 

the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic 

copy of this final action will also be available on the World

Wide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following signature, a copy of the final action will be posted 

on the TTN‘s policy and guidance page for newly proposed and 

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.

Additionally, information on the source category 

descriptions, detailed emissions and other data that were used 

as inputs to the risk assessments can be found at this site.

C. Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 

judicial review of this final action is available only by 

filing a petition for review in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by 

[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Under section 307(b)(2) of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 7 of 125

CAA, the requirements established by these final rules may not 

be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings 

brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that 

―[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised 

with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment 

(including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial 

review.‖ This section also provides a mechanism for us to 

convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ―[i]f the person 

raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was 

impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for 

public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after 

the period for public comment (but within the time specified for 

judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance 

to the outcome of the rule.‖ Any person seeking to make such a 

demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration 

to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel 

Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, 

with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section and the Associate General 

Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC 20460.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 8 of 125

II. Background

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory 

process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 

from stationary sources. In the first stage, after the EPA has 

identified categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP 

listed in section 112(b) of the CAA, section 112(d) calls for us 

to promulgate NESHAP for those sources. ―Major sources‖ are 

those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP 

at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more 

of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these technologybased 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 maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT) standards.

For MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 

stringency requirements, which are referred to as floor 

requirements, and may not be based on cost considerations. See 

CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be 

less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in 

practice by the best controlled similar source. The MACT 

standards for existing sources can be less stringent than floors 

for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 9 of 125

average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 

percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or 

the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories 

with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT, we must also 

consider control options that are more stringent than the floor

under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish standards more 

stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of the cost 

of achieving the emissions reductions, any nonair quality health 

and environmental impacts and energy requirements. In 

promulgating MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs us to 

consider the application of measures, processes, methods, 

systems or techniques that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP 

emissions through process changes, substitution of materials or 

other modifications; enclose systems or processes to eliminate 

emissions; collect, capture or treat HAP when released from a 

process, stack, storage or fugitive emissions point; and/or are 

design, equipment, work practice or operational standards.

In the second stage of the regulatory process, we undertake two 

different analyses, as required by the CAA. Section 112(d)(6) of 

the CAA calls for us to review the 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. Within 8 years after 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 10 of 125

promulgation of the technology standards, CAA section 112(f)

calls for us to evaluate the risk to public health remaining

after application of the technology-based standards and to 

revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample margin 

of safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety and other relevant factors, 

an adverse environmental effect. In doing so, the EPA may adopt 

standards equal to existing MACT standards if the EPA determines 

that the existing standards are sufficiently protective.

National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 

1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

On December 21, 2010, the EPA published a proposed rule in 

the Federal Register for these two NESHAP that took into 

consideration the RTR analyses. For these NESHAP –- Shipbuilding 

and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) and Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations -- this action provides the EPA‘s final 

determinations and regulatory amendments pursuant to the RTR 

provisions of CAA section 112. For both NESHAP, we also are

finalizing revisions to requirements in each NESHAP related to 

emissions during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction 

(SSM). This action also addresses formaldehyde limits and the 

use of conventional spray technology for the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations NESHAP.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 11 of 125

III. Summary of the Final Rules

A. What are the final rule amendments for the Shipbuilding and 

Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category?

The NESHAP 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 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. 

The source category covered by this MACT standard includes only 

the shipbuilding and ship repair surface coating operations that 

occur at facilities that are major sources of HAP.

We are finalizing the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating) rule as it was proposed, with no changes. For the 

reasons provided in the proposed rule and in the support 

documents in the docket, we have determined that the current 

MACT standards for shipbuilding and ship repair (surface 

coating) facilities reduce risk to an acceptable level, provide 

an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent

an adverse environmental effect. We are, therefore, re-adopting 

the existing MACT standards to satisfy section 112(f) of the 

CAA. We have determined that the developments in technology 

would give minimal health benefits and are not cost effective. 

Comment [A1]: It would be helpful here to be 

clear about whether or not what is being finalized is 

the same as what was proposed.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 12 of 125

The costs of implementing developments in practices, processes 

or control technologies since promulgation of the MACT standards 

are disproportionate to the emission reduction that would be 

achieved and, therefore, we are not adopting additional 

technology standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).

We are finalizing changes to the Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair (Surface Coating) MACT standards to eliminate the SSM

malfunction exemption. These changes revise Table 1 in 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart II, to indicate that several requirements of 

the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions related to periods of SSM 

do not apply. We are adding provisions to the Shipbuilding and 

Ship Repair (Surface Coating) MACT standards requiring sources

to operate in a manner that minimizes emissions, removing the 

SSM plan requirement, clarifying the required conditions for 

performance tests and revising the SSM–associated recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements to require reporting and 

recordkeeping for periods of malfunction. It is required that 

all facilities comply with the NESHAP during startup and 

shutdown. We are also adding finalizing provisions, generally as 

proposed, to provide an affirmative defense against civil 

penalties for potential violations of emission standards caused 

by malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing the 

affirmative defense.

Comment [A2]: Please clarify if this is as 

proposed.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 13 of 125

These revisions to the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

(Surface Coating) MACT standards are not expected to result in 

any emissions reduction or economic impacts. We have determined 

that facilities in this source category can meet the applicable 

emissions standards at all times. No changes in costs to 

industry are predicted. 

B. What are the final rule amendments for the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations source category?

The NESHAP 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 source category consists of establishments that 

produce 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 categories listed above. The source 

category covered by this MACT standard includes only the wood 

furniture manufacturing operations that occur at facilities that 

are major sources of HAP.

Under the authority of section 112(d)(6) of the CAA, we are 

finalizing a limit on formaldehyde emissions by limiting

formaldehyde content in coatings and contact coatings and 

Comment [A3]: It would be helpful here to be 

clear about whether or not what is being finalized is 

the same as what was proposed.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 14 of 125

contact adhesives to 1 percent by weight. As an alternative

compliance option, we are allowing facilities to comply with a 

formaldehyde usage limit of 400 pounds per rolling 12-month 

period, as we originally proposed. Less than 20 facilities are 

known to exceed 400 pounds per 12-month period based on 2005 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data and phone 

callscommunications with to wood furniture manufacturing 

facilities.1 The phone calls indicated that there were reductions 

in emissions since the 2005 NEI and all but one of the 

facilities contacted were below 400 pounds per 12-month period.

This leads us to conclude that most of the facilities that 

exceeded 400 pounds of formaldehyde per 12 month period 

according to the 2005 NEI are now below that level. We are aware

of at least one facility that has high-volume production that 

still exceeds the 400 pound level. After receiving updated 

information in public comments, we concluded that the proposed 

400 pounds formaldehyde per rolling 12-month period usage limit 

was not cost effective as a mandatory formaldehyde limit for all 

facilities within the source category. For this reason the EPA 

 

1 The memo to the docket, Impacts of Implementing a Limit on Formaldehyde 

Usage in the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations Source Category, dated 

October 19, 2010 shows that there are 27 facilities that exceed 400 pounds 

per year of formaldehyde emissions according to 2005 NEI data. Calls to 

industry showed that many of these facilities have lowered their emissions of 

formaldehyde significantly since 2005 as shown in the memo Updated 

Formaldehyde Emissions from Select Wood Furniture Manufacturers, dated August 

3, 2011, in the docket for this action.

Comment [A4]: Please clarify if this was as 

proposed. If not proposed, is there logical 

outgrowth? Also, it would be helpful to reference the 

docket document where the 1 percent solution was 

previously noted. 

Comment [A5]: EPA noted in its briefing that 

through survey of the industry, it believed all 

facilities were either already using400 lb lim or the 

1% solution. It would be helpful to clarify/expand 

on that here. If that is not the case, please still 

expand somewhat the discussion regarding costeffectiveness analysis rather than just referencing the 

Cost Impact analysis. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 15 of 125

is adopting the 400 pound limit as an alternative formaldehyde 

regulationrequirement to limiting formaldehyde content to 1 

percent in coatings and contact adhesives. The 400 pound limit 

iswould not be cost-effective for high-volume production 

facilities because while using low-formaldehyde coatings, these 

facilities would still exceed the 400 pounds per 12 month period

because of the quantity of coatings and contact adhesives 

applied. To further reduce formaldehyde emissions for these 

would require the addition of costly control devices and/or 

reconstructing their spray line system. For more information,

see Estimated Cost Impact for Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Industry to Comply with Proposed Formaldehyde Limit on Coating 

Operations Wood Furniture Manufacturing RTR, dated August 4, 

2011, in the docket for this action. Such facilities can, 

however, cost effectively comply with a standard that limits the 

formaldehyde content of coatings and contact adhesives to 1

percent.

2 While the formaldehyde content of coating and contact 

adhesive formulations have been reduced since promulgation of 

the 1995 NESHAP, the EPA has received information that some 

facilities may still rely on formulations that contain greater 

 

2 The concentrations of formaldehyde received from the known high-volume 

production facility exceeds 400 pounds per 12-month period is in the 

Estimated Cost Impact for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Industry to Comply 

with Proposed Formaldehyde Limit on Coating Operations Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing RTR, dated August 4, 2011, in the docket for this action.

Comment [A6]: So if not cost-effective, why 

propose as an alternative. More clarity is needed 

here.

Comment [A7]: Did EPA get this information 

from all facitilities in question?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 16 of 125

than 1 percent formaldehyde.

3 The EPA has determined that some of 

these facilities could not readily meet the 1 percent 

formaldehyde limit and so is allowing as an alternative 

compliance option the originally proposed 400 pound formaldehyde

limit. 

We are also finalizing, with one modification, the 

proposed prohibition on the use of conventional spray4 guns

pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). As explained in the proposed 

rule and supporting documents in the docket, we have determined 

that use of non-conventional spray guns results in lower HAP 

emissions than use of conventional spray guns. When spraying a 

piece of wood furniture with a coating there is a prescribed

amount of coating to be applied to the wood surface. With the

higher spray efficiency associated with non-conventional spray 

guns, less spray is generally required to apply the desired 

amount of coating so less coating is used. This means that less 

overspray will occur creating fewer emissions. Conventional 

spray guns are now used infrequently in the wood furniture 

manufacturing industry, and the costs to use non-conventional

 

3 For more details, see Conversation with Dick Titus of Kitchen Cabinet 

Manufacturers Association (KCMA) Regarding Add-On Control Devices and High 

Formaldehyde Concentration in Coatings, dated June 23, 2011, in the docket 

for this action.

4 The definition of ―conventional spray‖ can be found in the 1995 Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations NESHAP.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 17 of 125

spray guns are approximately equal to conventional spray guns.

The EPA estimates that the switch to non-conventional spray 

guns does not incur a cost burden associated with decreased 

product consumption and cost.

5

Considering information received during the comment period 

that some facilities route conventional spray gun overspray to 

control devices, we are modifying the proposed prohibition on 

the use of conventional spray guns to retain an exception in 

the NESHAP to allow the use of conventional spray guns if 

emissions from the finishing station are routed to a control 

device. See 40 CFR §63.803(h)(4). The efficiency of the control 

device even when coupled with the conventional spray gun 

reduces excess emissions better than a change to high 

efficiency spray technology. The EPA does not expect facilities 

will incur the significant cost of installing a control device 

for the sole purpose of using conventional spray guns. We

expect the vast majority of facilities to use non-conventional

applicators of wood furniture finishes, with only a small 

number of facilities choosing to use conventional spray guns 

with a control device.

We are also finalizing changes to the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations NESHAP to eliminate the SSM exemption.

 

5 See Developments in Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies, dated 

August 24, 2010 in the docket for this action.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 18 of 125

These changes revise Table 1 in 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ, to 

indicate that several requirements of the 40 CFR part 63 General 

Provisions related to periods of SSM do not apply. We are adding 

provisions to the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT 

standards requiring sources to operate in a manner that 

minimizes emissions, removing the SSM plan requirement, 

clarifying the required conditions for performance tests and 

revising the SSM–associated recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements to require reporting and recordkeeping for periods 

of malfunction. We are also adding provisions to provide an 

affirmative defense against civil penalties for exceedances of 

emission standards caused by malfunctions, as well as criteria 

for establishing the affirmative defense.

We are finalizing language to clarify the applicability 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 the subparts for 

Surface of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (MMMM),

Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products (PPPP), Surface 

Coating of Wood Building Products (QQQQ), and Surface Coating of 

Metal Furniture (RRRR) of 40 CFR part 63. Subparts MMMM, PPPP, 

QQQQ and RRRR exempt surface coating operations that are subject 

to other subparts of 40 CFR part 63, such as the Wood Furniture
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 19 of 125

Operations MACT standards. (See 40 CFR §§63.3881(c)(6), 

63.4481(c)(7), 63.4681(c)(2), 63.4881(c)(2)). Therefore, we are 

finalizing amendments to the Wood Furniture Operations MACT 

standards to acknowledge that surface coating operations that 

are subject to subparts MMMM, PPPP, QQQQ, or RRRR of 40 CFR part

63 are not subject to the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations standards.

In this action, we are taking a step to improve data 

accessibility. Owners and operators demonstrating compliance 

using the test methods cited in 63.805 (c), as an alternative to 

63.9 (h), are not required but may submit electronic copies of 

required performance test reports through the Electronic 

Reporting Tool (ERT). The ERT transmits the electronic report 

through EPA‘s Central Data Exchange network for storage in the 

WebFIRE database making submittal of data very straightforward 

and easy. The WebFIRE database was constructed to store 

performance test data for use in developing emission factors. A 

description of the ERT can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. A description of 

the WebFIRE database is available at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.

The ERT would allow for an electronic review process rather than 

a manual data assessment, making review and evaluation of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 20 of 125

source-provided data and calculations easier and more efficient.

Finally, having data submitted electronically, the
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 21 of 125

EPA would be able to develop improved emission factors, make 

fewer information requests and promulgate better regulations.

These revisions to the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations

MACT standards are not expected to result in economic or 

quantifiable environmental impacts. We have determined that 

facilities in this source category can meet the applicable 

emissions standards at all times.

C. What are the requirements during periods of startup, shutdown

and malfunction?

The Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA‘s 

CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP 

during periods of SSM. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 

contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that is

part of a regulation, commonly referred to as the ―General 

Provisions Rule,‖ that the 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 emission standards during periods of 

SSM.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 22 of 125

While the Court‘s ruling in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 

1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), did not directly affect the two NESHAP 

addressed here, the legality of source category-specific SSM 

provisions, such as those in both NESHAP, are called into 

question based on the reasoning in that decision.

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we have eliminated the 

SSM exemptions in these two NESHAP. We have also revised Table 1 

(the General Provisions table) for subparts II and JJ in several 

respects. For example, we have eliminated the incorporation of 

the General Provisions‘ requirement the source develop an SSM 

plan. We have also eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements that related to the SSM exemption.

The EPA has attempted to ensure that we have removed any 

provisions that are inappropriate, unnecessary or redundant in 

the absence of the SSM exemption in the regulatory language.

The EPA has not established different standards for periods 

of startup and shutdown for these NESHAP because we believe 

compliance with the standards is achievable during these 

periods. For facilities that comply with the NESHAP by using 

compliant coatings and contact adhesives, there are no startup 

or shutdown events that would cause emissions that are different 

than those that occur during normal operations. For facilities

that use control devices, there is sufficient ability for the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 23 of 125

control device to be started prior to the spray lines being 

started and conversely shutdown after the spray lines have 

shutdown. In the example of a regenerative thermal oxidizer

(RTO), supplemental fuel can be provided during startup and 

shutdown of the spray lines to prevent noncompliance. Thus, we 

are not aware of any technical limitations such that emissions 

from startup or shutdown cannot be controlled by control devices 

to the level achieved during normal operations.

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 equipment, process equipment, or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner. . . .‖ (40 CFR 63.2). The 

EPA has determined that CAA section 112 does not require 

emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be 

factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. Under

section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less 

stringent than the level ―achieved‖ by the best controlled 

similar source, and for existing sources, generally must be no 

less stringent than the average emission limitation ―achieved‖ 

by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. 

There is nothing in section 112 that directs the agency to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 24 of 125

consider malfunctions in determining the level ―achieved‖ by the 

best performing or best controlled sources when setting emission 

standards. Moreover, while the EPA accounts for variability in 

setting emissions standards consistent with section 112 case

law, nothing in that case law requires the agency to consider 

malfunctions as part of that analysis. Section 112 uses the 

concept of ―best controlled‖ and ―best performing‖ unit in 

defining the level of stringency that section 112 performance 

standards must meet. Applying the concept of ―best controlled‖ 

or ―best performing‖ to a unit that is malfunctioning presents 

significant difficulties, as malfunctions are sudden and 

unexpected events.

Further, accounting for malfunctions would be difficult, if 

not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions 

that can occur across all sources in the category, and given the 

difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the 

frequency, degree and duration of various malfunctions that 

might occur. As such, the performance of units that are 

malfunctioning is not ―reasonably‖ foreseeable. See, e.g., 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (The EPA

typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of datagathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an 

agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 25 of 125

scientific information, rather than to "invest the resources to 

conduct the perfect study"). See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 

590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. 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.‖). In addition, the goal of a best controlled or 

best performing source is to operate in such a way as to avoid 

malfunctions of the source, and accounting for malfunctions 

could lead to standards that are significantly less stringent 

than levels that are achieved by a well-performing nonmalfunctioning source. The EPA‘s approach to malfunctions is 

consistent with section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation 

of the statute.

In the event that a source fails to comply with the 

applicable CAA section 112 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate 

response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of 

the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 26 of 125

including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root 

cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The

EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply 

with the CAA section 112 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, the EPA recognizes that even equipment that is 

properly designed and maintained can sometimes fail, and that 

such failure can sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant 

emission standard. (See, e.g., State Implementation Plans: 

Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions During Malfunctions, 

Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess 

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and 

Malfunctions (Feb. 15, 1983)). The EPA is, therefore, adding to 

the final rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

exceedances of emission limits that are caused by malfunctions.

See 40 CFR 63.782 (Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating)) and 63.801 (Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations) 

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 27 of 125

evaluated in a judicial or administrative proceeding). We also 

have added other regulatory provisions to specify the elements 

that are necessary to establish this affirmative defense. See 40 

CFR 63.781 (Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating)) and

63.800 (Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations). The source 

must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it has met 

all of the elements set forth in the affirmative defense. See

also 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 the 

evidence that excess emissions ―[w]ere caused by a sudden, 

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) and 

63.802(c) and to prevent future malfunctions. For example, the 

source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 

―[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 28 of 125

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 compliance with 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 22.27).

The EPA included an affirmative defense in the final rule 

in an attempt to balance a tension, inherent in many types of 

air regulation, to ensure adequate compliance while 

simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of 

efforts, emission limits may be exceeded under circumstances 

beyond the control of the source. The EPA must establish 

emission standards that ―limit the quantity, rate, or 

concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous 

basis.‖ 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k)(defining ―emission limitation and 

emission standard‖). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 

1019, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is required to ensure 

that section 112 emissions limitations are continuous. The 

affirmative defense for malfunction events meets this

requirement by ensuring that even where there is a malfunction, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 29 of 125

the emission limitation is still enforceable through injunctive 

relief. While ―continuous‖ limitations, on the one hand, are 

required, there is also caselaw indicating that in many 

situations it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the 

practical realities of technology. For example, in Essex 

Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the 

D.C. Circuit acknowledged that in setting standards under CAA 

section 111 ―variant provisions‖ such as provisions allowing for 

upsets during startup, shutdown and equipment malfunction 

―appear necessary to preserve the reasonableness of the 

standards as a whole and that the record does not support the 

 ̳never to be exceeded‘ standard currently in force.‖ See also, 

Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 

(D.C.Cir. 1973)Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C.

Cir. 1973). Though intervening caselaw such as Sierra Club v. 

EPA and the CAA 1977 amendments undermine the relevance of these 

cases today, they support the EPA‘s view that a system that 

incorporates some level of flexibility is reasonable. The 

affirmative defense simply provides for a defense to civil 

penalties for excess emissions that are proven to be beyond the 

control of the source. By incorporating an affirmative defense, 

the EPA has formalized its approach to upset events. In a Clean 

Water Act setting, the Ninth Circuit required this type of 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 30 of 125

formalized approach when regulating ―upsets beyond the control 

of the permit holder.‖ Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 

1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977). But see, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 

F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal 

approach is adequate). The affirmative defense provisions give 

the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its emission 

limitations are ―continuous‖ as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k), 

and account for unplanned upsets and thus support the 

reasonableness of the standard as a whole.

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

The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in 

this action are effective on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. For the two MACT 

standards addressed in this action, the compliance date for the 

revised SSM-related requirements is [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION

OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. For the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations NESHAP, the compliance date 

for the 1 percent formaldehyde coating and contact adhesive

limit and the alternative 400 pound per 12 month formaldehyde 

use limit as well as the prohibition on the use of conventional 

spray guns is 3 years from the effective date of the standards, 

[INSERT DATE 3 YEARS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Beyond the revised SSM 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 31 of 125

provisions, there are no changes to the Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair (Surface Coating) NESHAP.

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal

A. What changes did we make to the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

(Surface Coating) NESHAP since proposal?

Following the proposed notice of the RTR for Shipbuilding 

and Ship Repair (Surface Coating), the EPA did not receive any

new data demonstrating any cost effective technology updates or 

data that would affect our analyses of risks. Accordingly, we 

have made no changes to the proposed rule language for the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) NESHAP. However, 

we corrected an inadvertent error made in the preamble to the 

proposed rule. In describing the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

(Surface Coating) source category, we incorrectly stated that 

there were approximately 85 facilities subject to the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) MACT, and that 

71 of these 85 facilities, or approximately 84 percent of the 

source category, were modeled for the risk analysis. At 

proposal, we actually estimated that there were 90 facilities 

subject to the MACT, and of those 90 facilities, we modeled 

approximately 94 percent, or 85 facilities, in the risk 

analysis. This correction to the preamble text does not affect 

the estimated risks or any conclusions of the risk review. This 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 32 of 125

correction only affects the inadvertent error made in the 

preamble text for the proposed rule. 

B. What changes did we make to the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations NESHAP since proposal?

1. Formaldehyde limit 

The potential risk reductions associated with advancement 

in coating and adhesive formulations, described below, led us 

to propose a formaldehyde limit of 400 pounds per rolling 12-

month period, in part because we believed that this limit could 

be achieved cost effectively. We proposed the formaldehyde 

usage limit under the authority of CAA section 112(f) and 

solicited comment on whether the proposed limit on formaldehyde 

use should be issued under CAA section 112(d)(6). We stated in 

the proposal that there are many coatings and adhesives 

available that contain no or low quantities of formaldehyde, 

and we expected any facilities above the 400 pounds per 12 

month limit to be able to reduce their emissions below the 400 

pound level by using coatings and adhesives with no or low 

formaldehyde. We did not receive any comments opposing the 

final formaldehyde limit using our 112(d)(6) authority.

Comments received after proposal led the EPA to conduct 

further analyses of the compliance costs associated with the 

proposed 400 pound usage limit. Data received from one 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 33 of 125

facility, which already uses no- and low-formaldehyde content 

coatings and contact adhesives, indicated that reduction in 

formaldehyde use to 400 pounds per 12-month period would not be 

possible by simply using no- and low-formaldehyde content 

coatings and contact adhesives due to the size of its

operations and the amount of coatings and contact adhesives 

used. To comply with the proposed 400 pound limit, a spray line 

reconfiguration (adding five drying/curing ovens) would be 

needed. The cost effectiveness of formaldehyde reduction for 

the spray line reconfiguration was estimated to be $658,000/ton 

of formaldehyde reduced annually. We believe other large 

operation facilities would face similar circumstances. The EPA 

does not have specific information on compliance costs for 

facilities other than Kitchen Kompact, but even if we assume 

all other wood furniture facilities with formaldehyde emissions 

above 400 pounds per 12-month period in the 2005 National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) database would reduce their 

formaldehyde emissions to 400 pound per 12-month period and 

would incur zero costs in doing so, the cost effectiveness 

would be $43,000/ton of formaldehyde reduced. We conclude this 

is not cost effective.6

 

6 For more information regarding cost estimates for compliance with the 

proposed 400 pound per year formaldehyde limit, refer to Estimated Cost 

Impact for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Industry to Comply with Proposed 

Formaldehyde Limit on Coating Operations Wood Furniture Manufacturing RTR, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 34 of 125

Since the MACT was promulgated, manufacturers of coatings 

and contact adhesives have been able to replace formaldehyde 

with less toxic chemicals, resulting in products that are known 

in the industry as ―low-formaldehyde― or ―no-formaldehyde.‖ This 

development is particularly evident in the reformulation of 

conversion varnishes used in kitchen cabinet manufacturing (see 

Conversation with Valspar Regarding Formaldehyde Replacement 

Chemicals in Coatings, dated August 4, 2011, in the docket for 

this action).The EPA‘s proposed 400 pound limit was based on the 

availability and use of low-formaldehyde coatings and contact 

adhesives in the current state of technology. Although there is 

no formal industry definition of the term ―low-formaldehyde,‖ 

the EPA found that a formaldehyde content equal to or less than 

1 percent by weight currently is consistent with the industry 

trend of continually reducing low formaldehyde formulations. We

are aware of a range of values used in the industry to indicate 

―low-formaldehyde‖ (from 0.1 percent to 1.0 percent). Based on 

information available to the EPA, we are unable to determine 

that a formaldehyde content level less than 1 percent is cost 

effective for the entire source category and therefore have

selected that 1 percent formaldehyde by weight as the limit 

based on availability of coatings and technical specifications

 

dated August 48, 2011.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 35 of 125

necessary to maintain product quality.is our working definition 

of a low-formaldehyde formulation.

7 The proposed formaldehyde 

limit (400 pounds per rolling 12-month period) under CAA section 

112(f) was based on these grounds – that wood furniture 

manufacturers can and are reducing their formaldehyde emissions 

through the use of newer low-formaldehyde coating and contact 

adhesive formulations (see 75 FR 80246). The limit in the final 

rulemaking of using 1 percent coatings and contact adhesives is 

an outgrowth of what the expected means of compliance was during 

the proposal for the proposed 400 pound limit. The EPA has 

confirmed that most facilities are using low- and noformaldehyde coatings and contact adhesives (i.e., coatings and 

adhesives that have a formaldehyde concentration not exceeding 1

percent by weight).

8 Facilities can thus achieve formaldehyde 

emissions reductions that are greater than those required under 

 

7 Discussion with a coatings manufacturer revealed that the label of ―LowFormaldehyde‖ is subjective and it trends towards lower and lower 

concentrations of formaldehyde. For more details, see 

Telephone Call with Valspar Regulatory Affairs Manager – Wood Coatings Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing RTR dated June 29, 2011 in the docket for this 

action. Also as noted previously, Valspar does not carry any products that 

exceed 1 percent in formaldehyde concentration.

8 The confirmation of most facilities was obtained in the following memos in 

the docket for this action: Telephone Call with Valspar Regulatory Affairs 

Manager – Wood Coatings on the Availability and Use of Low- and NoFormaldehyde Coatings, dated June 24, 2011. Also, one of the major 

manufacturers of wood furniture coatings, Valspar, does not carry any 

products that have greater than 1 percent formaldehyde leading to the 

conclusion that coatings greater than 1 percent formaldehyde are mostly 

unnecessary in the industry. 

http://www.valsparwood.com/valsparwood/msds/msds.jsp

Comment [A8]: How? Citation? Can EPA point 

to a support document?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 36 of 125

the existing MACT standard. The original Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations NESHAP achieved an 89 percent reduction 

in HAP. The industry, for the most part, has gone beyond the 

original NESHAP for formaldehyde emissions by continuing to use 

lower concentrations of formaldehyde in the coatings and contact 

adhesives. By codifying these practices, the EPA is setting a 

more stringent standard than was adopted in 1995 and will 

prevent backsliding into techniques and formulations used in the 

past.

CAA section 112(d)(6) requires us to revise emissions 

standards taking into account developments in practices, 

processes and control technologies. Thus, to codify current 

industry practice since the MACT was promulgated and to prevent 

potential increases in formaldehyde emissions in the future from

coating and contact adhesive use in the wood furniture 

manufacturing industry, we are finalizing, under section 

112(d)(6) of the CAA, formaldehyde emissions limits through two 

compliance options. One option is for new and existing sources

to use only those coatings and contact adhesives with a 

formaldehyde content of 1 percent by weight or less. As these 

low-formaldehyde coatings are readily available in the 

marketplace and are comparable in cost to other coating and 

contact adhesive formulations, we expect no additional costs 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 37 of 125

associated with the use of low-formaldehyde coatings and contact 

adhesives.

Moreover, we are retaining the proposed standard – a limit 

on the use of formaldehyde of 400 pounds per rolling 12-month 

period – as an alternative emission limit to the 1 percent 

formaldehyde formulation limit. While the EPA recognizes it is 

not cost effective for at least one facility to achieve a limit 

on the use of formaldehyde of 400 pounds per 12 month period, we 

acknowledge that most wood furniture manufacturing facilities‘ 

formaldehyde use is already below this limit.

9 It is likely that 

a small subset of low-emitting niche facilities use higher 

concentration formaldehyde coatings that may prefer to comply 

with the alternate formaldehyde use limit.

10 These niche 

facilities use greater concentrations of formaldehyde to provide 

products to small specialized markets. The EPA is promulgating 

this 1 percent formulation formaldehyde limit to ensure that we 

are not limiting the production of facilities while still 

encouraging facilities to limit formaldehyde in their coatings 

 

9 For more information, see Updated Formaldehyde Emissions from Select Wood 

Furniture Manufacturers, dated August 3, 2011 and Impacts of Implementing a 

Limit on Formaldehyde Usage in the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations 

Source Category, dated October 19, 2011 in the docket for this rule.

10 That Dick Titus of KCMA stated that there are facilities that use coatings 

and contact adhesives with higher concentrations of formaldehyde was stated 

by Dick Titus of KCMA. For more information see, Conversation with Dick Titus 

of Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association (KCMA) Regarding Add-On Control 

Devices and High Formaldehyde Concentration in Coatings, dated June 23, 2011 

in the docket for this action. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 38 of 125

and contact adhesives. In support of our proposed CAA section 

112(f)(2) residual risk determination, we conducted a risk 

assessment for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations 

source category that provided estimates of the Maximum 

Individual Risk (MIR) posed by the allowable and actual HAP 

emissions from each source in the category, the distribution of 

cancer risks within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, 

hazard index for chronic exposures to HAP with noncancer health 

effects, and hazard quotients (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP 

with noncancer health effects. We found that risks remaining 

after compliance with the MACT standard are acceptable.

In making our proposed ample margin of safety 

determination under CAA section 112(f)(2), we subsequently 

evaluated the risk reductions and costs associated with various 

emissions control options to determine whether we should impose 

additional standards to reduce risks further. We proposed a 

standard that would limit the use of formaldehyde to 400 pounds 

per rolling 12 month period because we projected that such a 

limit would lead to reductions in cancer risks and the 

potential for acute noncancer risks of concern. Specifically, 

we estimated that the limit would reduce formaldehyde emissions 

by an estimated 9.46 tpy from the baseline level of 20.125 tpy. 

We also estimated the maximum individual incremental lifetime 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 39 of 125

cancer risk would be reduced to approximately 10-in-1 million 

from a baseline of 20-in-1 million, the estimated cancer 

incidence due to emissions from the source category would be 

reduced by about 15 percent nationwide, and the estimated 

maximum acute HQ would be reduced from 7 to 3, based on the 

Reference Exposure Levels (REL) for formaldehyde, and from 0.35 

to 0.15, based on the acute exposure guideline level (AEGL–1)

for formaldehyde. We believed that there would be either no or 

minimal additional costs associated with this option, as the 

cost of low-formaldehyde coatings and adhesives are 

approximately equal to other coating and adhesive products 

containing larger quantities of formaldehyde. Also, we believed 

there were minimal costs associated with the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for compliance with the rule. 

Our estimates of the source category maximum cancer risks 

have changed since proposal due to information received during 

the comment period. One facility that was included in the risk 

analysis at proposal has been determined to not be part of the 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing source category. The facility is a 

manufacturer of wood and melamine bowls and food service 

supplies and is not a wood furniture manufacturer. At proposal, 

the MIR estimated for the bowl manufacturing facility was 20 in1-million due to formaldehyde emissions, based on actual 

Comment [A9]: Please provide what number 

would be with CIIT value

Comment [A10]: How many cases per year? 

Please provide incidence values.

Comment [A11]: What would numbers be with 

CIIT value?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 40 of 125

emissions. This facility MIR was the highest in the source 

category. With the elimination of the bowl manufacturing 

facility from the category, the source category MIR is 10 in-1-

million due to emissions of ethylbenzene and formaldehyde, based 

on actual emissions. The bowl manufacturing facility also was 

one of two facilities for which we estimated an acute HQ of 7 

for formaldehyde. The maximum acute formaldehyde HQ of 7 for the 

other facility in the source category is unchanged. 

Since proposal we also have further evaluated acute 

exposures resulting from emissions from facilities in the source 

category. To better characterize the potential health risks 

associated with estimated worst-case acute exposures to HAP, and 

in response to a key recommendation from the Science Advisory 

Board‘s (SAB) peer review of the EPA‘s RTR risk assessment 

methodologies,

11 we routinely have examined a wider range of 

available acute health metrics than we do for our chronic risk 

assessments. This is in response to the acknowledgement that 

there are generally more data gaps and inconsistencies in acute 

reference values than there are in chronic reference values. By 

definition, acute California-Reference Exposure Levels (CA-REL)

represent a health-protective level of exposure, with no risk 

 

11 The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies is available at: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/

$File/the EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 41 of 125

anticipated at or below those levels, even for repeated 

exposures; however, the health risk from higher-level exposures 

is unknown. Therefore, when a CA-REL is exceeded and an AEGL-1 

or emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG-1) level is 

available (i.e., levels at which mild effects are anticipated in 

the general public for a single exposure), we have used them as 

a second comparative measure. Historically, comparisons of the 

estimated maximum off-site 1-hour exposure levels have not been 

typically made to occupational levels for the purpose of 

characterizing public health risks in RTR assessments. This is 

because occupational ceiling values are not generally considered 

protective for the general public since they are designed to 

protect the worker population (presumed healthy adults) for 

short duration (<15 minute) increases in exposure. As a result, 

Ffor most chemicals, the 15 minute occupational ceiling values 

are set at levels higher than a 1 hour AEGL-1, making 

comparisons to them irrelevant unless the AEGL-1 or ERPG-1 

levels are exceeded. This is not the case when comparing the 

available acute inhalation health effect reference values for 

formaldehyde.

12

 

12 U.S. the EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9, Chemical Specific Reference Values for 

Formaldehyde in Graphical Arrays of Chemical-Specific Health Effect Reference 

Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC, the EPA/600/R-09/061, and available online at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003.

Comment [A12]: What is the citation for this 

analysis?

Comment [A13]: But in this case the AEGL and 

ERPG are still not exceeded thus it is unclear how 

these become relevant.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 42 of 125

The worst-case maximum estimated 1 hour exposure to 

formaldehyde outside the facility fence line for this source 

category is 0.39 milligrams/cubic meter (mg/m3).13 This estimated 

worst-case exposure exceeds the 1 hour REL by a factor of 7 

(HQREL = 7) and is below the 1 hour AEGL-1 (HQAEGL-1 = 0.35).

Although this exposure estimate does not exceed the AEGL-1, it 

is at or exceeds multiple some workplace ceiling level 

guidelines for formaldehyde. Occupational guideline ceiling 

values for exposures to formaldehyde have been developed by the 

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 

(ACGIH)14 as ―not to be exceeded at any time‖ (ACGIH threshold 

limit value (TLV)-ceiling value of 0.37 mg/m3; HQACGIH = 1), and 

by National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH)

15 ―for any 15 minute period in a work day‖ (NIOSH RELceiling value of 0.12 mg/m3; HQNIOSH = 3). There are exceedances 

of the ACGIH value at an estimated one facility and exceedances 

of the NIOSH value at three facilities. Additionally, the 

 

13 All acute risk concentrations are not estimated in light of the 

formaldehyde limits promulgated by this action. The EPA is not able to 

quantify emissions reductions with our current data type. 

14 ACGIH (2001) Formaldehyde. In Documentation of the TLVs® and BEIs® with 

Other Worldwide Occupational Exposure Values. ACGIH, 1300 Kemper Meadow 

Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45240 (ISBN: 978-1-882417-74-2) and available on-line 

at http://www.acgih.org.

15 National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 

Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for Formaldehyde; 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-123/pdfs/0293.pdf
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 43 of 125

estimated maximum acute exposure exceeds the Air Quality 

Guideline value that was developed by the World Health 

Organization (WHO)16 for 30 minute exposures (WHO REL-ceiling 

value of 0.1 mg/m3; maximum HQWHO = 4 for one facility, with HQWHO

= 3 for two additional facilities). As the short-term 

occupational values are not developed to be protective of the 

general population (including sensitive populations) and are for 

durations shorter than the modeled exposures of one-hour, 

potential impacts on the general public at these levels cannot 

be ruled out.

As we proposed, the EPA concludes that the risk posed by 

the source category is acceptable. Our estimate of maximum 

individual cancer risk for this source category has decreased 

since proposal. This decrease is due to a miscategorization of a 

facility within the source category. While our screening for 

acute impacts has identified the potential for acute 

formaldehyde exposures to exceed some public health and 

occupational exposure guidelines at some wood furniture 

facilities, after considering the limited extent to potential

exposures, the fact that the maximum estimate of acute risk has 

not changed, the fact that one of these facilities no longer 

 

16 WHO (2000). Chapter 5.8, Formaldehyde, in Air Quality Guidelines for 

Europe, second edition. World Health Organization Regional Publications, 

European Series, No. 91. Copenhagen, Denmark. Available on-line at 

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/74732/E71922.pdf. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 44 of 125

uses formaldehyde, and the conservative nature of this screening 

process, these additional estimates do not change our overall 

judgment of risk acceptability. As explained in the proposal, in 

accordance with the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP, 

the EPA weighs 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 and 

deciding whether standards are necessary to reduce risks 

further. Considering all of this information, in particular our 

revised estimates of the maximum cancer risks associated with 

the Wood Furniture Manufacturing source category and our revised 

estimate of the costs of additional controls that would reduce 

risk further, the EPA has determined that additional standards 

under CAA section 112(f)(2) are not necessary to provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public health. We further note 

that we are finalizing standards under our CAA section 112(d)(6) 

authority that, while not expected to result in further 

reduction in current emissions or risk levels, are expected to 

reduce the emissions that would have been allowed under the 1995 

MACT standard.

2. Advances in Spray Technology
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 45 of 125

The EPA proposed to prohibit the use of conventional spray 

guns, as defined by the 1995 Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

NESHAP, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). This final rule 

promulgates this ban on conventional spray guns with one 

modification. Based on comments received, we are retaining an 

existing provision allowing the use of conventional spray guns 

when the overspray is routed to a control device. As reflected 

in the comments, some facilities are using overspray from

conventional spray guns to partially fuel control devices such 

as RTOs. This exception from the ban allows facilities to avoid 

having to supplement fuel to a control device. The efficiency 

of the control device more than sufficiently reduces excess 

emissions associated with the decreased spray efficiency of 

conventional spray guns.

17 This exception for control devices 

is the sole exception for conventional spray gun use maintained 

from the 1995 NESHAP.

The EPA estimates that the switch to high efficiency spray 

guns from conventional spray guns does not incur a cost burden

due to decreased product consumption and cost. Some of the high 

 

17 A typical transfer efficiency of an HVLP gun is 65-80 percent compared to 

25-45 percent for conventional guns under similar conditions. This is a 

difference of 40 percent spray efficiency. When compared to an estimate of 90 

percent efficiency of an add-on control device, the control device more than 

compensates for the 40 percent reduction in efficiency of guns. For more 

information on transfer efficiencies of spray technologies, see the memo to 

the docket, Impacts of Prohibiting the Use of Conventional Spray Guns in the 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations Source Category, dated October 29, 

2010. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 46 of 125

efficiency spray devices are more costly than conventional 

guns, but the savings in coating costs attributed to the 

increased spray efficiency more than compensates for increased 

cost of spray technology. Because the EPA lacks data regarding 

the number of conventional spray guns used in the industry and

the change of spray efficiency in replacing conventional spray 

technology, we cannot quantify emissions reductions due to 

changing spray technology. For further information regarding 

cost and emission reductions, refer to the proposed preamble of 

this rulemaking. 

V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

In the proposed action, we requested public comments on our 

residual risk reviews, our technology reviews, proposed 

amendments related to periods of SSM, the proposed prohibition 

of conventional spray guns in the wood furniture manufacturing 

industry, the proposed limit on formaldehyde use in coatings and 

contact adhesives for the wood furniture manufacturing industry 

and clarification of rule provisions. We received written 

comments from 18 commenters. Our responses to the public 

comments that changed the basis for our decisions, or are 

otherwise significant, are provided below.18

 

18 See Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair (Surface Coating) and Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations NESHAP, 

Comment [A14]: Please make any necessary 

conforming changes in the response to comment 

document.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 47 of 125

A. Comments for both Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating) and Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations

Comment: A commenter pointed out that the EPA‘s own data show 

greater emissions reductions are being achieved and able to be 

achieved. According to the commenter, the EPA recognizes that 

certain sources have ―achieved‖ a level of ―actual‖ emissions 

that is below the level allowed under the existing MACT 

standards. The commenter further states that the EPA explains 

that ―the  ̳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 commenter says that 

the EPA‘s expectation that sources in these two categories are 

generally operating at half the level of emissions allowed under 

the existing MACT standard is at the core of its emission data 

analysis. Once the EPA has this information, it must factor this 

into the technology review under section 112(d)(6). Doing so 

should lead the EPA to revise the existing MACT for both source 

categories to require additional emission reductions.

The commenter further states that as part of the required 

section 112(d)(6) rulemaking, the EPA can have no possible 

justification for failing to recalculate the MACT floors based 

 

dated October 31, 2011, for summaries of all comments and our responses to 

them.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 48 of 125

on new technology or emission reductions now achieved by these 

source categories.

The Court in the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) decision 

stated that it did ―not think the words  ̳review, and revise as 

necessary‘‖ required the EPA to recalculate the floors ―from 

scratch‖ in that case. NRDC, 529 F.3d at 1084. In short, the 

NRDC Court expressly declined to decide whether the EPA was 

required to recalculate floors where, as here, there have been 

developments in practices, processes, and control technologies.

As already noted above, for these source categories, there 

are such ―developments.‖ Therefore, the EPA cannot rely on the 

HON case to evade its duty to satisfy section 112(d)(6). The HON 

case did not authorize the EPA to ignore data showing that 

significant emission reductions below the ―MACT-allowable‖ 

emissions level have been ―achieved‖ in practice. Even under

NRDC – assuming arguendo that its section 112(d)(6) holding is 

in any way relevant here – section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to 

recalculate the MACT floor when there have been advances in

technology (after taking account of the factors listed in 

section 112(d)(6)), and when there is information showing that 

greater emission reductions are ―achieved in practice.‖ 

Commenters contend that, based on the information the EPA has, 

it is therefore ―necessary‖ for the EPA to strengthen the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 49 of 125

existing MACT floor to ensure it now complies with section 

112(d)(2)-(3).

The EPA must consider and address whether the existing 

MACT, including the floor, remains lawful in view of the greater 

levels of emission reductions that have been achieved.

Response: The commenter is mistaken on several grounds.

First, the commenter asserts that ―the EPA recognizes that 

certain sources have  ̳achieved‘ a level of  ̳actual‘ emissions 

that is below the level allowed under the existing MACT 

standards‖ and cites the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking preamble 

at 75 FR at 80227. This was a qualitative, introductory 

statement about how the NEI and other sources of data typically 

contain estimates of actual emissions that are ―often‖ lower 

than allowable emissions. The statement was not specific to Wood 

Furniture or Shipbuilding facilities or data and in any event 

did not contain any quantitative determination about actual 

emissions levels.

Second, the commenter asserts that the EPA has an 

―expectation‖ that wood furniture and shipbuilding sources are 

―generally operating‖ at half of allowable emissions and once 

the EPA has this information, it must use it under CAA section 

112(d)(6) to revise MACT standards, including recalculating MACT 

floors under section 112(d)(2)-(3). The comment apparently 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 50 of 125

refers to the MACT allowable to actual emissions ratio developed 

for the source categories in this rulemaking. The commenter is 

incorrect in characterizing this ratio as a determination of the 

level of actual emissions achieved in practice in either source 

category. The actual to allowable ratio represents the lowest 

concentration of HAP in a coating available to the industry 

compared to the maximum allowed under the MACT. The allowable 

ratio is used for providing a worst-case scenario for estimating

allowable emissions from the source. As clarification, for these 

coating rules, the concentrations of HAP in the coatings are 

considered the emissions from the source. 

Third, the commenter is incorrect in asserting that the EPA

must recalculate MACT floors under CAA section 112(d)(2)-(3). As 

explained in prior RTR rulemakings, the EPA does not read 

112(d)(6) as requiring a reanalysis or recalculation of MACT 

floors. See proposed National Emission Standards for Coke Oven 

Batteries (69 FR 48388, 48351 (August 9, 2004)). Instead, we 

interpret section 112(d)(6) as essentially requiring us to 

consider developments in pollution control in the industry 

(―taking into account developments in practices, processes, and 

control technologies‖), and assessing the costs of potentially 

stricter standards reflecting those developments. We read this 

provision as providing the EPA with substantial latitude in 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 51 of 125

weighing these factors and arriving at an appropriate balance in 

considering revisions to our standards. This discretion also 

provides us with substantial flexibility in choosing how to 

apply modified standards, if necessary, to the affected 

industry.

The EPA reviewed other potential developments in practices, 

processes and control technologies for the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations and Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

(Surface Coating) source categories and evaluated costs of 

potentially more stringent standards reflecting any such 

developments.

19 The EPA believes this review and the revisions 

finalized in this rulemaking satisfy the EPA‘s obligations under 

CAA 112(d)(6) for the Wood Furniture and Shipbuilding source 

categories.

B. Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations

Comment: A commenter stated the EPA has provided no rational 

explanation for refusing to update the technology standards for 

 

19 The EPA‘s review and analysis for the shipbuilding source category can be 

found in Affordability of Add-on Controls for Surface Coating Operations at 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Facilities, dated 10/28/2010, and for the wood 

furniture surface category in Affordability of Lower VHAP Coating and Add-on 

Controls for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations, dated October 28, 2010. 

Other significant memos describing the EPAs technology review are: 

Developments in Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies for Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations, dated August 24, 2010; Impacts of 

Prohibiting the Use of Conventional Spray Guns in the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations Source Category, dated October 19, 2010; 

Cost Analyses for Control Options, dated September 27, 2010; Cost Analyses 

for Add-on Controls for Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair Facilities, dated September 9, 2010.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 52 of 125

both categories to meet the CAA section 112(d)(6) requirement, 

at minimum, by matching the limits of what sources have achieved 

and what other jurisdictions have required. The commenter 

stated:

―We urge the EPA to do so in the final rule. Where, as here, 

there are ―significant developments‖ in technology, and where, 

as here, sources have achieved lower levels of emissions ―in 

practice‖ than are ―MACT-allowable,‖ it is abundantly clear 

that §112(d)(6) requires the EPA to revise its standards in 

accordance with CAA §112(d)(2)-(3), (6), 42 U.S.C. 

§7412(d)(2)-(3), (6).‖

The commenter also inquires why the EPA did not adopt more 

stringent standards based on other regulating bodies within the 

country.

Response: The EPA has concluded the technology review for the 

wood furniture manufacturing operations NESHAP by setting a 

formaldehyde limit based on formulation (1 percent by weight) of 

finish coatings and contact adhesives with a compliance 

alternative using no more than 400 pounds of formaldehyde per 12 

months. Also under the technology review, we are adopting a

restriction of conventional spray guns limiting use to when 

emissions from finishing applications are routed to a control 

device. The commenter refers to volatile organic compounds (VOC)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 53 of 125

standards of the Bay Area and South Coast Air Quality Management 

Districts (BAAQMD and SCAQMD). These two standards are nearly 

identical in VOC formulation limits. Through the RTR process, 

the EPA evaluates risk and technology developments associated 

with HAP for the source categories under consideration. 

Hazardous air pollutants and VOC describe different sets of 

compounds, although a large subset of VOC are considered HAP. As 

discussed in the preamble of the proposed rule, we estimate that 

of all VOC in wood furniture coatings, 50 percent on average are 

HAP. This is an average value that in fact varies from facility 

to facility and coating to coating, depending on the facility‘s 

use of coatings specific to their operation. This is especially 

true for many niche companies. The EPA acknowledges BAAQMD and 

SCAQMD implementation of VOC limits, but these limits are not 

justified as nation-wide standards to reduce HAP from Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing. They are not technically feasible to be 

implemented nationally based on different operating and 

environmental conditions as well as the cost effectiveness. By 

the commenter‘s own admission, there are facilities that are 

having a difficult time complying with the BAAQMD standard 

within its region. Moreover, based on available information, the 

EPA maintains that both area regulations are not cost effective 

as national standards to reduce HAP. As discussed in the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 54 of 125

preamble to the proposed rule, adoption of the BAAQMD VOC limits 

would result in 56 tpy of HAP reduction at a cost of $30,000 per 

ton. Although the commenter asserts based on a conversation with 

BAAQMD staff that companies in the area are generally complying 

with BAAQMD limits, the EPA already assumed compliance when we 

estimated HAP reductions and cost effectiveness of the BAAQMD 

limits. We have not changed our conclusion that the BAAQMD and 

SCAQMD regulation are not cost effective as a national standard. 

Comment: Two commenters stated that the facility with the 

highest reported formaldehyde emissions (Kitchen Kompact located 

in Jeffersonville, Indiana) is not a representative wood coating 

manufacturing facility. 

The commenters offered the following reasons:

a. the facility finishes products 4 days a week (as opposed to 

the EPA‘s 5-day assumption); 

b. the facility uses uses higher VOC coating without a control 

device; and 

c. the facility has all operations at one facility (other 

large facilities may spread operations over several 

facilities). 

Another commenter believed that it is arbitrary for the EPA to 

set the formaldehyde limit based on data indicating that 3

percent (more likely 1 percent, see below) of facilities have
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 55 of 125

formaldehyde emissions that could result in exceedances of the 

acute REL. The commenter offered the following reasons why the 

EPA‘s conclusion that 11 facilities (about 3 percent of the 

facilities) have formaldehyde emissions that could result in 

exceedances of the acute REL is problematic:

a. The EPA identified four facilities for emissions 

verification,two of which were reported to have

formaldehyde emissions. One of these two, Chromcraft, no 

longer uses coatings that contain or emit formaldehyde. The 

other, Kitchen Kompact, emits less formaldehyde than 

reported and is not a representative facility. Both

facilities are problematic and indicate that the facility 

data used in the risk assessment are suspect.

b. Three of the 11 facilities either no longer use 

formaldehyde-containing coatings or contact adhesives

(Chromcraft) or have lower production than the EPA

identified (Kitchen Kompact and Legacy Cabinets). Removing 

Chromcraft, only 10 facilities, or 2.5 percent of the 

total, have emissions that could result in exceedances of 

the acute REL.

c. The refined modeling approach that used aerial photographs 

of the facilities identified two major problems with the

Human Exposure Model-3 (HEM-3) screening results:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 56 of 125

The REL, for several facilities, were overestimated due 

to global positioning system errors and; 

Moving the ―polar ring‖ has a significant impact on the 

risk assessment. An evaluation of the aerial map 

indicated that the REL needed to be lowered in some cases 

by as much as 74 percent. While developing refined acute 

risks based on review of aerial maps is better than the 

screening approach, it is subjective at best. 

d. Three of the 10 facilities had refined predicted acute 

risks greater than 3. The remaining 7 facilities had 

refined predicted acute risks of less than 3, and a 

majority of these had predicted acute risks just above 1 

(1.5, 1.5, 1.620, 1.8). The commenter suggested that the

risks for these facilities should be discounted. 

After removing these data points discussed above, the commenter

noted that there are six facilities (approximately 1 percent of 

the facilities) with acute risks greater than 1. The commenter 

noted that setting a standard based on six facilities (or 1

percent of all wood furniture facilities) is unjustified and 

arbitrary.

 

20 The value of 1.6 refers to Legacy Cabinets which, as the commenter asserts, 

no longer has any coatings or contact adhesives with formaldehyde in them.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 57 of 125

Response: The EPA acknowledges that there have been changes 

to formaldehyde emissions since 2005. According to the comments 

received as well as phone conversations with several facilities, 

the EPA has received indications that facilities have changed 

and lowered formaldehyde emissions, subsequent to the 2005 NEI 

data. These updates, however, are not being used to replace the 

2005 NEI data because data were not provided to support the 

assertions. Because the data are unverified, the EPA used source 

data from 2005 NEI to keep a verified source for purposes of 

risk assessment. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are 

not adopting any new or additional requirements based on the 

risk assessment under section 112(f). We have found all risks to 

be acceptable for this rule making.

Comment: Multiple commenters offered comments on the use of 

formaldehyde dose-response values.

Two commenters supported the use of the Integrated Risk 

Management System (IRIS) dose-response value for formaldehyde in 

the risk assessment.

One of the commenters stated that it is not only 

appropriate for the EPA to end its use of the Chemical Industry 

Institute of Toxicology (CIIT) Centers for Health Research risk 

value for formaldehyde emissions, doing the contrary would be 

arbitrary, capricious and unlawful. The commenter supported the 

Comment [A15]: To also respond to the 

comments, it would be helpful to explicitly state that 

EPA finds the risks, including acute risks to be 

acceptable.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 58 of 125

IRIS value because it is more than 2,000 times greater than the 

CIIT value and thus more health-protective.

Alternatively, six commenters did not support the use of 

―outdated‖ and ―overly conservative‖ models, such as that used 

to derive the IRIS dose-response value for formaldehyde.

One commenter stated that EPA must use the best available 

science in its risk assessment, which is not the IRIS value. The 

commenter noted that EPA has previously determined that the IRIS 

value ―no longer represents the best available science in the 

peer reviewed literature.‖ 69FR 18,327, 18,333 (Apr. 7, 2004). 

It was stated that the decision to discontinue use of CIIT model 

is inappropriate. The CIIT model should continue to be used to 

inform formaldehyde risk assessments. The criticisms of the 

model by Crump and colleagues lack foundation because the 

manipulations and alterations of the model on which they are 

based did not have an adequate basis in the underlying biology.

Response: In 2004, the EPA determined that the CIIT cancer 

dose-response value for formaldehyde (5.5 x 10-9 per micrograms 

per cubic meter (μg/m3)) was based on better science than the 

IRIS cancer dose-response value (1.3 x 10-5 per μg/m3), and we 

switched from using the IRIS value to the CIIT value in risk 

assessments supporting regulatory actions. However, subsequent 

research published by the EPA suggests that the CIIT model was 

Comment [A16]: Please replace this language 

with new language. EPA must address the best 

available science issue and include discussion of 

NAS comments on the science.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 59 of 125

not appropriate and in 2010 the EPA returned to using the 1991 

IRIS value. The EPA has been working on revising the 

formaldehyde IRIS assessment and the National Academy of 

Sciences (NAS) completed its review of the EPA‘s draft in May of 

2011, (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13142). The EPA

is reviewing the public comments and the NAS scientific peer 

review, and the draft IRIS assessment will be revised and the 

final assessment will be posted on the IRIS website. In the 

interim, we will present findings using the 1991 IRIS value as a 

primary estimate, and may also consider other information as the 

science evolves.

Comment: A commenter stated that the best available science 

indicates that formaldehyde in outdoor air does not present a 

risk to human health. 

In support of their assertion, the commenter quoted WHO 

which stated that ―[i]n ambient air, formaldehyde is quickly 

photo-oxidized in carbon dioxide. It also reacts very quickly 

with the hydroxyl radicals to give formic acid. The half-life 

estimated for these reactions is about one hour depending on the 

environmental conditions.‖ (WHO, 2010, at 103). Further, WHO 

concluded that because levels in ambient air are low, outdoor 

air does not contribute significantly to indoor pollution. Id. 

at 108. Therefore, the EPA‘s proposed cap on formaldehyde use is 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 60 of 125

an unnecessary restriction that will not reduce residual risk, 

if any, to public health.

Response: We disagree that ambient levels of formaldehyde 

do not pose a risk to the public. Exposures to formaldehyde, 

above benchmarks of concern have been shown to cause respiratory 

symptoms and irritation to the eyes, nose and throat. Human 

studies have suggested an association between formaldehyde 

exposure and lung and nasopharyngeal cancer. Studies in animals 

have reported an increased incidence of nasal squamous cell 

cancer. The EPA considers formaldehyde as a ―Probable Human 

Carcinogen‖ in IRIS; http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0419.htm. The 

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies 

formaldehyde as a human carcinogen; 

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol88/index.

Ambient modeling of formaldehyde in the National Scale Air 

Toxics Assessment (NATA) at major urban centers indicate that 

formaldehyde exposures over the long term for excess cancer 

risks could be as high as 100 in a million with a national 

average of 20 in a million based upon the current IRIS Units 

Risk Estimate (URE) value. Monitoring at the National Air Toxics 

Trends Sites for formaldehyde are in good agreement with the 

NATA, refer to the following website; 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/compare.html.

Comment [A17]: Really? What is the citation for 

this?

Comment [A18]: Typical ambient levels?? 

Please provide citations.

Comment [A19]: Citation? Suggest using direct 

quotes from NAS where possible. Please also clarify 

exposure level where cancers were seen.

Comment [A20]: Citation? Also please include 

exposure levels.

Comment [A21]: Please provide risk values 

using CIIT number as well.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 61 of 125

The dispersion modeling for wood furniture manufacturing 

and shipbuilding does not incorporate photochemical decay. The 

EPA conducted a sensitivity analysis and determined this feature 

in AERMOD21 does not have a significant effect on near-field 

exposures and is most relevant for population exposures in the 

far field especially for pollutants with half-lives less than 30 

minutes. The rate of decay is also very dependant temporally 

with less reactivity occurring during evening hours as well as 

during colder seasons. For more information on the sensitivity 

analysis, please refer to Section 4.6: Sensitivity Analysis –

Atmospheric Chemistry in ―the EPA‘s Risk and Technology Review 

(RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies,‖ that was reviewed by the 

EPA‘s SAB; http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. Based 

upon the rate of decay for formaldehyde varying from 1 hour to 

16 hours and the fact that the MIR location for this source 

category is located within 300 meters of the emission source, we 

find that photochemical decay will not have an effect on the 

MIR.

Comment: A commenter stated the EPA‘s sole justification for 

setting the formaldehyde limit at 400 lbs per rolling 12-month 

 

21AERMOD was developed by the American Meteorological Service (AMS)/EPA 

Regulatory Model Improvement Committee (AERMIC). This is the preferred model 

by EPA for modeling point, area and volume sources of continuous air 

emissions from facilities.

Comment [A22]: It is unclear why EPA has this 

discussion here. Did someone ask about decay in the 

dispersion modeling?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 62 of 125

period appears to be the fact that this level is already 

contained in the existing MACT as a work practice requirement.

Specifically, the commenter contended:

―The EPA has stated that adopting this level as an emission 

standard would create ―either no or minimal additional 

costs.‖ Id. at 80,247. This number was chosen in 1995, 

however. Where this number came from initially is unclear. 

While it may be convenient for industry to use a level with 

which it is already familiar and that would incur little or 

no extra cost, the EPA has not provided a reasoned 

explanation based on the required statutory health-based 

criteria for choosing this limit, rather than a more 

stringent limit. The record does not show why this is the 

appropriate limit to set as a residual risk standard in 

today‘s world.

The EPA must complete this analysis and set an 

appropriately protective standard to satisfy CAA section

112(f)(2). Specifically, the EPA must consider and address 

how much emissions would be reduced if the EPA set a lower 

standard, and what level of emission standard is required 

to provide an ―ample margin of safety.‖ 42 U.S.C. 

§7412(f)(2). The EPA must address what emission standard

would be needed to bring the MIR down to 1-in-1-million as 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 63 of 125

the statute directs. Id. The EPA must address what standard 

is needed ―to provide maximum feasible protection against 

risks to health‖ by ―protecting the greatest number of 

persons possible‖ to a lifetime risk level no greater than 

1-in-1 million. 75 Fed. Reg. at 80,223 (quoting Benzene 

NESHAP). The need for this analysis is amplified by the 

fact that the EPA has recognized numerous ―uncertainties 

related to the risk assessments, particularly for 

formaldehyde and glycol ether emissions.‖ Id. at 80,242-43. 

For example, the EPA has stated that it is concerned that 

its risk analysis has failed to account for additional 

formaldehyde emissions that likely occur during curing and 

gluing. Id. at 80,243. The uncertain amount of additional 

risk unaccounted for provides another reason for the EPA to 

set a more protective formaldehyde emission standard than 

the level chosen as a work practice standard in 1995.‖

Response: The EPA is not finalizing the 400 pounds per 

rolling 12-month period formaldehyde use limit as proposed under 

112(f) of the CAA. See section III of the preamble for a 

discussion of our final action.

The EPA is promulgating a formaldehyde standard under 

section 112(d)(6). Please refer to earlier descriptions in the 

preamble for further justification of section 112(d)(6) of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 64 of 125

CAA. All wood furniture coatings and contact adhesives must be

low- or no- formaldehyde (concentration not to exceed 1 percent

by weight formaldehyde) or, as a compliance alternative, 

formaldehyde emissions from wood furniture facilities must not 

exceed 400 pounds per rolling 12-month period. The compliance 

options are designed to promote continuing reductions in 

formaldehyde emissions from wood furniture without requiring 

equipment changes that are not cost effective or limiting in 

production. The formaldehyde limits will avoid constraining the 

production of wood furniture products facilities while

encouraging facilities to maintain or decrease levels of 

formaldehyde within coatings and contact adhesives.

The 400 pounds per 12 month period formaldehyde limit is 

based on the threshold level in Table 5 of the 1995 NESHAP, 

which itself was a result of negotiations with industry. In this 

RTR, we took the familiar numerical threshold for formaldehyde 

emissions and made it a level not to exceed as a compliance 

alternative. This was done, in the proposal, to reduce the HQ of 

formaldehyde from 7 to 3 in a cost effective manner. Between 

proposal and promulgation, it became clear through public 

comments that this limit was not cost effective for the source 

category. As discussed in greater detail of section IV of this 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 65 of 125

preamble, this limit is now a compliance alternative under 

section 112(d)(6).

The science is unclear as to the degree of formaldehyde 

curing under different environmental conditions. We did not 

receive any public comments containing substantive or relevant 

emissions information on formaldehyde emissions from curing at 

wood furniture facilities. Until there is more data relevant to 

how cure formaldehyde is formed and/or in what quantities, we 

are unable to set limits for such emissions.

Comment: Five commenters disagreed with the 400 pound per 12 

month period formaldehyde limit. Two of the commenters noted 

that limiting formaldehyde emissions from the wood furniture 

manufacturing operations source category is not supported by the 

EPA‘s risk analysis and is therefore arbitrary. One commenter 

noted that the total estimated cancer incidence due to actual 

emissions is 0.005 excess cancer cases per year or one case in 

every 200 years. 

Another commenter further stated that the limit is not 

necessary because formaldehyde emissions are likely to decrease 

further during the 2-year compliance period, without any further 

regulations.

A commenter stated that the EPA is not justified in 

adopting this standard under CAA section 112(f)(2)(A) or CAA 

Comment [A23]: This sounds like a comment 

not on the proposed limit, but mainly on the finding 

that the risks justify any type of control. Has EPA 

responded to this?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 66 of 125

section 112(d)(6). On a related note, a different commenter

questioned the authority of the EPA to establish a 400 pounds 

per year limit on formaldehyde emissions. The basis for the 

commenter‘s assertion is that a 400 pound limit will limit 

production at facilities and will inhibit companies from meeting 

industry performance standards. A commenter noted that the EPA

chose the 400 pound per year formaldehyde limit based on Table 5 

of the MACT standard (List of VHAP of Potential Concern 

Identified by Industry). Currently, facilities that exceed their 

baseline level would need no further explanation to permitting 

authorities if the exceedance is no more than 15 percent above 

the baseline, or if the use is below the level in Table 5. 

According to the commenter, the EPA did not note the number of 

facilities that use the formaldehyde limit versus the baseline 

exceedance option. Without more data, it is not known if 

facilities use the 400 pound per year limit. The commenter 

assumed that most facilities comply via the exceedance of 

baseline option and not the 400 pound per year limit.

A commenter also stated that the EPA improperly presumed a 

―one-size fits all‖ approach to coatings and adhesives is 

feasible in the manufacture of wood furniture/cabinet products. 

The EPA failed to take into account the performance, quality and 

customer requirements of these manufactured goods. The coatings 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 67 of 125

and adhesives used for cabinet manufacture are specialized and 

may contain higher amounts of formaldehyde due to unique 

customer requirements.

A commenter noted that based on the data in an EPA

memorandum22, the difference in price between coatings with 

formaldehyde and those that are formaldehyde-free is $3.02 per 

gallon. The commenter assumed a 1 percent formaldehyde content 

in the lower priced coating and a coating density of 8 pounds 

per gallon. The $3.02 per gallon additional cost for a 

formaldehyde-free coating would reduce formaldehyde emissions by 

0.08 pounds for a cost of $37.75 per pound of formaldehyde 

eliminated or $75,500 per ton.

The commenter also evaluated the replacement cost for a 

topcoat containing 0.25-percent formaldehyde with a material 

containing only 0.005 percent formaldehyde. The price 

differential of $3.58 per gallon resulting in a cost of over 

$365,000 per ton of formaldehyde eliminated.

The commenter noted the high cost of replacement of contact 

adhesives. Based on the relatively low formaldehyde content in 

the current materials used, an incremental cost of only $1 to $2 

per gallon could result in a cost exceeding $20,000 per ton. 

 

22 See: Impacts of Implementing a Limit on Formaldehyde Usage in the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations Source Category, October 19, 2010. This 

document is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 68 of 125

Response: Based on information received in the comments and 

further inquiry of the effects of the proposed limit of 400 

pounds formaldehyde per rolling 12-month period, EPA has revised 

the standard to require the formaldehyde content of coatings and 

contact adhesives to be less than or equal to 1 percent by 

weight with an alternate compliance option of the 400 pounds per 

rolling 12-month period formaldehyde use limit, as explained 

elsewhere in the preamble. This approach, promulgated under CAA

section 112(d)(6), will not limit production or result in 

significant costs for high production facilities and will 

encourage further reductions in the future without compromising 

the integrity of product.

The EPA has information that indicates that most facilities 

will be able to cost effectively comply with the 1 percent by 

weight formaldehyde limit.23 A commenter asserts that coatings

and contact adhesives that are 1 percent formaldehyde are cost 

effective. This level of formaldehyde will be sufficient to 

create the cross-linking nucleation that provides durability to 

wood furniture products in many cases. By also having a 

 

23 One of the major manufacturers of wood furniture coatings, Valspar, does 

not carry any products that have greater than 1 percent formaldehyde leading 

to the conclusion that coatings greater than 1 percent formaldehyde are 

mostly unnecessary in the industry. 

http://www.valsparwood.com/valsparwood/msds/msds.jsp
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 69 of 125

formulation restriction as an alternative to the 400 pound per 

year limit, there will not be a restriction of production. 

Comment: Multiple commenters offered comments related to 

the EPA‘s estimate of the cost for meeting the proposed

formaldehyde standard.

One of the commenters noted that the EPA does not 

adequately support its cost estimate. The commenter stated that 

the EPA provided no data or analysis to support its assumption 

that all facilities operate in the same way or that the use of 

no- or low- formaldehyde coatings and contact adhesives would be 

suitable for use by all facilities. 

The commenter further noted that the EPA‘s ―cost analysis‖ 

consists of price information, from one supplier, of 13 no- or 

low-formaldehyde coatings that the agency considers to be 

suitable for use in wood furniture manufacturing operations24. 

The commenter noted that the EPA does not analyze whether the 

available coatings can be used in all applications or would meet 

industry performance standards.

A different commenter stated that the technical and cost 

analyses the EPA puts forth in support of the 400 pound per year

limit are not backed up by any critical analysis or actual data. 

 

24 See U.S. the EPA, Memorandum, Impacts of Implementing a Limit on 

Formaldehyde Use in the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations Source 

Category datedOctober 19, 2010 in the docket for this action.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 70 of 125

According to the commenter, this analysis amounts to the 

assertion that, ―because some facilities are doing it, all 

facilities should be able to do it. This is an empty  ̳analysis‘ 

that provides no support for the proposed 400 lb per year limit. 

On top of that, the EPA also asserts that the new standard can 

be met  ̳at little or no extra cost.‘‖ The commenter stated that 

a much more robust cost analysis would be needed to justify 

imposing an additional emissions limitation.

Moreover, two commenters noted that the EPA does not 

address the additional costs incurred due to the potential need 

for new equipment, the significant expenses to adapt to a new 

finish material.

Response: Based on information received in comments, we 

have adopted a 1 percent by weight formaldehyde limit with a 400 

pounds formaldehyde per rolling 12-month period alternative 

compliance limit that allows wood furniture manufacturers to use 

their discretion to reformulate to lower formaldehyde coatings 

and contact adhesives while not necessitating the expense of 

production line reconfiguration. As discussed above, we have 

updated the cost effectiveness analysis for the proposed 

formaldehyde limit and concluded that the 400 pound per 12 month 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 71 of 125

limit as proposed would not be cost effective25. 

Using low-formaldehyde coatings and contact adhesives 

reflects developments in technology and was described in the 

proposal as the method to achieve compliance with the proposed 

400 pounds formaldehyde per rolling 12-month period. A limit of 

1 percent formaldehyde in coatings and adhesives allows 

facilities the flexibility to use coatings and adhesives that 

are suitable for a range of different products, from cabinets to 

home furnishings, without compromising their quality, cost or

production.

26 Also, in many cases, the 1 percent formaldehyde 

limit will allow flexibility in different types of line 

configurations.

27

Comment: Multiple commenters noted that the EPA overestimated 

the health risk from glycol ethers by using ethylene glycol 

 

25 For further detail, see memo to the docket, Estimated Cost Impact for Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Industry to Comply with Proposed Formaldehyde Limit 

on Coating Operations Wood Furniture Manufacturing RTR, dated July 15, 2011.

26 It is necessary for some facilities to minimize levels of formaldehyde in 

the coating formulation to promote cross-linking nucleation. This process 

directly affects the quality and durability of the wood furniture. See notes 

from the Marsh Furniture Site Visit in the docket for this action for 

reference.

27 For additional information, please see memo to the docket, EPA Meeting with 

Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association (KCMA) and Select Representatives, 

dated August 17, 2011.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 72 of 125

methyl ether as the representative glycol ether.

28 Given that the 

use of glycol ethers other than ethylene glycol methyl ether is

the norm for the industry, the risk associated with this class 

of compounds is overstated in the EPA's analysis and no 

additional regulation of glycol ethers is warranted. The table 

contains a summary of speciated glycol ethers that are less 

toxic than ethylene glycol methyl ether. This shows, in the 

commenter‘s opinion, the EPA‘s overestimation of the health risk 

from these compounds.

One commenter offered another assessment approach for 

glycol ethers:

―A more reasonable assessment of glycol ethers would be the 

example based on data from all facilities of a large wood 

furniture manufacturing company. Glycol ether emissions in 

2010 totaled 3.76 tons, of which over 95 percent of the 

emissions were ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, with the 

remainder comprising diethylene glycol phenyl ether, 

diethylene glycol butyl ether and phenoxyethanol. Based on the 

preponderance of ethylene glycol monobutyl ether in these 

emissions, a risk assessment using the significantly higher 

REL for ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (REL = 14 vs. REL for

 

28 The commenters referred to Table 4 in the EPA‘s October 22, 2010, 

memorandum, Review of Glycol Ether Emissions Associated with Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Source Category.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 73 of 125

ethylene glycol methyl ether of 0.093 ref: 

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) would conclude 

that the risk from glycol ethers is approximately 150 times 

lower than the EPA's analysis shows. Even if the REL for 

another glycol ether - Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether, REL 

0.37 - were used, the risk associated with glycol ethers would 

be reduced by a factor of 4.‖

A second commenter offered a different option. The 

commenter recommended that the HQ derived by the EPA for Propyl 

Cellosolve® (ethylene glycol mono-n-propyl ether(EGME)) be 

recalculated using an REL they propose for ethylene glycol 

phenyl ether (EGPE). The commenter contends that information 

provided in their comments demonstrates that sufficient 

information exists to derive an REL for EGPE, which would be 

more appropriate for risk management than the REL for EGME.

Response: As we acknowledged in the proposal, the use of 

the EGME REL in our acute risk screening assessments provided us 

with a conservative (i.e., health-protective) estimate of 

potential acute health risks from glycol ethers when the exact 

speciation profile of emitted glycol ethers was uncertain. For 

this source category, approximately 70 percent of facilities 

reporting glycol ether emissions reported them without any 

speciation information. Since there are no AEGL or ERPG values 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 74 of 125

available for any glycol ethers, this further limits our ability 

to interpret the potential acute impacts of glycol ethers. Since 

this uncertainty remains, the EPA is not convinced that the use 

of less health-protective assumptions (such as those recommended 

by the commenters) represents any improvement in the assessment 

of potential acute impacts. Even so, because of the healthprotective nature of our assessment, we do not believe that 

these estimated worst-case acute glycol ether impacts warrant 

the adoption of additional control measures.

Comment: A commenter suggested that the EPA either define the 

term ―conventional‖ or mention the types of spray guns that are 

to be used to assist the regulated community in complying with 

this rule. The commenter suggested specific items, mentioned in 

the Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations 

rule (Subpart HHHHHH): High-volume low-pressure (HVLP) spray 

guns, electrostatic applications, airless or air-assisted 

airless spray guns, or air-assisted airless equivalent 

technologies.

Another commenter suggested that the EPA exclude the following 

components from the definition: handheld non-refillable aerosol 

containers, touch-up markers, marking pens, and the application 

of paper film or plastic film which may be pre-coated with an 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 75 of 125

adhesive by the manufacturer. These items are allowed by the 

miscellaneous metal parts and products NESHAP (subpart MMMM).

Response: The existing Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations MACT standards define ―conventional air spray‖ as:

―a spray coating method in which the coating is atomized by 

mixing it with compressed air and applied at an air 

pressure greater than 10 pounds per square inch (gauge) at 

the point of atomization. Airless and air assisted airless 

spray technologies are not conventional air spray because 

the coating is not atomized by mixing it with compressed 

air. Electrostatic spray technology is also not considered 

conventional air spray because an electrostatic charge is 

employed to attract the coating to the workpiece.‖ 40 CFR 

63.801(a).

Many of the above suggestions for specific coating applications 

are clearly included or excluded by the definition of 

conventional spray provided in the 1995 NESHAP. The technologies 

listed above such as touch-up markers, marking pens and 

manufacturer pre-coated adhesive film are not affected by the 

ban on use of conventional spray guns because they do not have a 

spray, i.e., they are not ―a spray coating method.‖ Despite 

certain technologies being incorporated to other rule makings 

such as subpart HHHHHH, the commenter did not explain why these 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 76 of 125

applications are necessary for this rule making. Examples of 

compliant spray technology include, but are not limited to HVLP 

spray guns, low-volume low-pressure guns (LVLP), electrostatic 

applications, airless and air-assisted airless spray guns. Lowcapacity HVLP cup guns may be used for small batch operations. 

Comment: A commenter suggested that the EPA clarify in the 

rule that facilities with controls can continue to use 

conventional spray guns. Any emissions would be controlled via 

the control device.

Another commenter noted that several RTOs, which rely on 

rich VOC waste streams, are being operated in the industry. To 

impose air-assisted-airless guns reduces RTO efficiency and 

requires more fossil fuel to be consumed. Regenerative thermal 

oxidizers are fueled by overspray and fossil fuels; when the 

quantity of overspray is decreased, the more fossil fuel that is 

needed to keep the RTO functioning. 

Response: The proposed rule has been revised to allow use 

of conventional spray guns when the overspray is routed to a 

functioning control device. The efficiency of the control device 

sufficiently reduces excess emissions associated with the 

decreased spray efficiency of conventional spray guns.

29

 

29 A typical transfer efficiency of an HVLP gun is 65-85 percent compared to 

25-45 percent for conventional guns under similar conditions. This is a 

difference of 40 percent spray efficiency. When compared to an estimate of 90 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 77 of 125

Comment: Two commenters noted that the EPA offered an 

incorrect premise that all applicator improvements to increase 

transfer efficiency of the sprayed material will result in 

reduced emissions simply due to higher transfer efficiencies. 

The premise does not consider the low-use application 

considerations required for trials, touchups and product 

repairs. 

One of the commenters noted:

―HVLP and equivalent high efficiency applicators require 

larger volumes of premixed materials for application and are 

best used where large quantities of materials are intended 

(usually volumes larger than one gallon to as much as 30 

gallons) and in production quantity applications where large

surface areas are coated. Under large volume spray 

applications, the high transfer efficiency equipment results 

in reduced material consumptions resulting in lower operating 

costs and lower emissions. Under high volume application 

conditions, there are both economic and environmental 

advantages for operations to use high transfer efficiency 

equipment. 

 

percent efficiency of an add-on control device, the control device more than 

compensates for the 40 percent reduction in efficiency of guns. For more 

information on transfer efficiencies of spray technologies see the memo to 

the docket, Impacts of Prohibiting the Use of Conventional Spray Guns in the 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations Source Category, dated October 29, 

2010.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 78 of 125

However, for low use applications such as low volume color 

stains, trial materials, small touchups and repairs, mixing 

large batches for use in high transfer efficiency equipment 

will result in increased material consumption and waste, 

increased cleanup solvent consumption and waste, and, for 

catalyzed top coat materials, material loss through restricted 

pot life. The proposed applicator changes would result in an 

inability to properly mix small batch work coatings (stains, 

sealers, topcoats, etc.), resulting in more wasted raw 

material, increased cleanup material use, waste and emissions 

and an unnecessary increase in generated waste volume. 

Arguably, the use of low volume conventional spray equipment 

such as cup guns, etc., affords the industry a small volume 

spray alternative that would otherwise require a part to be 

re-finished or scrapped entirely. Failed finish repairs with 

minimal rework and reapplication to the part and in some 

instances salvage of an otherwise scrapped production part 

makes production and environmental sense. Indeed small 

quantity applicators (generally those with a restricted volume 

of 1.0 U.S. quart or less) may actually result in lower VOC 

and VHAP emissions due to the restricted use and inherent 

limited production capability of the application equipment 

itself. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 79 of 125

Such an overreaching requirement for all spray equipment to be 

of the HVLP spray type or equivalent is not reasonable and 

does not consider the other adverse environmental impacts 

discussed above.‖

Response: First we note the commenter agrees with the EPA 

that with large volume spray applications, which the commenter 

defines as larger than one gallon and in production quantities, 

high transfer efficiency equipment results in reduced material 

consumption, lower operating costs and lower emissions30. In 

addition, we find that the The EPA understands the commenter‘s 

concerns, but tThe application technology is available for small 

batches of coating to be applied with non-conventional spray 

guns such as HVLP cup guns. The use of HVLP cup guns will allow 

for smaller batch mixes. This prevents unneeded coating material 

going to waste. With the higher spray efficiency associated with

non-conventional spray guns, a greater portion of the spray is 

coating the piece of wood. This means that there is less 

overspray leading to fewer emissions. Other touch-up 

applications such as touch-up markers and handheld nonrefillable aerosol containers may still be used under the 

standard. For more information see, Use of Non-Conventional Spray 

 

30 For more information please 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 80 of 125

Technology in the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Industry, dated 

August 3, 2011 and 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.

C. Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating)

Comment: A commenter stated the EPA has provided no rational 

explanation for refusing to update the technology standards for 

both categories to meet the CAA section 112(d)(6) requirement, 

at minimum, by matching the limits of what sources have achieved 

and what other jurisdictions have required. The commenter 

stated:

―We urge the EPA to do so in the final rule. Where, as here, 

there are ―significant developments‖ in technology, and where, 

as here, sources have achieved lower levels of emissions ―in 

practice‖ than are ―MACT-allowable,‖ it is abundantly clear 

that §112(d)(6) requires the EPA to revise its standards in 

accordance with CAA §112(d)(2)-(3), (6), 42 U.S.C. 

§7412(d)(2)-(3), (6).‖

The commenter also inquires why the EPA did not adopt more 

stringent standards based on other regulating bodies within the 

country.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 81 of 125

Response: As explained in the proposal, in accordance with 

the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP, our analysis of 

risks for this source category showed that the maximum sourcecategory cancer risks for all facilities are within the range of 

acceptable risks and that the maximum chronic noncancer risks 

are unlikely to cause health impacts. The EPA has 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. The EPA has found the overall 

level of risk to be acceptable for the source category and the 

ample margin of safety determination for this source category 

indicates that potential controls are not cost effective and 

technically feasible.

Comment: A commenter stated that the EPA has failed to 

fulfill its CAA section 112(f)(2) duty to fully assess and 

determine whether the risk from this source category is 

―acceptable.‖ The EPA concludes that this category creates an 

MIR of 20-in-1 million based on allowable emissions, and 10-in-1 

million based on estimated ―actual‖ emissions. The EPA does not 

justify its conclusion on the record that this level of risk is 

acceptable. It simply lists the numbers and different factors, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 82 of 125

without explaining how it is analyzing these factors or why they 

have led the EPA to reach its conclusion. The EPA recognizes 

that disparities in risk exist, with individuals in certain 

demographic groups, including African Americans and people with 

income below the poverty level, more likely to experience a 

higher level of risk. As discussed above, the EPA cannot simply 

rely on the old Benzene presumption that any level of risk under 

100-in-1 million is acceptable. And, the fact that 4,000 people 

is a ―relatively low‖ number (i.e., the number estimated to be 

exposed to cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater) does not 

justify the EPA‘s proposal of inaction to protect these people. 

CAA section 112(f)(2) requires the EPA to set standards for the 

maximum exposed individual. The individuals in this group of 

4,000 are the very people whom the law requires the EPA to be 

concerned about.

Response: We do not consider the 1-in-1 million MIR level 

as a  ̳bright line‘ mandated level of protection for establishing 

residual risk standards. In determining the ample margin of 

safety (i.e., the level of the standard), health risk is one 

factor that we must consider, along with other factors such as 

cost and technological feasibility. Balancing these and other 

factors with the ability to achieve meaningful risk reduction is 

a critical component of the residual risk rulemaking process. We 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 83 of 125

considered reducing risks further but concluded that the 

technology required, such as a portable or permanent enclosure 

big enough to accommodate an entire ship or even a section of a 

ship to capture and control air emissions, would be cost 

prohibitive for this industry. Although our additional analysis 

of the demographics of the exposed population shows some 

disparities in risks between demographic groups for both

categories, the EPA has determined that no group is exposed to 

an unacceptable level of risk. In general, the contribution of 

the source category to elevated facilitywide cancer or noncancer 

risks is low throughout the facilities in this source category.

The primary processes driving the facilitywide cancer and 

noncancer risks are welding and blasting which are not regulated 

under this source activity.

Comment: A commenter stated that the EPA has determined that 

maximum individual cancer risk at the facilitywide level is 200-

in-1 million based on estimated ―actual‖ emissions. This means 

that the risk is likely to be higher based on allowable 

emissions. Further, of the 41 facilities with facilitywide MIR 

of 1-in-1 million or more, 15 have shipbuilding and ship repair 

operations that contribute over 50 percent to the facilitywide 

risks. Yet, the EPA does not propose to take any action to 

address that risk. The EPA should investigate ways to reduce 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 84 of 125

this residual risk. It does not consider or address whether this 

level of facilitywide risk is acceptable at facilities where 

this source category is contributing so significantly. The EPA

must do so to complete its CAA section 112(f)(2) duty. Its 

failure to consider regulatory options to address this residual 

risk is also arbitrary and capricious. At minimum, the EPA

should consider whether to set a residual risk standard in order 

to reduce this high level of facilitywide risk. It should 

consider requiring extra work practice, reporting, monitoring 

and other measures for facilities that have the level of 

emissions putting them into this highest risk category. In sum, 

the EPA must address what standard is needed ―to provide maximum 

feasible protection against risks to health‖ by ―protecting the 

greatest number of persons possible‖ to a lifetime risk level no 

greater than 1-in-1 million. (quoting Benzene NESHAP), and its 

facilitywide risk analysis has failed to complete this essential 

step.

Response: We examined facilitywide risk to provide additional 

context to the source category risks. Facilitywide risks are 

driven by estimated emissions from blasting and welding sources 

at shipbuilding and ship repair facilities. These sources are 

not part of the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (surface coating) 

source category. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 85 of 125

actions for this source category [75 FR 80237], we intend to 

list welding and blasting operations as a major source category 

under section 112(c)(5) of the CAA.

Comment: A commenter stated that with respect to the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair standard, we are concerned that the

EPA based its decision that no additional controls are needed 

and that the existing standard provides an ample margin of 

safety in part due to ―the uncertainty and lack of data 

associated with one potential risk reduction option identified, 

and the technological infeasibility of the other option 

identified‖. The commenter urged the EPA to obtain the necessary 

data regarding the two options to make a more informed decision, 

including contacting air quality agencies that currently 

regulate the source category. We compliment the EPA on its 

intention to list welding and blasting operations at 

shipbuilding and ship repair facilities as a major source 

category under section 112(c)(5), but encourage the EPA to 

determine the extent to which this action will address the risks 

remaining at these facilities before deciding that relying on 

this strategy is sufficient.

Another commenter stated that the EPA‘s proposal fails to 

satisfy the ―ample margin‖ requirement. The EPA bases this 

conclusion in part on the fact that it has ―not identified any 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 86 of 125

data regarding the availability, use, performance and emissions 

associated with the use of lower overall volatile organic 

hazardous air pollutants (VOHAP) content or lower toxicity VOHAP 

content.‖ Id. The EPA‘s conclusion is incorrect based on the use 

of the California standards in place. It is unclear why the EPA

did not simply contact the four identified California air 

quality districts that have more stringent emission limits to 

attempt to gather these data. See Part IV.A.1, infra. This is 

the 8-year residual risk rulemaking and now is the time to 

collect and consider those data. The EPA may not defer or ignore 

this responsibility, or the fact that stricter standards are in 

use that it must address. The EPA also cannot justify a failure 

to set a residual risk standard on a lack of data. The EPA has 

failed to explain how the existing section 112(d) standard could 

provide the required ―ample margin of safety.‖ One commenter

also stated that where other jurisdictions have implemented 

stronger standards, this provides evidence that for the purposes 

of CAA section 112(d)(6), that more stringent limitations are 

achievable and have been achieved.

However, the EPA states that there are differences between 

coating limits in the four air districts, and that the 1995 MACT 

standard includes cold weather limits which are not present in 

the California standards due to its moderate climate. Neither of 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 87 of 125

these points is a valid reason for the EPA not to further 

analyze and adopt stronger standards based on these California 

examples. While it may not be appropriate to adopt the 

California standards in full on a national basis, the EPA gives 

no rational justification for not analyzing how to take these 

models and use them to create an appropriate national standard 

under CAA section 112(d)(6). The EPA concludes that ―we do not 

have data to determine whether these lower-VOC content coatings 

could be applied nationwide.‖ Gathering and analyzing that data, 

starting with any information already compiled by the California 

districts, is precisely what the section 112(d)(6) rulemaking is 

designed for. A lack of data is not a lawful basis for the EPA

to decline to adopt a stronger MACT standard.

Response: The EPA researched current technologies for the 

shipbuilding and ship repair surface coating industry, and did 

not find any cost effective options that would make the current

standard more stringent. Related to the marine coating limits in 

the MACT rule, we reviewed the general use and 22 specialty 

coating VOHAP limits and the lower limits that some states and 

air districts have adopted over the past decade for some of the 

specialty categories. Furthermore, we requested comment on the 

availability and feasibility of using lower VOHAP coatings but 

did not receive any data or information during the comment 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 88 of 125

period. Following proposal, we did contact a shipyard in Maine, 

and found that the use of lower VOHAP coatings, such as those 

required to meet the limits set by some of the California air 

quality districts, is not feasible in climates that are not as 

moderate and, therefore, necessitate greater thinning of paint.

As noted by the commenter, some jurisdictions have 

implemented more stringent standards that have resulted in 

changes to formulations being used in those locations. However, 

temperature and humidity issues experienced by other locations 

would make painting operations having to comply with the more 

stringent limitations more difficult, more expensive, and in 

some cases unachievable.

There are many different coatings, and in some cases groups 

of specific coatings, comprising each of the marine coating 

categories. Over the past several years, there have been changes 

to some formulations with HAP solvent reductions and solvent 

replacements, but those are coating and manufacturer specific 

and not reflective of the entire marine coating category.31

Comment: A commenter stated the EPA recognizes that there are 

―disparities in risks‖ for certain minority and lower-income 

 

31 See following memos to the docket on cost effectiveness of control 

technologies: Cost Analyses for Add-on Controls for Surface Coating 

Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Facilities, dated September 2, 

2010 and Affordability of Add-on Controls for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

Source Category, dated October 18, 2010.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 89 of 125

individuals. For shipbuilding and ship repair, African Americans 

and people below the poverty level face a cancer risk of at 

least 1-in-1 million at a higher rate than their representation 

in the population. The EPA must consider potential ways to 

address the disproportionate impact on minority individuals and 

communities in deciding whether the likelihood of cancer risk is 

―acceptable‖ and whether there is action that could provide an 

―ample margin of safety‖ for these individuals and communities. 

Indeed, the EPA has recognized this since the development of the 

Benzene NESHAP, although it has failed to take action to address 

this (citing Benzene NESHAP factors, including ―overall 

incidence of cancer or other serious health effects within the 

exposed population... other quantified or unquantified health 

effects‖). These additional factors are supposed to be used in 

addition to the MIR. It is neither acceptable, nor just, to 

avoid the need to reduce the correlation between race or income 

level and a disproportionate risk of cancer from toxic air 

pollution. The EPA‘s proposals for inaction, in the face of the 

recognized disparities, contradict the Administrator‘s professed 

commitment to ―fair treatment‖ (EJ Guidance, infra note 30, at 

3). With the knowledge it has, the EPA must, at minimum, 

consider the amount of background pollution faced by, and 

baseline health of, racial minorities and communities affected 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 90 of 125

by these two source categories, including for the types of 

health effects that these HAP emissions have potential to 

exacerbate. These types of health data are readily available for 

the EPA to factor into its analysis and to use in proposing a 

regulatory response to the disproportionate risk found. It would 

be arbitrary and capricious to propose to take no further action 

at all after finding these disparities for both source 

categories.

The commenter supports the EPA‘s effort to gather 

demographic data. Merely looking at these numbers in a 

simplistic manner, however, is no substitute for a true 

environmental justice (EJ) analysis. The EPA should develop and 

undertake an actual analysis of the location and community 

effects of these source categories. It has sufficient data on 

the locations of these facilities to undertake an analysis of 

the effect of their emissions on the maximum exposed individual, 

the history of pollution faced in the most affected community, 

and to consider how to set a just standard in view of these

lasting harms.

Response: The demographic analysis found that African

Americans and people below the poverty line may be somewhat 

disproportionately impacted by facilitywide air toxics 

emissions; however, emissions from the source category itself 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 91 of 125

contribute minimally to these impacts. The EPA also found the 

overall level of risk from both source categories to be 

acceptable and to provide an ample margin of safety for all 

populations in close proximity to these sources. As noted 

previously, the EPA‘s ability to quantitatively assess impacts 

on EJ communities is evolving. 

VI. Impacts of the Final Rules

We estimate the only compliance costs for these amendments 

to the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) MACT 

standard to be those costs associated with facilities that 

choose to take advantage of the affirmative defense although 

there is no expectation that a facility will have a need for 

affirmative defense in this source category. These estimated 

costs are $3,141 per year, and are discussed in section VII.B.

For these amendments to the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations MACT standards, we estimate the compliance costs to 

be $188,000 per year for the formaldehyde limit reporting and 

recordkeeping provisions, and $3,141 for facilities that choose 

to take advantage of the affirmative defense although there is 

no expectation that a facility will have a need for affirmative 

defense in this source category. These costs are discussed in 

section VII.B. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 92 of 125

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

this action is a ―significant regulatory action.‖ Accordingly, 

the EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any 

changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

The information collection requirements in the final rules 

have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 

3501, et seq. The information collection requirements are not 

enforceable until OMB approves them.

The information requirements are based on notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 

Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for 

all operators subject to national emission standards. These 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically 

authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All 

information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 93 of 125

is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set forth in 

40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

These final rules would require maintenance inspections of 

the control devices but would not require any notifications or 

reports beyond those required by the General Provisions. The 

recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information 

needed to determine compliance.

When a malfunction occurs, sources must report them 

according to the applicable reporting requirements of 40 CFR 

part 63, subparts II and JJ. An affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are caused by 

malfunctions is available to a source if it can demonstrate that 

certain criteria and requirements are satisfied. 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 reasonable preventable, and not caused by poor 

maintenance and or careless operation) and where the source took 

necessary actions to minimize emissions. In addition, the source 

must meet certain notification and reporting requirements. For 

example, the source must prepare a written root cause analysis 

and submit a written report to the Administrator documenting 

that it has met the conditions and requirements for assertion of 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 94 of 125

the affirmative defense.

To provide the public with an estimate of the relative 

magnitude of the burden associated with an assertion of the 

affirmative defense position adopted by a source, the EPA 

provides an administrative adjustment to these ICRs that 

estimates the costs of the notification, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements associated with the assertion of the 

affirmative defense. The EPA‘s estimate for the required 

notification, reports and records, including the root cause 

analysis, associated with a single incident totals approximately 

$3,141, and is based on the time and effort required of a source 

to review relevant data, interview plant employees, and document 

the events surrounding a malfunction that has caused an 

exceedance of an emission limit. The estimate also includes time 

to produce and retain the records and reports for submission to 

the EPA. The EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this 

burden because these costs are only incurred if there has been a 

violation and a source chooses to take advantage of the 

affirmative defense.

In these source categories, compliance is primarily 

achieved through reformulation of the coating. Because of this a 

malfunction of equipment, other than control devices, will not 

result in an exceedance of the standard. As noted previously, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 95 of 125

there is a small percentage of wood furniture facilities that 

use control devices for compliance; malfunctions with these 

devices are unlikely due to limited number in the industry 

compounding the unlikelihood of a malfunction. Therefore, we 

assert that although a cost for affirmative defense is possible, 

we believe that malfunctions are unlikely. Thus for these source 

categories, the EPA is not assigning any burden associated with 

affirmative defense.

This burden estimate for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

(Surface Coating) has been assigned EPA ICR number 1712.07 and 

for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations has been assigned 

EPA ICR number 1716.08, and both have been updated to reflect 

the estimate cost of availing the affirmative defense should a 

facility choose this option.

For the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT 

standards, the ICR document prepared by the EPA has also been 

amended to include burden changes associated with the amendments 

regarding the formaldehyde limit added to the rule. The change 

in respondents‘ annual reporting and recordkeeping burden 

associated with these amendments for this collection (averaged 

over the first 3 years after the effective date of the 

standards) is estimated to be 2,000 labor hours with a total

cost of $188,000 per year for the formaldehyde limit reporting 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 96 of 125

and recordkeeping provisions. There will be no capital costs 

associated with the information collection requirements of the 

final rule.

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 the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9. When these ICRs are approved by OMB, the agency will 

publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal

Register to display the OMB control numbers for the approved 

information collection requirements contained in the final 

rules.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 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 impact of these final rules

on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 97 of 125

business as defined by the Small Business Administration‘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-forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of these final rules

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 new requirements in 

these final rules (i.e., the formaldehyde use limit and 

conventional spray gun prohibition in the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations standards) are negligible as discussed 

above. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

These rules do 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 the private sector 

in any 1 year. Thus, these rules are not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.

These rules also do not contain regulatory requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 98 of 125

They contain no requirements that apply to such governments or 

impose obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action 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. These final rules primarily affect private industry and 

do not impose significant economic costs on state or local 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It 

will not have a 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.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 99 of 125

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

This action 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 will not relax the control measures on 

existing regulated sources, and the EPA‘s risk assessments 

(included in the docket for the proposed rules) demonstrate that 

the existing regulations are associated with an acceptable level 

of risk and 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 

in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because 

it is not likely to have a 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. Further, we have concluded that 

these final rules are not likely to have any adverse energy 

effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, Public Law Number 104-
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 100 of 125

113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless 

to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The VCS 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 the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides not to use available and 

applicable VCS. 

This action does not involve technical standards. 

Therefore, the EPA did not consider 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.

The EPA has determined that these final rules will not have 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 101 of 125

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations,

because we have concluded that the existing rules adequately 

protect human health with an adequate margin of safety and the 

final rules do not decrease the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. To examine the potential for 

any EJ issues that might be associated with each source 

category, we evaluated the distributions of HAP-related cancer 

risks across different social, demographic and economic groups 

within the populations living near the facilities where these 

source categories are located. Our analyses show that, for the 

two source categories evaluated, there is no potential for an 

adverse environmental effect or human health multi-pathway 

effects, and that acute and chronic noncancer health impacts are 

unlikely. Our additional analysis of facilitywide risks showed 

that the maximum facilitywide cancer risks for all source 

categories are within the range of acceptable risks and that the 

maximum chronic noncancer risks are unlikely to cause health 

impacts. Although our additional analysis of the demographics of 

the exposed population shows some disparities in risks between 

demographic groups for both categories, the EPA has determined 

that no group is exposed to an unacceptable level of risk.

The rules will not relax the control measures on emissions 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 102 of 125

sources regulated by the rules, and therefore, will not increase 

risks to any populations exposed to these emissions sources.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

The CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 

provides that, before a rule may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes 

a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a 

report containing this final rule and other required information 

to the United States Senate, the United States House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the final rule in the Federal

Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a 

―major rule‖ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rule will 

be effective on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating); 

National Emission Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations

Page 103 of 135

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

______________

Dated:

________________________

Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator.
Page 95 of 125

For the reasons stated in the preamble, Title 40, chapter I, of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is amended 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 a 

malfunction, as defined in 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties 

may be assessed, however, if you fail to meet your burden of 

proving all the requirements in the affirmative defense. The 

affirmative defense shall not be available in response to claims 

for injunctive relief.

(1) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to 

enforce such a limit, you must timely meet the notification 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

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, 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. Offshift 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, personal injury or severe property 

damage; and
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

(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, consistent with safety and good 

air pollution control practices; 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 affected source was operated in a 

manner consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; 

and

(ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the 

purpose of which is 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 (FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later 

than 2 business days after the initial occurrence of the 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

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 45 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. The owner or operator may seek 

an extension of this deadline for up to 30 additional days by 

submitting a written request to the Administrator before the 

expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request for an 

extension has been approved by the Administrator, the owner or 

operator is subject to the requirement to submit such report 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance.

3. Section 63.782 is amended by adding a definition for 

―affirmative defense‖ to read as follows:

§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.

* * * * *
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

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 Continuous Emissions Monitoring System

(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
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

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 demonstrate the conditions present during 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.

* * * * *
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

(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. (1) 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 6 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

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 by:

a. Removing entry 63.6(e)–(f);

b. 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. Removing entry 63.7;

d. Adding entries 63.7(a)–(d), 63.7(e)(1), and 63.7(e)(2)–

(e)(4);

e. Revising entry 63.8;

f. Removing entry 63.10(a)–(b);

g. Adding entries 63.10(a), 63.10(b)(1), 63.10(b)(2)(i), 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

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. Removing entries 63.10(c);

i. Adding entries 63.10(c)(1)–(9), 63.10(c)(10)–(11), 

63.10(c)(12)–(14), and 63.10(c)(15);

j. Removing entry 63.10(d); and

k. Adding entries 63.10(d)(1)–(4) and 63.10(d)(5).

The revisions read as follows:

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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

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), 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

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
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

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:

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

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS a b c

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

* * * * * * *

a Affected 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).

b Affected sources that detect a violation must record and report 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

additional information, as specified in §63.788(b)(4).

c OPTION 4: the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 

Option 4 are identical to those of Options 1, 2, or 3, depending 

on whether and how thinners are used. However, when using Option 

4, the term volatile organic hazardous air pollutants ―VOHAP‖ shall 

be used in lieu of the term Volatile Organic Compounds ―VOC,‖ and 

the owner or operator shall record and report the Administratorapproved VOHAP test method or certification procedure.

* * * * *

Subpart JJ—[AMENDED]

10. Section 63.800 is amended by:

a. Redesignating paragraphs (f) and (g) as paragraphs (h) 

and (i);

b. Redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (e) 

and (f);

c. Adding new paragraphs (d) and (g); and

d. 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

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) and §63.803(h) no later than [DATE 3 YEARS FROM 

DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS 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) hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) such that the source becomes a major source that 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

is subject to this subpart shall comply with this subpart 1 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 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, 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
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

(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. Offshift 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, 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, consistent with safety and good 

air pollution control practices; and

(vii) All of the actions in response to the excess 

emissions were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous

operating logs; and
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

(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, the 

purpose of which is 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 (FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later 

than 2 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 45 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. The owner or operator may seek 

an extension of this deadline for up to 30 additional days by 

submitting a written request to the Administrator before the 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request for an 

extension has been approved by the Administrator, the owner or 

operator is subject to the requirement to submit such report 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance.

11. Section 63.801 is amended by:

a. Adding a definition for ―affirmative defense‖ and ―lowformaldehyde‖ 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 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.

* * * * *

Low-formaldehyde means, in the context of a coating or 

contact adhesive, a product concentration of less than or equal 

to 1.0 percent formaldehyde by weight, as described in a 

certified product data sheet for the material.

* * * * *

Wood furniture means any product made of wood, a wood 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

product such as rattan or wicker, or an engineered wood product 

such as particleboard that is manufactured at any facility that 

is engaged, either in part or in whole, in the manufacture of 

wood furniture or wood furniture components, including, but not 

limited to, facilities under any of the following standard 

industrial classification codes: 2434, 2511, 2512, 2517, 2519, 

2521, 2531, 2541, 2599, or 5712.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(24) Cf= the formaldehyde content of a finishing material 

(c), in pounds of formaldehyde per gallon of coating (lb/gal).

(25) Ftotal = total formaldehyde emissions in each rolling 12

month period.

(26) Gf= the formaldehyde content of a contact adhesive 

(g), in pounds of formaldehyde per gallon of contact adhesive 

(lb/gal).

(27) Vc = the volume of formaldehyde-containing finishing 

material (c), in gal.

(28) Vg=the volume of formaldehyde-containing contact 

adhesive (g), in gal.

12. Section 63.802 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(4), 

(b)(4), and (c) to read as follows:

§63.802 Emission limits.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

(a) * * *

(4) Limit formaldehyde emissions by complying with the 

provisions specified in either paragraph (a)(4)(i) or (a)(4)(ii) 

of this section.

(i) Limit total formaldehyde (Ftotal) use in coatings and

contact adhesives to no more than 400 pounds per rolling 12

month period.

(ii) Use coatings and contact adhesives only if they are

low-formaldehyde coatings and adhesives, in any wood furniture 

manufacturing operations.

(b) * * *

(4) Limit formaldehyde emissions by complying with the 

provisions specified in either paragraph (b)(4)(i) or (b)(4)(ii) 

of this section.

(i) Limit total formaldehyde (Ftotal) use in coatings and

contact adhesives to no more than 400 pounds per rolling 12

month period.

(ii) Use coatings and contact adhesives only if they are

low-formaldehyde coatings and adhesives, in any wood furniture 

manufacturing operations.

(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
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

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 except when all emissions from the finishing 

application station are routed to a functioning control device.

* * * * *

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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

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) if complying with §63.802(a)(4)(i) or 

(b)(4)(i) or by using the method presented in §63.804(h)(3) if 

complying with §63.802(a)(4)(ii) or (b)(4)(ii).

(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 

pounds 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 pounds per rolling 12 month period.

Ftotal=(Cf1Vc1 + Cf2Vc2 + * * * + CfnVcn+ Gf1Vg1 + Gf2Vg2 + * * * + 

GfnVgn)*(1–R) Equation 6

(3) Demonstrate compliance by use of coatings and contact 

adhesives only if they are low-formaldehyde coatings and contact 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

adhesives maintaining a certified product data sheet for each 

coating and contact adhesive used, as required by §63.806(b)(1), 

and submitting a compliance certification with the semiannual 

report required by §63.807(c).

(i) The compliance certification shall state that lowformaldehyde coatings and contact adhesives, as applicable, have 

been used each day in the semiannual reporting period or should 

otherwise identify the periods of noncompliance and the reasons 

for noncompliance. An affected source is in violation of the 

standard whenever a coating or contact adhesive that is not lowformaldehyde, as demonstrated by records or by a sample of the 

coating or contact adhesive, is used. Use of a noncompliant 

coating or contact adhesive is a separate violation for each day 

the noncompliant coating or contact adhesive is used.

(ii) The compliance certification shall be signed by a 

responsible official of the company that owns or operates the 

affected source.

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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

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) 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 )(i) or (b)(4)(i).

* * * * *

(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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

of operation.

17. Section 63.807 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text and (c)(3) and 

the first sentence in paragraph (d); and

b. Adding paragraph (f) 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), a (h)(1), (3) shall submit a report covering

the previous 6 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), (h)(1), and 

(h)(3), 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

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 by:

a. Removing entry 63.6(e)(1);

b. Adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 

63.6(e)(1)(iii);

c. Revising entries 63.6(e)(2) and (3);

d. Removing entries 63.7 and 63.8;

e. 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. Removing entry 63.10(b)(2);

g. 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);
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

h. Removing entry 63.10(c);

i. 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. Revising entry 63.10(d)(5) to read as follows:

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART JJ OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART JJ

Reference Applies to 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

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

63.10(b)(2)(ii) No See §63.806(k) for 

recordkeeping of 

occurrence and 

duration of 

malfunctions and 

recordkeeping of 

actions taken during 

malfunctions.

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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

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)–(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 

an entry for ―All Finishing Operations and Contact Adhesives‖ to 

read as follows:

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

Emission point Existing Source New Source

* * * * * * *

All Finishing 

Operations and 

Contact Adhesives:

(a) Achieve total 

free formaldehyde 

emissions across all 

finishing operations 

and contact 

adhesives, lb per 

rolling 12 month 

period, as applied

400 400

(b) Use coatings and 

contact adhesives 

only if they are

low-formaldehyde 

coatings and contact 

adhesives 

1.0f 1.0f
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. 

* * * * * * *

f The limits refer to the formaldehyde content by weight of the 

coating or contact adhesive, as specified on certified product 

data sheets.