***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review*** 

 6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786; FRL- ] 

RIN 2060–AQ42 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions: Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating); Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes how EPA will address the residual 

risk and technology reviews conducted for 2 industrial source 

categories regulated by 2 national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants. It also proposes to address 

provisions related to emissions during periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before 

[INSERT DATE 45 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, comments on the information collection provisions are best 

assured of having full effect if the Office of Management and 

Budget receives a copy of your comments on or before [INSERT 

DATE 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

Deleted: Operations
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 2 of 185 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak 

at a public hearing by [INSERT DATE 10 DAYS FROM DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a 

public hearing will be held on [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS FROM DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786, by one of the following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 

submitting comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786. 

• Facsimile: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket 

Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, 

D.C. 20460. Please include a total of two copies. In 

addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the 

information collection provisions to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management 

and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, 

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 3 of 185 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20004. Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQOAR-2010-0786. Such deliveries are only accepted during 

the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID Number 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public docket without change 

and may be made available on-line at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information provided, unless the comment 

includes information claimed to be confidential business 

information or other information whose disclosure is restricted 

by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be 

confidential business information or otherwise protected through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov website 

is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information unless you provide it in 

the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment 

directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your 

e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 4 of 185 

EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CDROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 

should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For 

additional information about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at 

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

Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this 

rulemaking under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786. All 

documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov

index. Although listed in the index, some information is not 

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

other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not 

placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in 

hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available 

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

the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 5 of 185 

Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA 

Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin 

at 10 a.m. on [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and will be held at 

EPA’s campus in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an 

alternate facility nearby. For information on the status of the 

public hearing, go to 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. Persons interested 

in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a public 

hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Joan Rogers, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs 

Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143–01), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–4487. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this 

proposed action, contact Ms. J. Kaye Whitfield, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-2509; 

facsimile number: (919) 541-3470; and e-mail address: 

whitfield.kaye@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the 

risk modeling methodology, contact Ms. Elaine Manning, Health 

and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 6 of 185 

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–5499; facsimile number: (919) 541–0840; and email address: manning.elaine@epa.gov. For information about 

the applicability of these 2 National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants to a particular entity, contact the 

appropriate person listed in Table 1 to this preamble. 

TABLE 1--LIST OF EPA CONTACTS FOR THE NATIONAL EMISSIONS 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAP) ADDRESSED IN 

THIS PROPOSED ACTION 

NESHAP for: OECA Contact1

 OAQPS Contact2

Shipbuilding 

and Ship Repair 

(surface 

coating) 

Len Lazarus, (202) 564–

6369, 

Lazarus.leonard@epa.gov

Kaye Whitfield, (919) 

541-2509, 

whitfield.kaye@epa.gov

Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing 

Operations 

Len Lazarus, (202) 564–

6369, 

Lazarus.leonard@epa.gov

Kaye Whitfield, (919) 

541-2509, 

whitfield.kaye@epa.gov 1

 OECA stands for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance. 

2

 OAQPS stands for EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations 

 Several acronyms and terms used to describe industrial 

processes, data inventories, and risk modeling are included in 

this preamble. While this may not be an exhaustive list, to 

ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, 

the following terms and acronyms are defined here: 

ACA American Coatings Association 

Deleted: Operations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 7 of 185 

ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists 

ADAF Age-dependent Adjustment Factors 

AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Levels 

AERMOD The air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model 

AHFA American Home Furnishings Alliance 

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

APA Administrative Procedure Act 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

BACT Best Available Control Technology 

BIFMA Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturer’s 

Association 

CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CEEL Community Emergency Exposure Levels 

CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring System 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CIIT Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology 

DGBE Diethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether (DGBE) 

EJ Environmental Justice 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guidelines 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants 

HI Hazard Index 

HEM-3 Human Exposure Model version 3 

HON Hazardous Organic National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

HQ Hazard Quotient 

ICR Information Collection Request 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

KCMA Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturing Association 

Kg Kilogram 

Km Kilometer 

LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

MACT Code Code within the NEI used to identify processes 

included in a source category 

MIR Maximum Individual Risk 

MRL Minimum Risk Level 

NAC/AEGL 

Committee National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure 

Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NATA National Air Toxics Assessment 

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 8 of 185 

Pollutants 

NEI National Emissions Inventory 

NIOSH National Institutes for Occupational Safety 

And Health 

NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effects Level 

NOx Nitrous Oxide 

NRC National Research Council 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

OAQPS EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

OECA EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PB-HAP Hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and 

bio-accumulative in the environment 

POM Polycyclic Organic Matter 

PPRTV Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act, 

RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology 

RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 

REL CalEPA Reference Exposure Level 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RfC Reference Concentration 

RfD Reference Dose 

RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer 

RTR Residual Risk and Technology Review 

SAB Science Advisory Board 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SCC Source Classification Codes 

SF3 2000 Census of Population and Housing Summary File 3 

SOP Standard Operating Procedures 

SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

TOSHI Target Organ-Specific Hazard Index 

TPY Tons Per Year 

TRIM Total Risk Integrated Modeling System 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UF Uncertainty Factor 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

URE Unit Risk Estimate 

VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards 

VHAP Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants 

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds 

VOHAP Volatile Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants 

WWW Worldwide Web 

Organization of This Document. The following outline is 

provided to aid in locating information in this preamble. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 9 of 185 

I. Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

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

information? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? 

D. How is this document organized? 

III. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this action? 

B. How did we consider the risk results in making decisions 

for this proposal? 

C. What other actions are we addressing in this proposal? 

IV. Analyses Performed 

A. How did we estimate risks posed by the source categories? 

B. How did we perform the technology review? 

V. Analyses Results and Proposed Decisions 

A. What are the results and proposed decisions for the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (surface coating) source 

category? 

B. What are the results and proposed decisions for the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category? 

VI. Proposed Action 

A. What actions are we proposing as a result of the technology 

reviews? 

B. What actions are we proposing as a result of the residual 

risk reviews? 

C. What other actions are we proposing? 

VII. Request for Comments 

VIII. Submitting Data Corrections 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

 Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

 Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low- 

 Income Populations

II. General Information 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 10 of 185 

A. Does this action apply to me?

 The regulated industrial source categories that are the 

subject of this proposal are listed in Table 2 of this preamble. 

Table 2 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 

guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by 

the proposed action for the source categories listed. These 

standards, and any changes considered in this rulemaking, would 

be directly applicable to sources as a federal program. Thus, 

federal, state, local, and tribal government entities are not 

affected by this proposed action. The regulated categories 

affected by this proposed action are shown in Table 2. 

TABLE 2--NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY 

THIS PROPOSED ACTION 

NESHAP and Source Category NAICS code1

 MACT code2

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

(surface coating)

336611 0715-2 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations 

3371, 3372, 

3379 

0716 

1

 North American Industry Classification System 

2

 Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

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

information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic 

copy of this proposal will also be available on the WWW through 

the TTN. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy 

of this proposed action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and 

Deleted: Operations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 11 of 185 

guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the 

following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various 

areas of air pollution control. 

Additional information is available on the RTR web page at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information 

includes source category descriptions and detailed emissions and 

other data that were used as inputs to the risk assessments. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

 Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI 

to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the 

part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For 

CBI information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify 

electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete 

version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, 

a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public 

docket. If you submit a CD ROM or disk that does not contain 

CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does 

not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included 

in the public docket and EPA’s electronic public docket without 

prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 12 of 185 

except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the 

following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR2010-0786. 

III. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this action? 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory 

process to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In 

the first stage, after EPA has identified categories of sources 

emitting 1 or more of the HAP listed in section 112(b) of the 

CAA, section 112(d) of the CAA calls for us to promulgate NESHAP 

for those sources. “Major sources” are those that emit or have 

the potential to emit 10 TPY or more of a single HAP or 25 TPY 

or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these 

technology-based standards must reflect the maximum degree of 

emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, 

energy requirements, and nonair quality health and environmental 

impacts) and are commonly referred to as Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) standards. 

MACT standards must reflect application of measures, 

processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 13 of 185 

limited to, measures which, (A) reduce the volume of or 

eliminate pollutants through process changes, substitution of 

materials or other modifications; (B) enclose systems or 

processes to eliminate emissions; (C) capture or treat 

pollutants when released from a process, stack, storage, or 

fugitive emissions point; (D) are design, equipment, work 

practice, or operational standards (including requirements for 

operator training or certification); or (E) are a combination of 

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

may take the form of design, equipment, work practice, or 

operational standards where EPA first determines either that, 

(A) a pollutant cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed 

and constructed to emit or capture the pollutants, or that any 

requirement for, or use of, such a conveyance would be 

inconsistent with law; or (B) the application of measurement 

methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable 

due to technological and economic limitations. CAA sections 

112(h)(1)-(2). 

The MACT “floor” is the minimum control level allowed for 

MACT standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(3) and may 

not be based on cost considerations. For new sources, the MACT 

floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is 

achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The 

MACT floors for existing sources can be less stringent than 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 14 of 185 

floors for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than 

the average emissions limitation achieved by the best-performing 

12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory 

(or the best-performing 5 sources for categories or 

subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 

standards, we must also consider control options that are more 

stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more 

stringent than the floor based on the consideration of the cost 

of achieving the emissions reductions, any nonair quality health 

and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. 

The EPA is required to review these technology-based standards 

and to revise them “as necessary (taking into account 

developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)” 

no less frequently than every 8 years, under CAA section 

112(d)(6). In conducting this review, EPA is not obliged to 

completely recalculate the prior MACT determination. NRDC v. 

EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

The second stage in standard-setting focuses on reducing 

any remaining “residual” risk according to CAA section 112(f). 

This provision requires, first, that EPA prepare a Report to

Congress discussing (among other things) methods of calculating 

the risks posed (or potentially posed) by sources after 

implementation of the MACT standards, the public health 

significance of those risks, the means and costs of controlling 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 15 of 185 

them, the actual health effects to persons in proximity of 

emitting sources, and the recommendations regarding legislation 

of such remaining risk. EPA prepared and submitted this report 

(Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA–453/R–99–001) in March 

1999. Congress did not act in response to the report, thereby 

triggering EPA’s obligation under CAA section 112(f)(2) to 

analyze and address residual risk. 

Section 112(f)(2)of the CAA requires us to determine, for 

source categories subject to certain MACT standards, whether the 

emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health. If the MACT standards for HAP “classified as a 

known, probable, or possible human carcinogen, do not reduce 

lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed to 

emissions from a source in the category or subcategory to less 

than 1-in-1 million,” EPA must promulgate residual risk 

standards for the source category (or subcategory) as necessary 

to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. 

In doing so, EPA may adopt standards equal to existing MACT 

standards if EPA determines that the existing standards are 

sufficiently protective. As stated in NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 

1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008), “If EPA determines that the 

existing technology-based standards provide an ‘ample margin of 

safety,’ then the Agency is free to readopt those standards 

during the residual risk rulemaking.” Section 112(f)(2) further 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 16 of 185 

states that EPA must also adopt more stringent standards if 

required, “to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, 

safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental 

effect.1

”. 

When Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA was enacted in 1990, it 

expressly preserved our use of the two-step process for 

developing standards to address any residual risk and our 

interpretation of “ample margin of safety” developed in the 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, 

Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene

Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene 

NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The first step in 

this process is the determination of acceptable risk. The 

second step provides for an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health, which is the level at which the standards are set 

(unless a more stringent standard is required to prevent, taking 

into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant 

factors, an adverse environmental effect). 

The terms “individual most exposed,” “acceptable level,” 

and “ample margin of safety” are not specifically defined in the 

 

1 “Adverse environmental effect” is defined in CAA section 112(a)(7) as 

any significant and widespread adverse effect, which may be reasonably 

anticipated to wildlife, aquatic life, or natural resources, including 

adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or 

significant degradation of environmental qualities over broad areas. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 17 of 185 

CAA. However, CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) preserves the 

interpretation set out in the Benzene NESHAP, and the Court in 

NRDC v. EPA, concluded that EPA’s interpretation of subsection 

112(f)(2) is a reasonable one. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 

1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“[S]ubsection 112(f)(2)(B) expressly 

incorporates EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act from the 

Benzene standard, complete with a citation to the Federal 

Register”). See also, A Legislative History of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990, volume 1, p. 877 (Senate debate on 

Conference Report). We notified Congress in the Residual Risk 

Report to Congress that we intended to use the Benzene NESHAP 

approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk 

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

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated as an overall objective: 

* * * in protecting public health with an ample margin of 

safety, we strive to provide maximum feasible protection 

against risks to health from hazardous air pollutants by 

(1) protecting the greatest number of persons possible to 

an individual lifetime risk level no higher than 

approximately 1-in-1 million; and (2) limiting to no higher 

than approximately 1-in-10 thousand [i.e., 100-in-1 

million] the estimated risk that a person living near a 

facility would have if he or she were exposed to the 

maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 years. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 18 of 185 

The Agency also stated that, “The EPA also considers 

incidence (the number of persons estimated to suffer cancer or 

other serious health effects as a result of exposure to a 

pollutant) to be an important measure of the health risk to the 

exposed population. Incidence measures the extent of health 

risk to the exposed population as a whole, by providing an 

estimate of the occurrence of cancer or other serious health 

effects in the exposed population.” The Agency went on to 

conclude that “estimated incidence would be weighed along with 

other health risk information in judging acceptability.” As 

explained more fully in our Residual Risk Report to Congress, 

EPA does not define “rigid line[s] of acceptability,” but 

considers rather broad objectives to be weighed with a series of 

other health measures and factors (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). 

The determination of what represents an “acceptable” risk is 

based on a judgment of “what risks are acceptable in the world 

in which we live” (Residual Risk Report to Congress, p. 178, 

quoting the Vinyl Chloride decision at 824 F.2d 1165) 

recognizing that our world is not risk-free. 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated that “EPA will generally 

presume that if the risk to [the maximum exposed] individual is 

no higher than approximately 1-in-10 thousand, that risk level 

is considered acceptable.” 54 FR 38045. We discussed the 

maximum individual lifetime cancer risk as being “the estimated 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 19 of 185 

risk that a person living near a plant would have if he or she 

were exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 

years.” Id. We explained that this measure of risk “is an 

estimate of the upper bound of risk based on conservative 

assumptions, such as continuous exposure for 24 hours per day 

for 70 years.” Id. We acknowledge that maximum individual 

lifetime cancer risk “does not necessarily reflect the true 

risk, but displays a conservative risk level which is an upperbound that is unlikely to be exceeded.” Id. 

Understanding that there are both benefits and limitations to 

using maximum individual lifetime cancer risk as a metric for 

determining acceptability, we acknowledged in the 1989 Benzene 

NESHAP that “consideration of maximum individual risk * * * must 

take into account the strengths and weaknesses of this measure 

of risk.” Id. Consequently, the presumptive risk level of 100-

in-1 million (1-in-10 thousand) provides a benchmark for judging 

the acceptability of maximum individual lifetime cancer risk, 

but does not constitute a rigid line for making that 

determination. 

The Agency also explained in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP the 

following: “In establishing a presumption for MIR [maximum 

individual cancer risk], rather than a rigid line for 

acceptability, the Agency intends to weigh it with a series of 

other health measures and factors. These include the overall 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 20 of 185 

incidence of cancer or other serious health effects within the 

exposed population, the numbers of persons exposed within each 

individual lifetime risk range and associated incidence within, 

typically, a 50-km exposure radius around facilities, the 

science policy assumptions and estimation uncertainties 

associated with the risk measures, weight of the scientific 

evidence for human health effects, other quantified or 

unquantified health effects, effects due to co-location of 

facilities, and co-emission of pollutants.” Id.

In some cases, these health measures and factors taken 

together may provide a more realistic description of the 

magnitude of risk in the exposed population than that provided 

by maximum individual lifetime cancer risk alone. As explained 

in the Benzene NESHAP, “[e]ven though the risks judged 

“acceptable” by EPA in the first step of the Vinyl Chloride 

inquiry are already low, the second step of the inquiry, 

determining an “ample margin of safety,” again includes 

consideration of all of the health factors, and whether to 

reduce the risks even further.” In the ample margin of safety 

decision process, the Agency again considers all of the health 

risks and other health information considered in the first step. 

Beyond that information, additional factors relating to the 

appropriate level of control will also be considered, including 

costs and economic impacts of controls, technological 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 21 of 185 

feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors. 

Considering all of these factors, the Agency will establish the 

standard at a level that provides an ample margin of safety to 

protect the public health, as required by CAA section 112(f). 

54 FR 38046. 

B. How did we consider the risk results in making decisions

for this proposal?

As discussed in section III.A of this preamble, we apply a 

two-step process for developing standards to address residual 

risk. In the first step, EPA determines if risks are 

acceptable. This determination “considers all health 

information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes 

a presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk 

(MIR)2

 of approximately 1-in-10 thousand [i.e., 100-in-1 

million].” 54 FR 38045. In the second step of the process, EPA 

sets the standard at a level that provides an ample margin of 

safety “in consideration of all health information, including 

the number of persons at risk levels higher than approximately 

1-in-1 million, as well as other relevant factors, including 

costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other 

factors relevant to each particular decision.” Id. 

 

2 Although defined as “maximum individual risk,” MIR refers only to 

cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is the 

estimated risk were an individual exposed to the maximum level of a 

pollutant for a lifetime.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 22 of 185 

In past residual risk determinations, EPA presented a 

number of human health risk metrics associated with emissions 

from the category under review, including: the MIR; the numbers 

of persons in various risk ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum 

non-cancer HI; and the maximum acute non-cancer hazard (75 FR 

65068, October 21, 2010; 72 FR 25138, May 3, 2007; 71 FR 42724, 

July 27, 2006). EPA also discussed and considered risk 

estimation uncertainties in those determinations. In our most 

recent proposal, EPA also presented and considered additional 

measures of health information to support our decision-making, 

including: estimates of “total facility” risks (risks from all 

HAP emissions from the facility at which the source category is 

located); demographic analyses (analyses of the distributions of 

HAP-related risks across different social, demographic, and 

economic groups living near the facilities); and estimates of 

the risks associated with emissions allowed by the MACT 

standards. EPA is providing this same type of information in 

support of the proposed actions described in this Federal 

Register notice. 

The Agency is considering all available health information 

to inform our determinations of risk acceptability and ample 

margin of safety under CAA section 112(f). Specifically, as 

explained in the Benzene NESHAP, “the first step judgment on 

acceptability cannot be reduced to any single factor” and thus 

Deleted: 

Deleted: EPA also discussed and 

considered risk estimation 

uncertainties. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 23 of 185 

“[t]he Administrator believes that the acceptability of risk 

under section 112 is best judged on the basis of a broad set of 

health risk measures and information.” 54 FR 38044, 38046 (Sept. 

14, 1989). Similarly, with regard to making the ample margin of 

safety determination, as stated in the Benzene NESHAP “[I]n the 

ample margin decision, the Agency again considers all of the 

health risk and other health information considered in the first 

step. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to 

the appropriate level of control will also be considered, 

including cost and economic impacts of controls, technological 

feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors.” 

Id.

The Agency acknowledges that flexibility is provided by the 

Benzene NESHAP regarding what factors EPA might consider in 

making determinations and how they might be weighed for each 

source category. In responding to comment on our policy under 

the Benzene NESHAP, EPA explained that: “The policy chosen by 

the Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures of 

health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be considered, but 

also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health effects, and 

the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the 

effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well 

as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be 

weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 24 of 185 

the Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an 

acceptable level of risk to the public by employing [her] 

expertise to assess available data. It also complies with the 

Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the 

use of any particular measure of public health risk from the 

EPA's consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, 

and, thereby, implicitly permits consideration of any and all 

measures of health risk which the Administrator, in [her] 

judgment, believes are appropriate to determining what will 

‘protect the public health.’” 54 FR 38057. 

For example, the level of the MIR is only 1 factor to be 

weighed in determining acceptability of risks. It is explained 

in the Benzene NESHAP that “an MIR of approximately 1-in-10 

thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of 

acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they 

become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and 

would be weighed with the other health risk measures and 

information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, 

the Agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that 

includes MIR less than the presumptively acceptable level is 

unacceptable in the light of other health risk factors.” Id. at 

38045. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety 

analysis, it is stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: “...EPA 

believes the relative weight of the many factors that can be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 25 of 185 

considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be 

determined for each specific source category. This occurs 

mainly because technological and economic factors (along with 

the health-related factors) vary from source category to source 

category.” Id. at 38061. 

EPA wishes to point out that certain health information has 

not been considered in these decisions. In assessing risks to 

populations in the vicinity of the facilities in each category, 

we present estimates of risk associated with HAP emissions from 

the source category alone (source category risk estimates) and 

HAP emissions from the entire facilities at which the covered 

source categories are located (facility-wide risk estimates). 

We do not attempt to characterize the risks associated with all 

HAP emissions impacting the populations living near the sources 

in these categories. That is, we have not presented estimates 

of total HAP inhalation risks from all sources in the vicinity 

of the covered sources (i.e., the sum of the risks from ambient 

levels, emissions from the source category, facility-wide 

emissions, and emissions from other facilities nearby), nor have 

we attempted to include estimates of total HAP inhalation risks 

from indoor sources such as from cooking or degassing from 

consumer products. 

The Agency understands the potential importance of 

considering an individual’s total exposure to HAP in addition to 

Deleted: at this time, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 26 of 185 

considering exposure to HAP emissions from the source category 

and facility. While such considerations are relevant to both 

cancer and non-cancer risk assessments, they can be particularly 

important when assessing cumulative non-cancer risks, where 

pollutant-specific risk-based exposure levels (e.g., RfC) are 

based on the assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health 

effects. For example, the Agency recognizes that, although 

exposures attributable to emissions from a source category or 

facility alone may not indicate the potential for increased risk 

of adverse non-cancer health effects in a population, the 

exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in 

combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., 

other facilities) to which an individual is exposed, may be 

sufficient to result in increased risk of adverse non-cancer 

health effects. In May 2010, the SAB advised us “... that RTR 

assessments will be most useful to decision makers and 

communities if results are presented in the broader context of 

aggregate and cumulative risks, including background 

concentrations and contributions from other sources in the 

area.”3 

 

3

 EPA’s responses to this and all other key recommendations of the 

SAB’s advisory on RTR risk assessment methodologies (which is 

available at: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F006

68381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf) are outlined in a memo to 

this rulemaking docket from David Guinnup entitled, EPA’s Actions in 

Deleted: This is
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 27 of 185 

While we are interested in placing source category and 

facility-wide HAP risks in the context of total HAP risks from 

all sources combined in the vicinity of each source, we are 

concerned about the uncertainties of doing so. At this point, 

we believe that such estimates of total HAP risks will have 

significantly greater associated uncertainties than for the 

source category or facility-wide estimates, hence compounding 

the uncertainty in any such comparison. This is because we have 

not conducted a detailed technical review of HAP emissions data 

for source categories and facilities that have not previously 

undergone a RTR review or are not currently undergoing such 

review. We are requesting comment on whether and how best to 

estimate and evaluate total HAP exposure from outdoor sources in 

our assessments, and, in particular, on whether and how it might 

be appropriate to use information from EPA’s NATA to support 

such estimates. We also request comment whether and how to 

estimate total HAP exposure from indoor sources in the context 

of these assessments. We are also seeking comment on how best 

to consider various types and scales of risk estimates when 

making our acceptability and ample margin of safety 

determinations under CAA section 112(f). Additionally, we are 

seeking comments and recommendations for any other comparative 

 

Response to the Key Recommendations of the SAB Review of RTR Risk 

Assessment Methodologies. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 28 of 185 

measures that may be useful in the assessment of the 

distribution of HAP risks across potentially affected 

demographic groups. 

C. What other actions are we addressing in this proposal?

 We are also proposing to revise requirements in these MACT 

standards related to emissions during periods of SSM. 

 The Court vacated portions of 2 provisions in EPA’s CAA 

section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during 

periods of SSM. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (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 are 

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

Provisions Rule,” that EPA promulgated under section 112 of the 

CAA. When incorporated into CAA section 112(d) regulations for 

specific source categories, these 2 provisions exempt sources 

from the requirement to comply with the otherwise applicable CAA 

section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. 

We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in 

both of the MACT standards addressed in this proposal. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA is proposing standards 

in these rules that apply at all times. In proposing the 

standards in these rules, EPA has taken into account startup and 

shutdown periods, and, because operations and emissions do not 

differ from normal operations during these periods, has not 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 29 of 185 

proposed different standards for these periods. We are also 

proposing several revisions to the General Provisions

Applicability table in both of the MACT standards. For example, 

we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General 

Provisions’ requirement that the source develop a SSM plan. We 

are also proposing to eliminate or revise certain recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption. EPA 

has attempted to ensure that we have not included in the 

proposed regulatory language any provisions that are 

inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the 

SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on whether 

there are any such provisions that we have inadvertently 

incorporated or overlooked. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 

predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

However, by contrast, malfunction is defined as a “sudden, 

infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment or 

a process to operate in a normal or usual manner * * * ” (40 CFR

63.2). EPA has determined that malfunctions should not be 

viewed as a distinct operating mode and, therefore, any 

emissions that occur at such times do not need to be factored 

into development of CAA section 112(d) standards, which, once 

promulgated, apply at all times. In Mossville Environmental 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 30 of 185 

Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1242 (D.C. Cir. 2004), the 

Court upheld as reasonable standards that had factored in 

variability of emissions under all operating conditions. 

However, nothing in CAA section 112(d) or in case law requires 

that EPA anticipate and account for the innumerable types of 

potential malfunction events in setting emission standards. See 

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.”). Further, it 

is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112(d) as not requiring 

EPA to account for malfunctions in setting emissions standards. 

For example, we note that CAA section 112 uses the concept of 

“best performing” sources in defining MACT, the level of 

stringency that major source standards must meet. Applying the 

concept of “best performing” to a source that is malfunctioning 

presents significant difficulties. The goal of best performing 

sources is to operate in such a way as to avoid malfunctions of 

their units. Moreover, even if malfunctions were considered a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 31 of 185 

distinct operating mode, we believe it would be impracticable to 

take malfunctions into account in setting CAA section 112(d) 

standards for shipbuilding and ship repair (surface coating) and 

wood furniture manufacturing operations. As noted above, by 

definition, malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events, and 

it would be difficult to set a standard that takes into account 

the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across 

all sources in each source category. Malfunctions can also vary 

in frequency, degree, and duration, further complicating 

standard setting. 

In the event that a source fails to comply with the 

applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, EPA would determine an appropriate response 

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

source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root 

cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. EPA 

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

the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, “sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable” and was not instead 

“caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation.” 40 

CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). 

Finally, EPA recognizes that even equipment that is 

properly designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that 

Deleted: operations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 32 of 185 

such failure can sometimes cause or contribute to an exceedance 

of the relevant emission standard. (See, e.g., State 

Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions 

During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (September 20, 1999); 

Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, 

Maintenance, and Malfunctions (February 15, 1983)). EPA is, 

therefore, proposing to add to the final rule an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits 

that are caused by malfunctions in both of the MACT standards 

addressed in this proposal. See 40 CFR 63.1341 (defining 

“affirmative defense” to mean, in the context of an enforcement 

proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, 

regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the 

merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a 

judicial or administrative proceeding). We also are proposing 

other regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are 

necessary to establish this affirmative defense; a source 

subject to the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) 

MACT standards must prove by a preponderance of the evidence 

that it has met all of the elements set forth in 40 CFR 

63.781(d) and a source subject to the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations MACT standards must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that it has met all of the 

elements set forth in 40 CFR 63.800(h). (See 40 CFR 22.24.) 

Deleted: Operations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 33 of 185 

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). The criteria 

also are designed to ensure that steps are taken to correct the 

malfunction, to minimize emissions in accordance with 40 CFR 

63.783(b)(1) for sources subject to the Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair (Surface Coating) MACT standards, or 40 CFR 63.802(c) 

for sources subject to the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations MACT standards, and to prevent future malfunctions. 

In any judicial or administrative proceeding, the Administrator 

may challenge the assertion of the affirmative defense and, if 

the respondent has not met its burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate penalties 

may be assessed in accordance with section 113 of the CAA (see 

also 40 CFR 22.77). 

IV. Analyses Performed 

 As discussed above, in this notice, we are taking the 

following actions: (1) we are proposing action to address the 

RTR requirements of CAA sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) for both 

the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) and the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT standards, and, (2) we 

are proposing to revise the provisions in both of these MACT 

Deleted: Operations 

Deleted: Operations
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 34 of 185 

standards to address SSM to ensure that the SSM provisions are 

consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 

3d 1019. In this section, we describe the analyses performed to 

support the proposed decisions for the RTRs for each of these 

source categories. 

A. How did we estimate risks posed by the source categories?

 The EPA conducted risk assessments that provided estimates 

of the MIR posed by the HAP emissions from each source in a 

category, and by each source category, the distribution of 

cancer risks within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, 

HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, HQ for acute exposures to HAP with the 

potential to cause non-cancer health effects, and an evaluation 

of the potential for adverse environmental effects. The risk 

assessments consisted of 7 primary steps, as discussed below. 

The docket for this rulemaking contains the following 

documents which provide more information on the risk assessment 

inputs and models: Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations Source Category, and Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

Source Category. 

1. Establishing the Nature and Magnitude of Actual Emissions 

and Identifying the Emissions Release Characteristics. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 35 of 185 

For the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) 

source category, we compiled preliminary datasets using readilyavailable information, reviewed the data, made changes where 

necessary, and shared these data with the public via an ANPRM. 

72 FR 29287, March 29, 2007. The preliminary dataset was based 

on data in the 2002 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Final 

Inventory, Version 1 (made publicly available on February 26, 

2006).4

 The preliminary dataset was updated with information 

received in response to the ANPRM; data from the 2005 NEI, when 

that data became available; and additional data gathered by EPA. 

For more information see memorandum Memoranda Documenting 

Changes to the RTR Dataset for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

(Surface Coating) Source Category, dated November 22, 2010. The 

updated dataset contains 85 facilities and was used to conduct 

the risk assessments and other analyses that form the basis for 

the proposed actions for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

(Surface Coating) source category. 

For the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source 

category, we compiled preliminary datasets using the best data 

available, reviewed the data, and made changes where necessary. 

 

4 The NEI is a database that contains information about sources that emit 

criteria air pollutants and their precursors, and HAP. The database includes 

estimates of annual air pollutant emissions from point, non-point, and mobile 

sources in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands. The EPA collects this information and releases an updated 

version of the NEI database every 3 years. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 36 of 185 

For this source category, we compiled the preliminary datasets 

using data in the 2005 NEI. After incorporation of changes to 

the dataset based on additional information gathered by EPA, an 

updated dataset was created. This updated dataset contains 385 

facilities and was used to conduct the risk assessments and 

other analyses that form the basis for the proposed actions for 

the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category. 

2. Establishing the Relationship Between Actual Emissions and 

MACT-Allowable Emissions Levels. 

The available emissions data in the NEI and from other 

sources typically represent the estimates of mass of emissions 

actually emitted during the specified annual time period. These 

“actual” emission levels are often lower than the emission 

levels that a facility might be allowed to emit and still comply 

with the MACT standards. The emissions level allowed to be 

emitted by the MACT standards is referred to as the “MACTallowable” emissions level. This represents the highest 

emissions level that could be emitted by the facility without 

violating the MACT standards. 

We discussed the use of both MACT-allowable and actual 

emissions in the final Coke Oven Batteries residual risk rule 

(70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and 

final Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) residual risk rules (71 FR 

34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 37 of 185 

respectively). In those previous actions, we noted that 

assessing the risks at the MACT-allowable level is inherently 

reasonable since these risks reflect the maximum level sources 

could emit and still comply with national emission standards. 

But we also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual 

emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the 

risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP. (54 FR 

38044, September 14, 1989.) It is reasonable to consider actual 

emissions because sources typically seek to perform better than 

required by emission standards to provide an operational cushion 

to accommodate the variability in manufacturing processes and 

control device performance. 

As described above, the actual emissions data were compiled 

based on the NEI, information gathered from companies, 

individual facilities, industry trade associations, states, and 

information received in response to the ANPRM. To estimate 

emissions at the MACT-allowable level, we developed a ratio of 

MACT-allowable to actual emissions for each emissions source 

type in each source category, based on the level of control 

required by the MACT standards compared to the level of reported 

actual emissions and available information on the level of 

control achieved by the emissions controls in use. For example, 

if there was information to suggest several facilities in the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (surface coating) source category 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 38 of 185 

were using coatings that contain only 1 Kg of volatile HAP 

compounds per Kg of coating solids (kg VOHAP/kg solids) while 

the MACT standards required coatings to contain no more than 2 

kg VOHAP/kg solids, we would estimate that MACT-allowable 

emissions from emission points using these coatings could be as 

much as 2 times higher (VOHAP content of 2 kg/kg solids allowed 

compared with VOHAP content of 1 kg/kg solids actually used), 

and the ratio of MACT-allowable to actual would be 2:1 for the 

emission points using these coatings at the facilities in this 

source category. After developing these ratios for each 

emission point type in each source category, we next applied 

these ratios on a facility-by-facility basis to the maximum 

chronic risk estimates from the inhalation risk assessment to 

obtain facility-specific maximum risk estimates based on MACTallowable emissions. The estimates of MACT-allowable emissions 

for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations and Shipbuilding 

and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source categories are 

described in section V of this preamble. 

3. Conducting Dispersion Modeling, Determining Inhalation 

Exposures, and Estimating Individual and Population Inhalation 

Risks. 

Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure 

concentrations and health risks from each of the source 

categories addressed in this proposal were estimated using the 

Deleted: Operations 

Deleted: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 39 of 185 

HEM (Community and Sector HEM–3 version 1.1.0). The HEM–3 

performs 3 of the primary risk assessment activities listed 

above: (1) conducting dispersion modeling to estimate the 

concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term 

and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing 

within 50 km of the modeled sources, and (3) estimating 

individual and population-level inhalation risks using the 

exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response information. 

The dispersion model used by HEM–3 is AERMOD, which is one 

of EPA’s preferred models for assessing pollutant concentrations 

from industrial facilities.5

 To perform the dispersion modeling 

and to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 draws on 3 

data libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, 

which is used for dispersion calculations. This library 

includes 1 year of hourly surface and upper air observations for 

130 meteorological stations, selected to provide coverage of the 

United States and Puerto Rico. A second library of United 

States Census Bureau census block6

 internal point locations and 

populations provides the basis of human exposure calculations 

(Census, 2000). In addition, for each census block, the census 

library includes the elevation and controlling hill height, 

 

5

 U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption 

of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion 

Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 2005). 6

 A census block is generally the smallest geographic area for which 

census statistics are tabulated. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 40 of 185 

which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library 

of pollutant unit risk factors and other health benchmarks is 

used to estimate health risks. These risk factors and health 

benchmarks are the latest values recommended by EPA for HAP and 

other toxic air pollutants. These values are available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html and are 

discussed in more detail later in this section. 

In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we 

used the estimated annual average ambient air concentration of 

each of the HAP emitted by each source for which we have 

emissions data in the source category. The air concentrations 

at each nearby census block centroid were used as a surrogate 

for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the 

people who reside in that census block. We calculated the MIR 

for each facility as the cancer risk associated with a 

continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and 52 

weeks per year for a 70-year period) exposure to the maximum 

concentration at the centroid of an inhabited census block. 

Individual cancer risks were calculated by multiplying the 

estimated lifetime exposure to the ambient concentration of each 

of the HAP (in micrograms per cubic meter) by its URE, which is 

an upper bound estimate of an individual’s probability of 

contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a 

concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 41 of 185 

air. For residual risk assessments, we generally use URE values 

from EPA’s IRIS. For carcinogenic pollutants without EPA IRIS 

values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer doseresponse values, often using CalEPA URE values, where available. 

In cases where new, scientifically credible dose-response values 

have been developed in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines 

and have undergone a peer review process similar to that used by 

EPA, we may use such dose-response values in place of, or in 

addition to, other values, if appropriate. 

Formaldehyde is a unique case. In 2004, EPA determined 

that the CIIT dose-response value for formaldehyde (5.5 x 10-9

μg/m3) was based on better science than the IRIS dose-response 

value (1.3 x 10-5 μg/m3), and we switched from using the IRIS 

value to the CIIT value in risk assessments supporting 

regulatory actions. This determination was based on a 

substantial body of research on the inhalation dosimetry for 

formaldehyde in rodents and primates by the CIIT Centers for 

Health Research (formerly the CIIT), with a focus on use of 

rodent data for refinement of the quantitative cancer doseresponse assessment.7,8,9

 The CIIT’s risk assessment of 

 

7 Conolly, RB, Kimbell, JS, Janszen, D, Schlosser, PM, Kalisak, D, Preston, 

J, and Miller, FJ. 2003. Biologically Motivated Computational Modeling of 

Formaldehyde Carcinogencity in the F344 Rat. Tox Sci 75: 432-447. 

8 Conolly, RB, Kimbell, JS, Janszen, D, Schlosser, PM, Kalisak, D, Preston, 

J, and Miller, FJ. 2004. Human Respiratory Tract Cancer Risks of Inhaled 

Formaldehyde: Dose-Response Predictions Derived from Biologically-Motivated 

Computational Modeling of a Combined Rodent and Human Dataset. Tox Sci 82: 

Deleted: 

Formatted: Superscript

Formatted: Superscript

Deleted: 

Formatted: Superscript
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 42 of 185 

formaldehyde incorporated mechanistic and dosimetric information 

on formaldehyde. However, recent research published by EPA 

indicates that, when the CIIT’s two-stage modeling assumptions 

are varied, resulting dose-response estimates can vary by 

several orders of magnitude.10,11,12,13 These findings are not 

supportive of interpreting the CIIT model results as providing a 

conservative (health-protective) estimate of human risk.14 The 

recent EPA research also examined the contribution of the twostage modeling for formaldehyde towards characterizing the 

relative weights of key events in the mode-of-action of a 

carcinogen. For example, in the EPA research, the model-based 

inference in the published CIIT study that formaldehyde’s direct 

mutagenic action is not relevant to the compound’s 

tumorigenicity was found not to hold under variations of 

 

279-296. 

9 Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (CIIT(. 1999. Formaldehyde: 

Hazard Characterization and Dose-Response Assessment for Carcinogenicity by 

the Route of Inhalation. CIIT, September 28, 1999. Research Triangle Park, 

NC. 

10 U.S. EPA. Analysis of the Sensitivity and Uncertainty in 2-Stage Clonal 

Growth Models for Formaldehyde with Relevance to Other Biologically-Based 

Dose Response (BBDR) Models. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/R-08/103, 

2008.

11 Subramaniam, R; Chen, C; Crump, K; et al. (2008). Uncertainties in 

Biologically-Based Modeling of Formaldehyde-Induced Cancer Risk: 

Identification of Key Issues. Risk Anal 28 (4):907-923. 

12 Subramaniam RP; Crump KS; Van Landingham C; White P; Chen C; Schlosser PM 

(2007). Uncertainties in the CIIT model for formaldehyde-induced 

carcinogenicity in the rat: A limited sensitivity analysis–I. Risk Anal, 27: 

1237–1254. 

13 Crump, K; Chen, C; Fox, J; et al. (2008). Sensitivity Analysis of 

Biologically Motivated Model for Formaldehyde-Induced Respiratory Cancer in 

Humans. Ann Occup Hyg 52:481-495. 

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

Biologically Motivated Model for Formaldehyde-Induced Respiratory Cancer in 

Humans. Ann Occup Hyg 52:481-495. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 43 of 185 

modeling assumptions.15 As a result of these findings, the CIIT 

URE value is no longer considered health protective, and we are 

again using the Agency’s current value on IRIS, which was last 

revised in 1991. We note that a new IRIS re-assessment has been 

drafted and sent to the NAS for review. The NAS review is 

expected to be completed by March of 2011. We note here that 

POM, a carcinogenic HAP with a mutagenic mode of action, is 

emitted by some of the facilities in these 2 categories.16 For 

this compound,17 the ADAF described in EPA’s Supplemental 

Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure 

to Carcinogens18 were applied. This adjustment has the effect of 

increasing the estimated lifetime risks for this pollutant by a 

factor of 1.6. In addition, although only a small fraction of 

the total POM emissions were not reported as individual 

compounds, EPA expresses carcinogenic potency for compounds in 

this group in terms of benzo[a]pyrene equivalence, based on 

evidence that carcinogenic POM has the same mutagenic mechanism 

 

15 Subramaniam RP; Crump KS; Van Landingham C; White P; Chen C; Schlosser PM 

(2007). Uncertainties in the CIIT model for formaldehyde-induced 

carcinogenicity in the rat: A limited sensitivity analysis–I. Risk Anal, 27: 

1237–1254 

16 U.S. EPA, 2005. Performing risk assessments that include 

carcinogens described in the Supplemental Guidance as having a 

mutagenic mode of action. Science Policy Council Cancer Guidelines 

Implementation Work Group Communication II: Memo from W.H. Farland, 

dated October 4, 2005. 

17 See the Risk Assessment for Source Categories document available in 

the docket for a list of HAP with a mutagenic mode of action. 

18 U.S. EPA, 2005. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Early-Life 

Exposure to Carcinogens. EPA/630/R-03/003F. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/childrens_supplement_final.pdf. 

Deleted: not 

Deleted: final until sometime in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 44 of 185 

of action as does benzo[a]pyrene. For this reason, EPA’s 

Science Policy Council19 recommends applying the Supplemental 

Guidance to all carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

for which risk estimates are based on relative potency. 

Accordingly, we have applied the ADAF to the benzo[a]pyrene 

equivalent portion of all POM mixtures. 

Incremental individual lifetime cancer risks associated with 

emissions from the source category were estimated as the sum of 

the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP (including those 

classified as carcinogenic to humans, likely to be carcinogenic 

to humans, and suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential20) 

emitted by the modeled source. Cancer incidence and the 

distribution of individual cancer risks for the population 

within 50 km of any source were also estimated for the source 

category as part of these assessments by summing individual 

risks. A distance of 50 km is consistent with both the analysis 

 

19 U.S. EPA, 2006. Science Policy Council Cancer Guidelines 

Implementation Workgroup Communication II: Memo from W.H. Farland, 

dated June 14, 2006. 

20 These classifications also coincide with the terms "known 

carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible carcinogen," 

respectively, which are the terms advocated in the EPA's previous 

Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51 FR 

33992, September 24, 1986). Summing the risks of these individual 

compounds to obtain the cumulative cancer risks is an approach that 

was recommended by the EPA's SAB in their 2002 peer review of EPA's 

NATA entitled, NATA - Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics 

Assessment 1996 Data -- an SAB Advisory, available at: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007

A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 45 of 185 

supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044) and the 

limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, including AERMOD. 

To assess risk of non-cancer health effects from chronic 

exposures, we summed the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a 

common target organ system to obtain the HI for that target 

organ system (or target organ-specific HI, TOSHI). The HQ is 

the estimated exposure divided by the chronic reference level, 

which is either the EPA RfC, defined as “an estimate (with 

uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a 

continuous inhalation exposure to the human population 

(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an 

appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime,” or, 

in cases where an RfC from EPA’s IRIS database is not available, 

EPA will utilize the following prioritized sources for our 

chronic dose-response values: 1) the USATSDR MRL is defined as 

“an estimate of daily human exposure to a substance that is 

likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects 

(other than cancer) over a specified duration of exposure”; 2) 

the CalEPA Chronic REL, defined as “the concentration level at 

or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a 

specified exposure duration;” and 3) as noted above, in cases 

where scientifically credible dose-response values have been 

developed in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have 

undergone a peer review process similar to that used by EPA, we 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 46 of 185 

may use those dose-response values in place of, or in concert 

with other values. 

Screening estimates of acute exposures and risks were also 

evaluated for each of the HAP at the point of highest off-site 

exposure for each facility (i.e., not just the census block 

centroids) assuming that a person is located at this spot at a 

time when both the peak (hourly) emission rate and hourly 

dispersion conditions (1991 calendar year data) occur. In each 

case, acute HQ values were calculated using best available, 

short-term dose-response values. These acute dose-response 

values include acute REL, AEGL, and ERPG for 1 hour exposure 

durations. As discussed below, we used conservative assumptions 

for emission rates, meteorology, and exposure location for our 

acute analysis. 

As described in the CalEPA’s Air Toxics Hot Spots Program 

Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute 

Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, an acute REL 

value (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) is defined 

as “the concentration level at or below which no adverse health 

effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration.” 

Acute REL values are based on the most sensitive, relevant, 

adverse health effect reported in the medical and toxicological 

literature. Acute REL values are designed to protect the most 

sensitive individuals in the population by the inclusion of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 47 of 185 

margins of safety. Since margins of safety are incorporated to 

address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the acute REL 

does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact. 

Acute Exposure Guideline Levels values were derived in 

response to recommendations from the NRC. As described in 

Standing Operating Procedures (SOP) of the National Advisory 

Committee on Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous 

Substances (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/aegl/pubs/sop.pdf),21

“the NRC’s previous name for acute exposure levels—community 

emergency exposure levels (CEEL)— was replaced by the term AEGL 

to reflect the broad application of these values to planning, 

response, and prevention in the community, the workplace, 

transportation, the military, and the remediation of Superfund 

sites.” This document also states that AEGL values “represent 

threshold exposure limits for the general public and are 

applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 

hours.” The document lays out the purpose and objectives of 

AEGL by stating (page 21) that “the primary purpose of the AEGL 

program and the NAC/AEGL Committee is to develop guideline 

levels for once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to airborne 

concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.” In 

detailing the intended application of AEGL values, the document 

 

21 National Academies of Science, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures 

for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 48 of 185 

states (page 31) that “[i]t is anticipated that the AEGL values 

will be used for regulatory and nonregulatory purposes by United 

States Federal and State agencies, and possibly the 

international community in conjunction with chemical emergency 

response, planning, and prevention programs. More specifically, 

the AEGL values will be used for conducting various risk 

assessments to aid in the development of emergency preparedness 

and prevention plans, as well as real-time emergency response 

actions, for accidental chemical releases at fixed facilities 

and from transport carriers.” 

The AEGL–1 value is then specifically defined as “the 

airborne concentration of a substance above which it is 

predicted that the general population, including susceptible 

individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or 

certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects 

are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon 

cessation of exposure.” The document also notes (page 3) that, 

“Airborne concentrations below AEGL–1 represent exposure levels 

that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient 

and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain 

asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.” Similarly, the document 

defines AEGL–2 values as “the airborne concentration (expressed 

as ppm or mg/m3

) of a substance above which it is predicted that 

the general population, including susceptible individuals, could 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 49 of 185 

experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse 

health effects or an impaired ability to escape.” 

Emergency Response Planning Guidelines values are derived 

for use in emergency response, as described in the American 

Industrial Hygiene Association’s document entitled, Emergency 

Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) Procedures and 

Responsibilities

(http://www.aiha.org/1documents/committees/ERPSOPs2006.pdf), 

which states that, “Emergency Response Planning Guidelines were 

developed for emergency planning and are intended as health 

based guideline concentrations for single exposures to 

chemicals.”22 The ERPG–1 value is defined as “the maximum 

airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly 

all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without 

experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or 

without perceiving a clearly defined, objectionable odor.” 

Similarly, the ERPG–2 value is defined as “the maximum airborne 

concentration below which it is believed that nearly all 

individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without 

experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health 

effects or symptoms which could impair an individual’s ability 

to take protective action.” 

 

22 ERP Committee Procedures and Responsibilities. 1 November, 2006. 

American Industrial Hygiene Association. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 50 of 185 

As can be seen from the definitions above, the AEGL and 

ERPG values include the similarly-defined severity levels 1 and 

2. For many chemicals, a severity level 1 value AEGL or ERPG 

has not been developed; in these instances, higher severity 

level AEGL–2 or ERPG–2 values are compared to our modeled 

exposure levels to screen for potential acute concerns. 

Acute REL values for 1 hour exposure durations are 

typically lower than their corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1 

values. Even though their definitions are slightly different, 

AEGL–1 values are often the same as the corresponding ERPG–1 

values, and AEGL–2 values are often equal to ERPG–2 values. 

Maximum HQ values from our acute screening risk assessments 

typically result when basing them on the acute REL value for a 

particular pollutant. In cases where our maximum acute HQ value 

exceeds 1, we also report the HQ value based on the next highest 

acute dose-response value (usually the AEGL–1 and/or the ERPG–1 

value). 

To develop screening estimates of acute exposures, we 

developed estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by 

multiplying the average actual annual hourly emission rates by a 

factor to cover routinely variable emissions. We chose the 

factor based on process knowledge and engineering judgment and 

with awareness of a Texas study of short-term emissions 

variability, which showed that most peak emission events, in a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 51 of 185 

heavily-industrialized 4-county area (Harris, Galveston, 

Chambers, and Brazoria Counties, Texas) were less than twice the 

annual average hourly emission rate. The highest peak emission 

event was 74 times the annual average hourly emission rate, and 

the 99th percentile ratio of peak hourly emission rate to the 

annual average hourly emission rate was 9.23 This analysis is 

provided in Appendix 4 of the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations, and Draft Residual Risk 

Assessment for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) 

Operations which are available in the docket for this action. 

Considering this analysis, unless specific process knowledge or 

data are available to provide an alternate value, to account for 

more than 99 percent of the peak hourly emissions, we apply a 

conservative screening multiplication factor of 10 to the 

average annual hourly emission rate in these acute exposure 

screening assessments. For the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

(Surface Coating) source category, this factor of 10 was 

applied. For the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source 

category, a factor of 4 was applied, based on actual emissions 

data provided by industry. More information supporting the use 

of this factor for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations is 

presented in the memorandum, Acute Effects Factor for Wood 

 

23 See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/field_ops/eer/index.html 

or docket to access the source of these data. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 52 of 185 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations, dated November 23, 2010, 

which is available in the docket for this action. We solicit 

comment on this factor and the data used to calculate it. 

In cases where all acute HQ values from the screening step 

were less than or equal to 1, acute impacts were deemed 

negligible and no further analysis was performed. In the cases 

where an acute HQ from the screening step was greater than 1, 

additional site-specific data were considered to develop a more 

refined estimate of the potential for acute impacts of concern. 

The data refinements employed for these source categories 

consisted of using the site-specific facility layout to 

distinguish facility property from an area where the public 

could be exposed. These refinements are discussed in the draft 

risk assessment documents, which are available in the docket, 

for each of these source categories. Ideally, we would prefer 

to have continuous measurements over time to see how the 

emissions vary by each hour over an entire year. Having a 

frequency distribution of hourly emission rates over a year 

would allow us to perform a probabilistic analysis to estimate 

potential threshold exceedances and their frequency of 

occurrence. Such an evaluation could include a more complete 

statistical treatment of the key parameters and elements adopted 

in this screening analysis. However, we recognize that having 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 53 of 185 

this level of data is rare, hence our use of the multiplier 

approach. 

4. Conducting Multi-pathway Exposure and Risk Modeling. 

The potential for significant human health risks due to 

exposures via routes other than inhalation (i.e., multi-pathway 

exposures) and the potential for adverse environmental impacts 

were evaluated in a three-step process. In the first step, we 

determined whether any facilities emitted any HAP known to be 

persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment (PB-HAP). 

There are 14 PB-HAP compounds or compound classes identified for 

this screening in EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library

(available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_vol1.html). 

They are cadmium compounds, chlordane, chlorinated 

dibenzodioxins and furans, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, 

heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclohexane, lead 

compounds, mercury compounds, methoxychlor, polychlorinated 

biphenyls, POM, toxaphene, and trifluralin. 

Since 1 or more of these PB-HAP are emitted by facilities 

in both source categories, we proceeded to the second step of 

the evaluation. In this step, we determined whether the 

facility-specific emission rates of each of the emitted PB–HAP 

were large enough to create the potential for significant noninhalation risks. To facilitate this step, we have developed 

emission rate thresholds for each PB–HAP using a hypothetical 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 54 of 185 

screening exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction 

with the EPA’s TRIM.FaTE model. The hypothetical screening 

scenario was subjected to a sensitivity analysis to ensure that 

its key design parameters were established such that 

environmental media concentrations were not underestimated 

(i.e., to minimize the occurrence of false negatives, or results 

that suggest that risks might be acceptable when, in fact, 

actual risks are high), and to also minimize the occurrence of 

false positives for human health endpoints. We call this 

application of the TRIM.FaTE model TRIM-Screen. The facilityspecific emission rates of each of the PB–HAP in each source 

category were compared to the emission threshold values for each 

of the PB–HAP identified in the source category datasets. 

For all of the facilities in the source categories 

addressed in this proposal, all of the PB-HAP emission rates 

were less than the emission threshold values. As a result of 

this, multi-pathway exposures and environmental risks were 

deemed negligible and no further analysis was performed. If the 

emission rates of the PB-HAP had been above the emission 

threshold values, the source categories would have been further 

evaluated for potential non-inhalation risks and adverse 

environmental effects in a third step through site-specific 

refined assessments using EPA’s TRIM.FaTE model. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 55 of 185 

For further information on the multi-pathway analysis 

approach, see the residual risk documentation as referenced in 

section IV.A of this preamble. 

5. Assessing Risks Considering Emissions Control Options. 

 In addition to assessing baseline inhalation risks and 

screening for potential multi-pathway risks, where appropriate, 

we also estimated risks considering the potential emission 

reductions that would be achieved by the particular control 

options under consideration. In these cases, the expected 

emissions reductions were applied to the specific HAP and 

emissions sources in the source category dataset to develop 

corresponding estimates of risk reductions. 

6. Conducting Other Risk-Related Analyses, Including FacilityWide Assessments and Demographic Analyses. 

a. Facility-Wide Risk. 

To put the source category risks in context, we also 

examined the risks from the entire “facility,” where the 

facility includes all HAP-emitting operations within a 

contiguous area and under common control. In other words, for 

each facility that includes 1 or more sources from 1 of the 

source categories under review, we examined the HAP emissions, 

not only from the source category of interest, but also 

emissions of HAP from all other emission sources at the 

facility. The emissions data for generating these “facility-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 56 of 185 

wide” risks were obtained from the 2005 NATA emissions inventory 

(available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005). We 

estimated the risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are 

emitted “facility-wide” for the populations residing within 50 

km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the 

source category analysis described above. For these facilitywide risk analyses, the modeled source category risks were 

compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of 

facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source 

categories addressed in this proposal. We specifically examined 

the facilities associated with the highest estimates of risk and 

determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the 

source category of interest. The risk documentation available 

through the docket for this action provides all the facilitywide risks and the percentage of source category contribution 

for all source categories assessed. 

The methodology and the results of the facility-wide 

analyses for each source category are included in the residual 

risk documentation as referenced in section IV.A of this 

preamble, which is available in the docket for this action. 

b. Demographic Analysis. 

To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be 

associated with each source category, we evaluated the 

distributions of HAP-related cancer and non-cancer risks across 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 57 of 185 

different social, demographic, and economic groups within the 

populations living near the facilities where these source 

categories are located. The development of demographic analyses 

to inform the consideration of EJ issues in EPA rulemakings is 

an evolving science. The EPA offers the demographic analyses in 

this rulemaking to inform the consideration of potential EJ 

issues, and invites public comment on the approaches used and 

the interpretations made from the results, with the hope that 

this will support the refinement and improve the utility of such 

analyses for future rulemakings. 

For the demographic analyses, we focus on the populations 

within 50 km of any facility estimated to have exposures to HAP 

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

non-cancer HI of 1 or greater (based on the emissions of the 

source category or the facility, respectively). We examine the 

distributions of those risks across various demographic groups, 

comparing the percentages of particular demographic groups to 

the total number of people in those demographic groups 

nationwide. The results, including other risk metrics, such as 

average risks for the exposed populations, are documented in 

source category-specific technical reports in the docket for 

both source categories covered in this proposal.24

 

24 For example, the report pertaining to the Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair (Surface Coating) Operations source category is entitled Risk 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 58 of 185 

The basis for the risk values used in these analyses were 

the modeling results based on actual emissions levels obtained 

from the HEM-3 model described above. The risk values for each 

census block were linked to a database of information from the 

2000 Decennial census that includes data on race and ethnicity, 

age distributions, poverty status, household incomes, and 

education level. The Census Department Landview®

 database was 

the source of the data on race and ethnicity, and the data on 

age distributions, poverty status, household incomes, and 

education level were obtained from the SF3 Long Form. While 

race and ethnicity census data are available at the census block 

level, the age and income census data are only available at the 

census block group level (which includes an average of 26 blocks 

or an average of 1,350 people). Where census data are available 

at the block group level but not the block level, we assumed 

that all census blocks within the block group have the same 

distribution of ages and incomes as the block group. 

For each source category, we focused on those census blocks 

where source category risk results show estimated lifetime 

inhalation cancer risks above 1-in-1 million or chronic noncancer indices above 1, and determined the relative percentage 

of different racial and ethnic groups, different age groups, 

 

and Technology Review – Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for 

Populations Living Near Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) 

Operations. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 59 of 185 

adults with and without a high school diploma, people living in 

households below the national median income, and for people 

living below the poverty line within those census blocks. The 

specific census population categories studied include: 

• Total population 

• White 

• African American (or Black) 

• Native Americans 

• Other races and multiracial 

• Hispanic or Latino 

• Children 18 years of age and under 

• Adults 19 to 64 years of age 

• Adults 65 years of age and over 

• Adults without a high school diploma 

• Households earning under the national median income 

• People living below the poverty line 

It should be noted that these categories overlap in some 

instances, resulting in some populations being counted in more 

than 1 category (e.g., other races and multiracial and 

Hispanic). In addition, while not a specific census population 

category, we also examined risks to “Minorities,” a 

classification which is defined for these purposes as all race 

population categories except white. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 60 of 185 

For further information about risks to the populations 

located near the facilities in these source categories, we also 

evaluated the estimated distribution of inhalation cancer and 

chronic non-cancer risks associated with the HAP emissions from 

all the emissions sources at the facility (i.e., facility-wide). 

This analysis used the facility-wide RTR modeling results and 

the census data described above. 

The methodology and the results of the demographic analyses 

for each source category are included in a source categoryspecific technical report for each of the categories, which are 

available in the docket for this action. 

7. Considering Uncertainties in Risk Assessment.

Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all 

risk assessments, including those performed for the source 

categories addressed in this proposal. Although uncertainty 

exists, we believe that our approach, which used conservative 

tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are healthprotective. A brief discussion of the uncertainties in the 

emissions datasets, dispersion modeling, inhalation exposure 

estimates, and dose-response relationships follows below. A 

more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is included in 

the risk assessment documentation (referenced earlier) available 

in the docket for this action. 

a. Uncertainties in the Emissions Datasets. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 61 of 185 

Although the development of the RTR datasets involved 

quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of 

emissions values will vary depending on the source of the data, 

the degree to which data are incomplete or missing, the degree 

to which assumptions made to complete the datasets are 

inaccurate, errors in estimating emissions values, and other 

factors. The emission estimates considered in this analysis 

generally are annual totals that do not reflect short-term 

fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year 

to year. Additionally, we are aware of the potential for 

emissions from curing and gluing of parts in this source 

category25 which may not be reflected in our emissions inventory. 

For example, there are no approved methods to estimate curing 

emissions, but we believe formaldehyde could be formed during 

the chemical process of curing of some coatings formulations, 

such as conversion varnishes, which are commonly used some Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations. This uncertainty could 

potentially bias the risk estimates low; however, the extent of 

this bias is unknown. We request comment on the extent to which

conversion varnishes and other wood furniture coatings covered 

by this source category (e.g., lacquers), potentially form 

 

25 Howard et al. (1998). Indoor Emissions from Conversion Varnishes. Aìr & 

Waste Management Assoc. 48:924-930. 

Deleted: 1 or both of 

Deleted: ese 

Deleted: ies

Deleted: or other aldehydes c
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 62 of 185 

formaldehyde during the chemical process of curing, and the 

resultant impact on formaldehyde emissions levels.

The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute 

effects screening assessment were based on multiplication 

factors applied to the average annual hourly emission rates (the 

default factor of 10 was used for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

(Surface Coating) and a factor of 4 was used for Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations), which are intended to account for 

emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations. 

Additionally, although we believe that we have data for most 

facilities in these 2 source categories in our RTR dataset, our 

dataset may not include data for all existing facilities. 

Moreover, there are significant uncertainties with regard to the 

identification of sources as major or area in the NEI for these 

source categories. While we published an ANPRM for Shipbuilding 

and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) and received additional data, 

we did not publish an ANPRM for Wood Furniture Manufacturing due 

to time constraints. 

b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling. 

While the analysis employed EPA’s recommended regulatory 

dispersion model, AERMOD, we recognize that there is uncertainty 

in ambient concentration estimates associated with any model, 

including AERMOD. In circumstances where we had to choose 

between various model options, where possible, model options 

Deleted: 

Deleted: Operations 

Deleted: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 63 of 185 

(e.g., rural/urban, plume depletion, chemistry) were selected to 

provide an overestimate of ambient air concentrations of the HAP 

rather than underestimates. However, because of practicality 

and data limitation reasons, some factors (e.g., meteorology, 

building downwash) have the potential in some situations to 

overestimate or underestimate ambient impacts. For example, 

meteorological data were taken from a single year (1991), and 

facility locations can be a significant distance from the site 

where these data were taken. Despite these uncertainties, we 

believe that at off-site locations and census block centroids, 

the approach considered in the dispersion modeling analysis 

should generally yield overestimates of ambient HAP 

concentrations. 

c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure. 

The effects of human mobility on exposures were not 

included in the assessment. Specifically, short-term mobility 

and long-term mobility between census blocks in the modeling 

domain were not considered.26 As a result, this simplification 

will likely bias the assessment toward overestimating the 

highest exposures. In addition, the assessment predicted the 

chronic exposures at the centroid of each populated census block 

as surrogates for the exposure concentrations for all people 

 

26 Short-term mobility is movement from one microenvironment to another 

over the course of hours or days. Long-term mobility is movement from 

one residence to another over the course of a lifetime. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 64 of 185 

living in that block. Using the census block centroid to 

predict chronic exposures tends to over-predict exposures for 

people in the census block who live further from the facility, 

and under-predict exposures for people in the census block who 

live closer to the facility. Thus, using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures may lead to a potential 

understatement or overstatement of the true maximum impact, but 

is an unbiased estimate of average risk and incidence. 

The assessments evaluate the cancer inhalation risks 

associated with continuous pollutant exposures over a 70-year 

period, which is the assumed lifetime of an individual. In 

reality, both the length of time that modeled emissions sources 

at facilities actually operate (i.e., more or less than 70 

years), and the domestic growth or decline of the modeled 

industry (i.e., the increase or decrease in the number or size 

of United States facilities), will influence the risks posed by 

a given source category. Depending on the characteristics of 

the industry, these factors will, in most cases, result in an 

overestimate both in individual risk levels and in the total 

estimated number of cancer cases. However, in rare cases, where 

a facility maintains or increases its emission levels beyond 70 

years, residents live beyond 70 years at the same location, and 

the residents spend most of their days at that location, then 

the risks could potentially be underestimated. Annual cancer 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 65 of 185 

incidence estimates from exposures to emissions from these 

sources would not be affected by uncertainty in the length of 

time emissions sources operate. 

The exposure estimates used in these analyses assume 

chronic exposures to ambient levels of pollutants. Because most 

people spend the majority of their time indoors, actual 

exposures may not be as high, depending on the characteristics 

of the pollutants modeled. For many of the HAP, indoor levels 

are roughly equivalent to ambient levels, but for very reactive 

pollutants or larger particles, these levels are typically 

lower. This factor has the potential to result in an 

overstatement of 25 to 30 percent of exposures.27 

In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there 

are several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment 

that should be highlighted. The accuracy of an acute inhalation 

exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of 

independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly 

emissions rates, meteorology, and human activity patterns. In 

this assessment, we assume that individuals remain for 1 hour at 

the point of maximum ambient concentration as determined by the 

co-occurrence of peak emissions and worst-case meteorological 

conditions. These assumptions would tend to overestimate actual 

 

27 U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996. (EPA 

453/R–01–003; January 2001; page 85.) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 66 of 185 

exposures since it is unlikely that a person would be located at 

the point of maximum exposure during the time of worst-case 

impact. 

d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships. 

There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the 

dose-response values used in our risk assessments for cancer 

effects from chronic exposures and non-cancer effects from both 

chronic and acute exposures. Some uncertainties may be 

considered quantitatively, and others generally are expressed in 

qualitative terms. We note as a preface to this discussion a 

point on dose-response uncertainty that is brought out in EPA’s 

2005 Cancer Guidelines; namely, that “the primary goal of EPA 

actions is protection of human health; accordingly, as an Agency 

policy, risk assessment procedures, including default options 

that are used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary, 

should be health protective.” (EPA 2005 Cancer Guidelines, 

pages 1–7.) This is the approach followed here as summarized in 

the next several paragraphs. A complete detailed discussion of 

uncertainties and variabilities in dose-response relationships 

is given in the residual risk documentation as referenced in 

section IV.A of this preamble, which is available in the docket 

for this action. 

Cancer URE values used in our risk assessments are those 

that have been developed to generally provide an upper bound 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 67 of 185 

estimate of risk. That is, they represent a “plausible upper 

limit to the true value of a quantity” (although this is usually 

not a true statistical confidence limit).28 In some 

circumstances, the true risk could be as low as zero; however, 

in other circumstances the risk could also be greater.29 When 

developing an upper bound estimate of risk and to provide risk 

values that do not underestimate risk, health-protective default 

approaches are generally used. To err on the side of ensuring 

adequate health-protection, EPA typically uses the upper bound 

estimates rather than lower bound or central tendency estimates 

in our risk assessments, an approach that may have limitations 

for other uses (e.g., priority-setting or expected benefits 

analysis). 

Chronic non-cancer reference (RfC and RfD) values represent 

chronic exposure levels that are intended to be healthprotective levels. Specifically, these values provide an 

estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of 

magnitude) of daily oral exposure (RfD) or of a continuous 

inhalation exposure (RfC) to the human population (including 

sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable 

risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. To derive values 

 

28 IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/help_gloss.htm). 29 An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is considered to 

cover a range of values, each end of which is considered to be equally 

plausible, and which is based on maximum likelihood estimates. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 68 of 185 

that are intended to be “without appreciable risk,” the 

methodology relies upon an UF approach (U.S. EPA, 1993, 1994) 

which includes consideration of both uncertainty and 

variability. When there are gaps in the available information, 

UF are applied to derive reference values that are intended to 

protect against appreciable risk of deleterious effects. The UF 

are commonly default values,30 e.g., factors of 10 or 3, used in 

the absence of compound-specific data; where data are available, 

UF may also be developed using compound-specific information. 

When data are limited, more assumptions are needed and more UF 

are used. Thus, there may be a greater tendency to overestimate 

risk in the sense that further study might support development 

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

fewer default assumptions are needed. However, for some 

pollutants, it is possible that risks may be underestimated. 

 

30 According to the NRC report, Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment

(NRC, 1994) “[Default] options are generic approaches, based on 

general scientific knowledge and policy judgment, that are applied to 

various elements of the risk assessment process when the correct 

scientific model is unknown or uncertain.” The 1983 NRC report, Risk 

Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, defined 

default option as “the option chosen on the basis of risk assessment 

policy that appears to be the best choice in the absence of data to 

the contrary” (NRC, 1983a, p. 63). Therefore, default options are not 

rules that bind the Agency; rather, the Agency may depart from them in 

evaluating the risks posed by a specific substance when it believes 

this to be appropriate. In keeping with EPA’s goal of protecting 

public health and the environment, default assumptions are used to 

ensure that risk to chemicals is not underestimated (although defaults 

are not intended to overtly overestimate risk). See EPA, 2004, An 

Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles and Practices, 

EPA/100/B–04/001 available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 69 of 185 

While collectively termed “UF,” these factors account for a 

number of different quantitative considerations when using 

observed animal (usually rodent) or human toxicity data in the 

development of the RfC. The UF are intended to account for: 

(1) variation in susceptibility among the members of the human 

population (i.e., inter-individual variability); (2) uncertainty 

in extrapolating from experimental animal data to humans (i.e., 

interspecies differences); (3) uncertainty in extrapolating from 

data obtained in a study with less-than-lifetime exposure (i.e., 

extrapolating from sub-chronic to chronic exposure); (4) 

uncertainty in extrapolating the observed data to obtain an 

estimate of the exposure associated with no adverse effects; and 

(5) uncertainty when the database is incomplete or there are 

problems with the applicability of available studies. Many of 

the UF used to account for variability and uncertainty in the 

development of acute reference values are quite similar to those 

developed for chronic durations, but they more often use 

individual UF values that may be less than 10. Uncertainty 

factors are applied based on chemical-specific or health effectspecific information (e.g., simple irritation effects do not 

vary appreciably between human individuals, hence a value of 3 

is typically used), or based on the purpose for the reference 

value (see the following paragraph). The UF applied in acute 

reference value derivation include: (1) Heterogeneity among 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 70 of 185 

humans; (2) uncertainty in extrapolating from animals to humans; 

(3) uncertainty in lowest observed adverse effect (exposure) 

level to no observed adverse effect (exposure) level 

adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in accounting for an incomplete 

database on toxic effects of potential concern. Additional 

adjustments are often applied to account for uncertainty in 

extrapolation from observations at 1 exposure duration (e.g., 4 

hours) to derive an acute reference value at another exposure 

duration (e.g., 1 hour). 

Not all acute reference values are developed for the same 

purpose, and care must be taken when interpreting the results of 

an acute assessment of human health effects relative to the 

reference value or values being exceeded. Where relevant to the 

estimated exposures, the lack of short-term dose-response values 

at different levels of severity should be factored into the risk 

characterization as potential uncertainties. 

Although every effort is made to identify peer-reviewed 

reference values for cancer and non-cancer effects for all 

pollutants emitted by the sources included in this assessment, 

some HAP continue to have no reference values for cancer or 

chronic non-cancer or acute effects. Since exposures to these 

pollutants cannot be included in a quantitative risk estimate, 

an understatement of risk for these pollutants at environmental 

exposure levels is possible. For a group of compounds that are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 71 of 185 

either unspeciated or do not have reference values for every 

individual compound (e.g., glycol ethers), we conservatively use 

the most protective reference value to estimate risk from 

individual compounds in the group of compounds. 

Additionally, chronic reference values for several of the 

compounds included in this assessment are currently under EPA 

IRIS review, and revised assessments may determine that these 

pollutants are more or less potent than the current value. We 

may re-evaluate residual risks for the final rulemaking if, as a 

result of these reviews, a dose-response metric changes enough 

to indicate that the risk assessment supporting this notice may 

significantly understate human health risk. 

e. Uncertainties in the Multi-Pathway and Environmental Effects 

Assessment. 

 We generally assume that when exposure levels are not 

anticipated to adversely affect human health, they also are not 

anticipated to adversely affect the environment. For each 

source category, we generally rely on the site-specific levels 

of PB-HAP emissions to determine whether a full assessment of 

the multi-pathway and environmental effects is necessary. 

Because site-specific PB-HAP emission levels were so far below 

levels which would trigger a refined assessment of multi-pathway 

impacts, we are confident that these types of impacts are 

insignificant for these source categories. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 72 of 185 

f. Uncertainties in the Facility-Wide Risk Assessment. 

Given that the same general analytical approach and the 

same models were used to generate facility-wide risk results as 

were used to generate the source category risk results, the same 

types of uncertainties discussed above for our source category 

risk assessments apply to the facility-wide risk assessments. 

Additionally, the degree of uncertainty associated with 

facility-wide emissions and risks is likely greater because we 

generally have not conducted a thorough engineering review of 

emissions data for source categories not currently undergoing an 

RTR review. 

g. Uncertainties in the Demographic Analysis. 

Our analysis of the distribution of risks across various 

demographic groups is subject to the typical uncertainties 

associated with census data (e.g., errors in filling out and 

transcribing census forms), as well as the additional 

uncertainties associated with the extrapolation of census-block 

group data (e.g., income level and education level) down to the 

census block level. 

B. How did we perform the technology review?

 Our technology review is focused on the identification and 

evaluation of “developments in practices, processes, and control 

technologies” since the promulgation of the existing MACT 

standard. If a review of available information identifies such 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 73 of 185 

developments, then we conduct an analysis of the technical 

feasibility of requiring the implementation of these 

developments, along with the impacts (costs, emission 

reductions, risk reductions, etc.). We then make a decision on 

whether it is necessary to amend the regulation to require these 

developments. 

Based on specific knowledge of each source category, we 

began by identifying known developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies. For the purpose of this exercise, we 

considered any of the following to be a “development”: 

• Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was 

not identified and considered during MACT development; 

• Any improvements in add-on control technology or other 

equipment (that was identified and considered during MACT 

development) that could result in significant additional 

emission reduction; 

• Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 

identified and considered during MACT development; and 

• Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that 

could be broadly applied that was not identified and 

considered during MACT development. 

In addition to looking back at practices, processes, or 

control technologies reviewed at the time we developed the MACT 

standards, we reviewed a variety of sources of data to aid in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 74 of 185 

our evaluation of whether there were additional practices, 

processes, or controls to consider. One of these sources of 

data was subsequent air toxics rules. Since the promulgation of 

the MACT standards for the source categories addressed in this 

proposal, EPA has developed air toxics regulations for a number 

of additional source categories. We reviewed the regulatory 

requirements and/or technical analyses associated with these 

subsequent regulatory actions to identify any practices, 

processes, and control technologies considered in these efforts 

that could possibly be applied to emission sources in the source 

categories under this current RTR review. 

We also consulted EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 

(RBLC). The terms "RACT," "BACT," and "LAER" are acronyms for 

different program requirements under the CAA provisions 

addressing the national ambient air quality standards. Control 

technologies classified as RACT, BACT, or LAER apply to 

stationary sources depending on whether the sources are existing 

or new, and on the size, age, and location of the facility. 

Best Available Control Technology and LAER (and sometimes RACT) 

are determined on a case-by-case basis, usually by state or 

local permitting agencies. EPA established the RBLC to provide 

a central database of air pollution technology information 

(including technologies required in source-specific permits) to 

promote the sharing of information among permitting agencies and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 75 of 185 

to aid in identifying future possible control technology options 

that might apply broadly to numerous sources within a category 

or apply only on a source-by-source basis. The RBLC contains 

over 5,000 air pollution control permit determinations that can 

help identify appropriate technologies to mitigate many air 

pollutant emission streams. We searched this database to 

determine whether any practices, processes, or control 

technologies are included for the types of processes used for 

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

under consideration in this proposal. 

We also requested information from industry regarding 

developments in practices, processes, or control technology. 

Finally, we reviewed other information sources, such as state or 

local permitting agency databases and industry-supported 

databases. 

V. Analyses Results and Proposed Decisions 

 This section of the preamble provides background 

information on the MACT standards and source categories, the 

results of our RTR for each source category, and our proposed 

decisions concerning the SSM provisions in each MACT standard. 

A. What are the results and proposed decisions for the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category?

1. Overview of the source category and MACT Standards. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 76 of 185 

 The National Emission Standards for Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair (Surface Coating) were promulgated on December 15, 1995 

(60 FR 64330) and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart II. The 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) MACT standards 

(i.e., Shipbuilding MACT standards) apply to shipbuilding and 

ship repair operations at any facility that is a major source of 

HAP. We estimate that there are approximately 85 shipbuilding 

and ship repair facilities currently subject to the Shipbuilding 

MACT standards. 

 The shipbuilding and ship repair industry consists of 

establishments that build, repair, repaint, convert, and alter 

ships, which are marine or fresh-water vessels used for military 

or commercial operations. In general, activities and processes 

involved in ship repair and new ship construction are relatively 

similar. Operations include fabrication of basic components 

from raw materials, welding components and parts together, 

painting and repainting, overhauls, ship conversions, and other 

alterations. Nearly all shipyards that construct new ships also 

perform ship repairs. The source category covered by this MACT 

standard only includes the surface coating operations that occur 

at these facilities during shipbuilding and ship repair. 

 Emissions of HAP from surface coating operations at 

shipbuilding and ship repair facilities result from the 

application of coatings and the use of cleaning solvents 

Deleted: Operations 

Deleted: Operations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 77 of 185 

containing HAP during ship repair and shipbuilding operations. 

To reduce HAP emissions, the Shipbuilding MACT standards limit 

the coatings that can be used to those with as-applied VOHAP 

content less than or equal to the applicable level specified in 

Table 2 of the rule. Table 2 contains as-applied VOHAP content 

limits of a variety of marine surface coatings categories, 

including a general use category and 22 specialty coatings 

categories. The Shipbuilding MACT standards also specify work 

practice standards that minimize evaporative emissions and 

spills from the handling, transfer, and storage of VOHAPcontaining materials such as organic thinning solvents and paint 

wastes. 

2. What data were used in our risk analyses?

We initially created a preliminary dataset for the source 

category using data in the 2002 NEI Final Inventory, Version 1 

(made publicly available on February 26, 2006). We reviewed the 

NEI dataset and made changes where necessary to ensure that the 

proper facilities were included and that the proper processes 

were allocated to the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating) source category. We also reviewed the emissions and 

other data to identify data anomalies that could affect risk 

estimates. On March 29, 2007, we published an ANPRM (72 FR 

29287) for the express purpose of requesting comments and 

updates to this dataset, as well as to the datasets for the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 78 of 185 

other source categories addressed in that ANPRM. Approximately 

20 comments, received in response to the ANPRM, were reviewed 

and considered, and we made adjustments to the dataset where we 

concluded the comments supported such adjustment. Adjustments 

were also made to the dataset to reflect updates made to the 

data in the 2005 NEI and to remove emissions from the dataset 

that were from sources that are not part of the Shipbuilding and 

Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category, as determined 

through further engineering review. Based on the data 

collection and review process, we developed model input files to 

be used in the risk analysis for 71 facilities. As mentioned 

previously, there are a total of approximately 85 facilities 

subject to the Shipbuilding MACT standards. Therefore, we 

developed model input files for about 84 percent of the total 

facilities. 

Nevertheless, after the adjustments described above were 

made to the dataset, approximately 40 facilities included in our 

list of 85 facilities still had some missing or incomplete HAP 

emissions data, based on NEI and EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory 

searches. Thus, a HAP profile was developed to populate the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) dataset with 

representative data for these 40 facilities, using several 

assumptions and decisions. For more information see memorandum 

Memoranda Documenting Changes to the RTR Dataset for the 

Deleted: Operations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 79 of 185 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) Source Category, 

dated November 22, 2010, which includes the memorandum Default 

Emissions Assumptions for Shipbuilding RTR Dataset. For 

facilities that provided VOC emissions data, but did not provide 

HAP emissions data, we speciated the VOC emissions into specific 

HAP emissions, making the worst-case assumption that all the VOC 

were HAP. The HAP profile we developed and applied to the VOC 

emissions for these facilities was based on the top 3 solvents 

reported by the other facilities in the source category, which 

accounted for more than 90 percent of the total HAP emissions at 

those facilities. This HAP speciation profile was: xylene (all 

isomers) – 78 percent; ethyl benzene – 15 percent; and toluene – 

7 percent. 

There were also several facilities subject to the 

Shipbuilding MACT standards with no available emissions data, 

and we decided to assign them to 1 of 2 possible categories 

based on available information from company websites, operating 

permits, previous MACT project information, or similar 

facilities. The first category included facilities that emitted 

greater than or equal to 25 TPY of total HAP. The second 

category included facilities that emitted less than 25 TPY. 

Based on a small number of available operating permits and 

industry information collected for the original MACT rule, we 

determined which facilities belonged in each category. We then 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 80 of 185 

used the available emissions data reported for those facilities 

to calculate average total HAP emissions for each source type. 

The average HAP emissions level for facilities in the first 

category was estimated to be about 25 TPY, and the average HAP 

emissions level for facilities in the second category was 

estimated to be 7 TPY. Thus, facilities in the first category 

with no emissions data were assigned emissions of 25 tons total 

HAP per year, and facilities in the second category with no 

emissions data were assigned emissions of 7 tons total HAP per 

year. The same default HAP solvent profile discussed above was 

used to speciate the HAP emissions for these facilities. For a 

more complete description of the default assumptions used to 

populate the dataset, see Default Emissions Assumptions for 

Shipbuilding RTR Dataset memorandum, dated August 30, 2010, 

which is available in the docket for this action. These updated 

data were used to conduct the risk assessments and other 

analyses that form the basis for this proposed action. 

 Mixed xylenes and ethyl benzene account for the majority of 

the HAP emissions from the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating) source category (approximately 855 TPY, or 90 percent 

of the total HAP emissions by mass). These estimates are based 

on actual reported emissions data. These facilities also 

reported relatively small emissions of 33 other HAP. For more 

detail, see the memorandum in the docket for this action 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 81 of 185 

describing the risk assessment inputs and models for the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category. 

 We estimate that MACT-allowable emissions from this source 

category could be up to 2 times greater than the actual 

emissions for some types of coatings, based on information 

obtained for the highest usage coating categories at several 

major source facilities. However, we do not have facilityspecific information for all facilities or all coatings, and we 

request comment on this estimate. For more detail about how 

this estimate of the ratio of actual to MACT-allowable emissions 

was derived, see the Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

(MACT) Allowable Emission Estimates memorandum, dated August 5, 

2010, in the docket for this action describing the estimation of 

MACT-allowable emission levels and associated risks and impacts. 

 For the “facility-wide” risk analysis, facility-specific 

emissions data from the 2005 NEI were used. 

3. What are the results of the risk assessments and analyses?

 We conducted an inhalation risk assessment for the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category. 

We also conducted an assessment of facility-wide risk and 

performed a demographic analysis of population risks. Details 

of the risk assessments and analyses can be found in the 

residual risk documentation referenced in section IV.A of this 

preamble, which is available in the docket for this action. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 82 of 185 

a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results. 

 Table A.1 provides an overall summary of the results of the 

inhalation risk assessment. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 83 of 185 

Table A.1. Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) 

Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 

Number of 

Facilities1

Maximum 

Individual 

Cancer Risk 

(in 1 million)2 Estimated 

Population 

at Risk ≥ 1-

in-1 Million

Estimated 

Annual 

Cancer 

Incidence 

(cases 

per year)

Maximum 

Chronic Non-cancer 

TOSHI3 Maximum Offsite Acute 

Non-cancer 

HQ4

Actual 

Emissions 

Level 

Allowable 

Emissions 

Level 

Actual 

Emissions 

Level

Allowable 

Emissions 

Level

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

glycol ethers 1

 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 

2

 Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 

3

 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category is the 

reproductive system. 

4

 The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by 

available short-term dose-response values to develop an array of HQ 

values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute dose-response 

value, which, in most cases, is the REL. See section IV.A of this 

preamble for explanation of acute dose-response values. 

 As shown in Table A.1, the results of the inhalation risk 

assessment performed using actual emissions data indicate the 

maximum lifetime individual cancer risk could be as high as 10-

in-1 million, due to ethyl benzene emissions; the maximum 

chronic non-cancer TOSHI value could be as high as 0.5, due to 

mixed xylenes emissions; and the maximum off-site acute HQ value 

could be as high as 0.1, based on the REL value for glycol 

ethers. The total estimated cancer incidence from these 

facilities based on actual emission levels is 0.003 excess 

cancer cases per year, or 1 in every 333 years. 

 As explained above, our analysis of potential differences 

between actual emission levels and emissions allowable under the 

Shipbuilding MACT standards indicate that MACT-allowable 

Deleted: Operations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 84 of 185 

emission levels may be up to 2 times greater than actual 

emission levels. Considering this difference, the risk results 

from the inhalation risk assessment indicate the maximum 

lifetime individual cancer risk could be as high as 20-in-1 

million, and the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value could be 

as high as 1 at the MACT-allowable emissions level. 

b. Facility-wide Risk Assessment Results. 

 A facility-wide risk analysis was also conducted based on 

actual emissions levels. Table A.2 displays the results of the 

facility-wide risk assessment. For detailed facility-specific 

results, see Table 2 of Appendix 6 of the “Draft Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating) Source Category in the docket for this rulemaking. 

Table A.2. Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) 

Facility-Wide Risk Assessment Results

Number of facilities analyzed 85 

Cancer Risk 

Estimated maximum facility-wide individual 

cancer risk (in 1 million) 200 

Number of facilities with estimated facilitywide individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 

million or more 

4 

Number of shipbuilding and ship repair 

(surface coating) contributing 50 percent or 

more to facility-wide individual cancer risk 

of 100-in-1 million or more

0 

Number of facilities with facility-wide 

individual cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or 

more 

41 

Number of shipbuilding and ship repair 

(surface coating) contributing 50 percent or 

more to facility-wide individual cancer risk 

of 1-in-1 million or more

15 

Deleted: Operations 

Deleted: operations 

Deleted: operations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 85 of 185 

Chronic 

Non-cancer 

Risk

Maximum facility-wide chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI 10 

Number of facilities with facility-wide 

maximum non-cancer TOSHI between 1 and 10 9 

Number of shipbuilding and ship repair 

(surface coating) contributing 50 percent or 

more to facility-wide maximum non-cancer 

TOSHI of 1 or more

0 

 The maximum individual cancer risk from all HAP emissions 

at any facility that contains sources subject to the 

Shipbuilding MACT standards is estimated to be 200-in-1 million 

based on actual emissions. Of the 85 facilities included in 

this analysis, 4 have facility-wide maximum individual cancer 

risks of 100-in-1 million or greater. At these facilities, 

shipbuilding and ship repair (surface coating) account for 1 

percent of the total facility-wide risk. There are 41 

facilities with facility-wide maximum individual cancer risks of 

1-in-1 million or greater. Of these 41 facilities, 15 have 

shipbuilding and ship repair (surface coating) operations that 

contribute greater than 50 percent to the facility-wide risks. 

The facility-wide cancer risks at these 41 facilities, and at 

the 4 facilities with risks of 100-in-a million or more, are 

primarily driven by emissions of hexavalent chromium from 

welding and abrasive blasting operations. However, we note that 

there are uncertainties in the amount and form of chromium 

emitted from these facilities. For many of the facilities, the 

emissions inventory used for the risk assessment included 

Deleted: of 1 or more

Deleted: operations 

Deleted: operations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 86 of 185 

estimates for the 2 main forms of chromium (i.e., hexavalent and 

trivalent chromium). However, for other facilities, we only had 

estimates of total chromium emitted. For those facilities, we 

applied a default assumption that 34 percent of the total 

chromium emissions were hexavalent and 66 percent were trivalent 

chromium31, which is based on the best judgment of EPA staff and 

based on limited speciation data for 5 categories, (name 

categories). Although, hexavalent chromium is toxic and is a 

known human carcinogen, trivalent chromium is less toxic and is 

currently “not classified as to its human carcinogenicity.” 

Therefore, the relative emissions of these 2 forms can have a 

significant effect on the cancer risk estimates. [Seek comment 

on the distribution.]

 The facility-wide maximum individual chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI is estimated to be 10 based on actual emissions. Of the 

85 facilities included in this analysis, 9 have facility-wide 

maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI values between 1 and 10. Of 

these 9 facilities, none had shipbuilding and ship repair 

(surface coating) operations that contributed greater than 50 

percent to these facility-wide risks. The chronic non-cancer 

risks at these 9 facilities are primarily driven by manganese 

emissions from welding and abrasive blasting operations. 

c. Demographic Risk Analysis Results. 

 

31 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/nettables.pdf

Deleted: .
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 87 of 185 

 The results of the demographic analyses performed to 

investigate the distribution of cancer risks at or above 1-in-1 

million among the surrounding population are summarized in Table 

A.3 below. These results, for various demographic groups, are 

based on actual emissions levels for the population living 

within 50 km of the facilities. 

Table A.3. Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Demographic Risk 

Analysis Results 

Nationwide 

Population with cancer risk greater than 

1 in a million due to.... 

Source Category HAP 

emissions 

Facility-wide HAP 

emissions 

Total 

population 

285,000,000 4,000 392,000 

Race by percent

White 75 54 71 

All Other Races 25 46 29 

Race by percent

White 75 54 71 

African 

American 12 42 20 

Native American 0.9 0.4 0.6 

Other and 

Multiracial 12 4 8 

Ethnicity by percent

Hispanic 14 3 9 

Non-Hispanic 86 97 91 

Income by percent

Below poverty

level 13 24 16 

Above poverty

level 87 76 84 

Education by percent

Over 25 and 

without high 

school diploma 

13 15 13 

Over 25 and 

with a high 

school diploma 

87 85 87 

 The results of the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Deleted: Operations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 88 of 185 

Coating) source category demographic analysis indicate that 

there are approximately 4,000 people exposed to a cancer risk 

greater than 1-in-1 million due to emissions from the source 

category. Of this population, an estimated 46 percent can be 

classified as a minority (listed as “All Other Races in the 

table above), including 42 percent in the “African American” 

demographic group. Of the 4,000 people with estimated cancer 

risks above 1-in-1-million from the source category, 24 percent 

are in the “Below Poverty” demographic group, and 15 percent are 

in the “Over 25 Without High School Diploma” demographic group, 

results which are 11 and 2 percentage points higher, 

respectively, than the African American respective percentages 

for these demographic groups across the United States. The 

percentages for the other demographic groups are lower than 

their respective nationwide percentages. The table also shows 

that there are approximately 392,000 people exposed to an 

estimated cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million due to 

facility-wide emissions. Of this population, an estimated 29 

percent can be classified as a minority, including 20 percent in 

the “African American” demographic group. Of the 392,000 with 

estimated cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million from the 

source category, 16 percent are in the “Below Poverty” 

demographic group, a result which is 3 percentage points higher 

than the respective percentage for this demographic group across

Deleted: ”

Deleted: . These percentages all 

appear to be somewhat 

Deleted: 

Deleted: t
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 89 of 185 

the United States. The percentages for the other demographic 

groups are equal to, or lower than their respective nationwide 

percentages. 

4. What are our proposed decisions on risk acceptability and 

ample margin of safety?

a. Risk Acceptability.

 As noted in section III.B of this preamble, we weigh all 

health risk factors and measures in our risk acceptability 

determination, including cancer risks to the individual most 

exposed, risk estimation uncertainty, and other health 

information. For the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating) source category, the risk analysis we performed 

indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed 

could be as high as 10-in-1 million due to actual emissions and 

as high as 20-in-1 million due to MACT-allowable emissions. 

These risks are considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which 

is the presumptive limit of acceptability. The risk analysis 

also shows low cancer incidence (1 case in every 333 years), no 

potential for adverse environmental effects or human health 

multi-pathway effects, and that chronic and acute non-cancer 

health impacts are unlikely. While our additional analysis of 

facility-wide risks showed that there are 4 facilities with 

maximum facility-wide cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or greater 

and 9 facilities with a maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI between 

Deleted: t

Deleted: results of the facility-wide 

demographic analysis indicate that 

the percentages are somewhat higher 

than nationwide percentages for 

those who could be classified as a 

“Minority,” and for those included 

in the “African American,” and 

“Below Poverty” demographic groups, 

whereas the percentages are lower 

for the “Other and Multiracial” and 

“Hispanic” demographic groups. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 90 of 185 

1 and 10, it also showed that shipbuilding and ship repair 

(surface coating) operations did not drive these risks. Our 

additional analysis of the demographics of the exposed 

population indicates that disparities in risks between 

demographic groups may exist; however, the number of people 

exposed to cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater due to 

emissions from the source category is relatively low (4,000). 

Considering these factors and the uncertainties discussed in 

section IV.A.7 of this preamble, we propose that the risks from 

the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source 

category are acceptable. 

b. Ample Margin of Safety.

 Although we are proposing that the risks from the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category 

are acceptable, risk estimates for 4,000 individuals in the 

exposed population are above 1-in-1 million. Consequently, we 

considered whether the MACT standard provides an ample margin of 

safety. In this analysis, we investigated available emissions 

control options that might reduce the risk associated with 

emissions from the source category and considered this 

information along with all of the health risks and other health 

information considered in the risk acceptability determination. 

 One option we considered was to require the use of marine 

coatings with lower overall HAP content or lower toxicity HAP 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 91 of 185 

content. However, data regarding the availability, use, 

performance, and emissions associated with the use of any such 

marine coatings are not available. We are soliciting comment on 

the availability of such coatings and any issues related to the 

use and performance of those coatings. 

 We also considered requiring the enclosure of some or all 

of the coating operations and requiring emissions to be routed 

to a control device, such as a regenerative thermal oxidizer. 

However, because these facilities repair and repaint ships, as 

well as perform new construction painting operations, any 

enclosures would need to be large enough to accommodate the 

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

time. We determined that this is not practicable or technically 

feasible in many cases, would not be cost-effective, and we are 

not aware of any facility using an enclosure of this size. 

Additional information on the feasibility and costs of controls 

is discussed in the Technology Review section (section 5) of 

this preamble and in the memorandum Cost Analyses for Add-on 

Controls for Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair Facilities, dated September 2, 2010, in the docket for 

this action. 

 In accordance with the approach established in the Benzene 

NESHAP, EPA weighed all health risk measures and information 

considered in the risk acceptability determination, along with 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 92 of 185 

the costs and economic impacts of emissions controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties, and other relevant 

factors, in making our ample margin of safety determination. 

Considering the health risk information, the uncertainty and 

lack of data associated with 1 potential risk reduction option 

identified, and the technological infeasibility of the other 

option identified, we propose that the existing MACT standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. 

Thus, we are proposing to re-adopt the existing MACT standards 

to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA. 

 While we are proposing that the emissions covered by the 

Shipbuilding MACT standards provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health, the Agency is concerned about the 

estimated facility-wide risks identified through these screening 

analyses. As described previously, the estimated cancer risks 

are due to emissions of chromium compounds and are largely 

dependent on the estimates of the fraction of total chromium 

that is in the hexavalent form. Welding and abrasive blasting 

operations that occur during shipbuilding and ship repair are 

sources of HAP at these major source facilities, and could 

involve different types of metals (welding) and minerals 

(abrasive blasting and welding). We, therefore, intend to list 

welding and blasting operations that occur at shipbuilding and 

ship repair facilities as a major source category. However, we 

Deleted: 

Deleted: T

Deleted: , we 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 93 of 185 

first need additional information on the HAP emitted by these 

activities and whether there are other HAP-emitting activities 

at these facilities that are currently not covered by this MACT 

or another MACT. Once we have this information, we will be in a 

better position to identify the appropriate scope of the major 

source category to be listed. Other sources of emissions at 

these facilities include surface coating of offshore oil and gas 

well drilling and production platforms, which are not included 

in this source category or covered by the MACT standards, but 

are subject to the limitations of EPA’s federal rule on 

Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings. 

5. What are the results and proposed decisions from the 

technology review? [include discussion of chromium and intention 

to list here?]

We evaluated developments in practices, processes, and 

control technologies potentially applicable to the Shipbuilding 

and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category. This 

included a search of the RBLC Clearinghouse, the California BACT 

Clearinghouse, the Internet, and correspondence with state 

agencies and industry. We found an advance in add-on control 

technology since the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair MACT standards 

were originally developed in 1995, and we have determined that 

there are more stringent VOC-based coating limits for certain 

Deleted: We solicit additional 

information on the emissions from 

these activities, which will enable 

EPA to conduct additional analyses 

to inform a decision on the best 

approach to take to address these 

emissions after they are listed. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 94 of 185 

marine coating categories for shipbuilding and ship repair 

facilities in some areas of California. 

 We identified an add-on control device, a concentrator/RTO, 

recently installed (2009) at 1 shipbuilding and ship repair 

facility in California. The control device consisted of rotary 

concentrators followed by RTOs on 5 large, custom-built spray 

booths to control volatile organic emissions from some of the 

coating operations. The system is capable of achieving 95 

percent control efficiency for the volatile HAP emissions 

captured by the spray booths (which are estimated to capture 90 

percent of the HAP emissions). For this type of add-on control 

to be effective, a facility must perform regular or continuous 

modular (ship sections or components) coating operations, a 

process that is normally performed at large shipyards during new 

ship construction. Due to the size of the booths required to 

handle large ship modules, a facility would also require a large 

physical land space to build or retrofit the spray booths. Such 

spray booths must be located near the final ship assembly area 

(e.g., drydock or graving dock) to facilitate the logistics of 

moving the ship modules into place and attaching them to other 

modules. Large coating booths would not be effective at 

shipyards that perform repairs on finished vessels or during 

dockside coating, since only a small amount of the total coating 

could be applied in such spray booths. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 95 of 185 

 Nationwide, based on recently awarded contracts for new 

ship construction, we estimate that fewer than 20 facilities 

have significant new ship construction business, are large 

enough to adopt this type of technology, and are able to 

retrofit existing spray booths. We estimate cost-effectiveness 

of the concentrator/RTO system to be $305,000 per ton of HAP, 

with an estimated industry-wide emission reduction of 48 tons of 

HAP per year (if installed at the approximately 20 facilities 

large enough to use the technology). Based on facility level 

sales, we determined that this option is not affordable. The 

cost as a percent of revenues was estimated to be 42 percent or 

greater. Additional information on the affordability of 

controls is discussed in the memorandum Affordability of Add-on 

Controls for Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair Facilities, dated October 28, 2010, in the docket for 

this action. The large add-on controls also require a 

substantial amount of fuel, which produces NOx emissions, a 

byproduct of combustion. The extra fuel use and emissions of NOX

would be negative consequences of the use of such add-on 

controls. Moreover, we believe the costs of these controls 

would be disproportionate to the emission reduction that would 

be achieved. Thus, we are proposing that it is not necessary to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 96 of 185 

revise the existing MACT standards to require this technology 

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

 In our review of developments in practices, processes, and 

control technologies, we also identified 4 California air 

quality districts that have adopted more stringent VOC marine 

coating emission limits than those specified in the 1995 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) MACT Standard. 

Based on information from major source facilities, when the 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair MACT standards were originally 

developed, the relationship between VOC content and VOHAP 

content in marine coatings was approximately 3:1, where 

approximately 30 percent of all solvents used for painting and 

thinning were HAP solvents. For more information on the 

relationship between VOC and VOHAP, see the Background 

Information Document for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

(Surface Coating) Operations proposed rule, dated February, 

1994. However, we note that the California limits are not 

uniformly applied across each coating category or in each of the 

4 districts. Furthermore, the 1995 MACT standard includes cold 

weather volatile organic HAP limits such that, if the 

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

applied and the source needs to thin that coating beyond the 

applicable VOHAP limit, the applicable cold-weather VOHAP limit 

may be used. Since the California limits do not have similar 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 97 of 185 

allowances for cold weather, and California generally has a more 

temperate climate than many parts of the country, the ability to 

apply coatings effectively could be compromised in areas of the 

country with colder climates if the more stringent California 

limits were required nationwide. We currently do not have data 

to determine whether these lower-VOC content coatings could be 

applied nationwide. Considering the technical feasibility 

uncertainties associated with the use of lower-HAP coatings, we 

are proposing that it is not necessary to revise the existing 

MACT standards to require lower-HAP coatings pursuant to section 

112(d)(6) of the CAA. However, we solicit comment and data on 

low-HAP marine coatings that may be available for use at these 

facilities and that could be applied at facilities nationwide. 

6. What other actions are we proposing? 

We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in 

the Shipbuilding (Surface Coating) MACT Standards. Consistent 

with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA is proposing standards in this rule 

that apply at all times. We are proposing several revisions to 

subpart II. Specifically, we are proposing to revise Table 1 to 

indicate that the requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) of the 

General Provisions do not apply, including at facilities 

complying with the standards by using an add-on control device. 

The 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) requires owners or operators to act 

according to the general duty to “operate and maintain any 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 98 of 185 

affected source, including associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with 

safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 

emissions.” We are separately proposing to incorporate this 

general duty to minimize into 40 CFR 63.783(b)(1). The 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(3) requires the owner or operator of an affected source 

to develop a written SSM plan. We are proposing to remove the 

SSM plan requirement. We are also proposing to: (1) add 40 CFR 

63.786(e) to specify the conditions for performance tests; (2) 

revise the SSM-associated reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.788 to require reporting and 

recordkeeping for periods of malfunction; (3) revise Table 1 to 

specify that 40 CFR 63.6 (e)(1)(i) and (ii), 63.6(e)(3), 

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

and the last sentence of 63.8(d)(3); 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i),(ii), 

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

63.10(d)(5) of the General Provisions do not apply. In 

addition, as explained above, we are proposing to add an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of 

emission limits caused by malfunctions, as well as criteria for 

establishing the affirmative defense. 

 EPA has attempted to ensure that we have neither overlooked 

and failed to propose to remove from the existing text any 

provisions that are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 99 of 185 

the absence of the SSM exemption, nor included any such 

provisions in the proposed new regulatory language. We are 

specifically seeking comment on whether there are any such 

provisions that we have inadvertently overlooked or 

incorporated. 

B. What are the results and proposed decisions for the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category? 

1. Overview of the source category and MACT Standard.

 The National Emission Standards for Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations were promulgated on December 7, 1995 

(60 FR 62930) and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ. The 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT standards (i.e., 

Wood Furniture MACT standards) apply to wood furniture 

manufacturing operations at any facility that is a major source 

of HAP. We estimate that there are approximately 406 wood 

furniture manufacturing facilities subject to the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations MACT standards. In some instances, 

wood furniture manufacturing operations may be located at 

facilities that also have operations regulated by the NESHAP for 

Surface Coating of Metal Furniture (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

RRRR), the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Wood Building Products 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ), or NESHAP for Plywood and 

Composite Wood Products (Subpart DDDD). 

The Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 100 of 185 

includes operations related to the production of a range of wood 

products, including wood kitchen cabinets, wood residential 

furniture, upholstered residential and office furniture, wood 

office furniture and fixtures, partitions, shelving, lockers, 

and other wood furniture not included in one of the other 

categories listed above. 

Finishing, gluing, cleaning, and wash-off operations are 

processes that take place during wood furniture manufacturing 

that result in VHAP emissions, and are regulated by the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT standards. 

Finishing materials include, but are not limited to stains, 

basecoats, washcoats, sealers, enamels, and topcoats. All of 

these finishing materials may contain VHAP that would be emitted 

during application. After a finishing material is applied, the 

wood substrate typically enters a flash-off area where the more 

volatile solvents in the finishing materials (including VHAP) 

evaporate, and the finishing material begins to cure. Then, the 

wood substrate enters an oven where curing of the finishing 

material and evaporation of the volatile solvents continues. 

The only gluing operations that occur at wood furniture 

manufacturing facilities that are part of the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations source category are contact adhesives. 

Cleaning activities include the use of solvents to dissolve 

resins into the coating mix and to remove dried coatings. These 

Deleted: 1
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 101 of 185 

industrial solvents sometimes contain VHAP which evaporate when 

the solvent is exposed to the air and subsequently discharged to 

the atmosphere via ventilation air. 

 To meet the requirements of the Wood Furniture MACT 

Standards, facilities typically use compliant coatings, 

finishing materials that meet the individual VHAP content 

requirements by material type, and work practice standards. 

Work practice standards include inspection and maintenance plans 

to prevent leaks, as well as using covers on tanks. 

 Another option, installing destructive control devices such 

as thermal oxidizers, is allowed by the Wood Furniture MACT 

standards as an alternative to using compliant coatings, but is 

not often used by the industry. For more information see 

memorandum Developments in Practices, Processes, and Control 

Technologies for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations,

dated August 24, 2010. 

2. What data were used in our risk analyses? 

 For the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source 

category, we compiled preliminary datasets using data in the 

2005 NEI. We reviewed and verified these data and made changes 

where necessary. In this review and verification process, we 

contacted several facilities to verify existing information on 

emissions of several different pollutants, including speciated 

glycol ether emissions, as reported in the NEI. We obtained 

Formatted: Underline
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 102 of 185 

updated emissions data and process information (generally 2008 

or 2009 data), found that some plants had closed, and that 

others no longer manufacture wood furniture. For more detail, 

see the memorandum Wood Furniture Manufacturing – Updated Data 

for Modeling File, dated June 8, 2010, in the docket for this 

action. 

 In addition to contacting individual facilities, we 

consulted with 4 trade associations that are heavily involved in 

wood furniture manufacturing operations. We asked KCMA, the 

AHFA, the BIFMA, and the ACA to verify existing information in 

the NEI database. Specifically, we asked the trade associations 

to verify addresses, operational status (i.e., operational or 

shut down), and whether the facilities belonged in the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing source category. With their assistance, 

we were able to update the facility status for another 85 

facilities. For more detail, see the memo Review and

Verification of Wood Furniture Facilities in NEI Database, dated 

October 22, 2010, in the docket for this action. 

 A speciation profile was created and applied to the 

generically-reported glycol ethers in the NEI data set. A total 

of 66 wood furniture manufacturing facilities in the RTR dataset 

reported generic glycol ethers that totaled 70 TPY. For more 

information about glycol ethers and the glycol ether speciation 

profile, see the memorandum Review of Glycol Ether Emissions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 103 of 185 

Associated with Wood Furniture Manufacturing Source Category, 

dated October 22, 2010, in the docket for this action. 

 This updated dataset was used to conduct the risk 

assessments and other analyses that form the basis for this 

proposed action. Toluene and mixed xylenes account for the 

majority of the VHAP emissions from the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations source category (approximately 3,500 

TPY and 62 percent of the total VHAP emissions by mass). Lower 

levels of emissions of 68 other VHAP were also reported from 

facilities in the source category. For more detail, see the 

memorandum Wood Furniture Manufacturing – Updates for Modeling 

File, dated June 8, 2010, in the docket for this action 

describing the risk assessment inputs and models for the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category. 

 We estimate that MACT-allowable emissions from this source 

category could be up to 2 times greater than the actual 

emissions, as the compliant coatings used typically have lower 

VHAP content than required by the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Standards to allow for operational and market variability. 

However, we do not have facility-specific information for all 

facilities or all coatings, and we request comment on this 

estimate. For more detail about how this estimated ratio of 

actual-to-MACT-allowable emissions estimate, see the memorandum 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Allowable Emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 104 of 185 

Estimates, dated September 9, 2010, in the docket for this 

action describing the estimation of MACT-allowable emission 

levels and associated risks and impacts. 

3. What are the results of the risk assessments and analyses?

 We have conducted an inhalation risk assessment for the 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category. We 

have also conducted an assessment of facility-wide risks and 

performed a demographic analysis of population risks. Details 

of the risk assessments and analyses can be found in the 

residual risk documentation referenced in section IV.A of this 

preamble, which is available in the docket for this action. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 105 of 185 

a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results.

 Table B.1 provides an overall summary of the inhalation 

risk assessment results for the source category. 

Table B.1. Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations Inhalation 

Risk Assessment Results 

Number of 

Facilities1

Maximum 

individual 

cancer risk 

(in 1 million)2

Estimated 

Population 

at risk ≥

1-in-1 

million 

Estimated 

Annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases 

per year)

Maximum 

chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI3

Maximum offsite acute noncancer HQ4

Actual 

Emissions 

Level 

Allowable 

Emissions 

Level

Actual 

Emissions 

Level

Allowable 

Emissions 

Level

385 20 40 20,000 0.005 0.4 0.8 

HQREL = 10 

(propyl 

cellosolve)5

HQREL = 7 

(formaldehyde) 

 HQAEGL-1= 0.35 

(formaldehyde) 

HQREL = 2 

(toluene) 

HQERPG-1 = 0.35 

(toluene) 

HQAEGL-1 = 0.09 

(toluene) 1

 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 

2

 Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 

3

 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category is the nervous system. 

4

 The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available 

short-term dose-response values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values 

shown use the lowest available acute dose-response value, which in most cases 

is the REL. Note that the REL for EGME was used to evaluate propyl 

cellosolve. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next 

lowest available acute dose-response value. See section IV.A of this 

preamble for explanation of acute dose-response values. 

5 Note the HQ value for propyl cellosolve is the maximum acute pollutant HQ of 

all speciated glycol ethers modeled. The REL for EGME was used to evaluate 

propyl cellosolve and all speciated glycol ethers that do not have an acute 

dose response value. There are no AEGL or ERPG values available for glycol 

ethers to aid in further interpretation of potential acute risks.

 

 The inhalation risk modeling was performed using actual 

emissions data. As shown in Table B.1, the results of the 

inhalation risk assessment indicate the maximum lifetime 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 106 of 185 

individual cancer risk could be as high as 20-in-1 million due 

to emissions of formaldehyde. The total estimated cancer 

incidence due to actual emissions from the source category is 

0.005 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case in every 200 

years. The maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value could be up 

to 0.4, due to emissions of hexane; and the maximum acute HQ 

value could be up to 10 for propyl cellosolve with propyl 

cellosolve representing the maximum acute HQ among all the 

speciated glycol ethers using the REL value for EGME as a 

surrogate. We estimate that emissions of glycol ethers (mainly 

propyl cellosolve) from 8 facilities (or about 2 percent of the 

total facilities) result in maximum acute HQs greater than 1. 

Additionally, the maximum acute HQ for formaldehyde could be up 

to 7 based on the REL value for formaldehyde. We estimate that 

emissions of formaldehyde from 11 facilities (about 3 percent of 

the total facilities) result in maximum acute HQs between 1 and 

7 (the actual maximum HQ values for these 11 facilities are 7,

7, 6, 6, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2). The maximum acute level of 

formaldehyde did not exceed the 1 hour AEGL-1 for formaldehyde; 

the estimated maximum HQ using the AEGL-1 was 0.35. We also 

identified 1 facility with a potential to exceed the acute REL 

for toluene (with a maximum estimated acute HQREL of 2, a maximum 

estimated acute HQAEGL-1 of 0.09, and a maximum estimated acute 

HQERPG-1 of 0.35.). It is important to note, as described earlier 

Deleted: as high as 

Deleted: as high as 

Deleted: as high as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 107 of 185 

in this preamble, the acute assessment includes multiple 

conservative assumptions. For example, the modeling approach 

assumes that peak emissions occur at the same time as worst case 

1 hour meteorology and that a person is located directly 

downwind at that time. Moreover, for glycol ethers, we used the 

lowest acute REL of any of the glycol ethers with such health 

values (i.e., EGME) to assess the other glycol ethers without 

such values. There are no AEGL or ERPG values available for any 

glycol ethers; this limits our ability to further interpret the 

potential acute impacts of propyl cellosolve. Nonetheless, 

overall, we believe it is unlikely that HAP emissions from this 

source category pose significant acute health risks. 

Nevertheless, we are seeking comments and data to refine the 

risk assessment and resolve some of the uncertainties that led 

to the use of some of the conservative assumptions. Some of the 

specific information and data that we are seeking are described 

below. 

 As explained above, our analysis of potential differences 

between actual emission levels and emissions allowable under the 

MACT standards indicates that MACT-allowable emission levels may 

be up to 2 times greater than actual emission levels. 

Considering this difference, the risk results from the 

inhalation risk assessment indicate the maximum lifetime 

individual cancer risk could be as high as 40-in-1 million, and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 108 of 185 

the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.8 at 

the MACT-allowable emissions level. 

 The risk assessment for chronic non-cancer risks was 

performed consistent with the approach taken in previous risk 

and technology review for other source categories, i.e., we used 

our existing hierarchy of reference values (EPA 1999 – Residual 

Risk Report to Congress), which favors the use of an IRIS value 

when available, and favors using values which have been 

developed and peer-reviewed using processes similar to the IRIS 

process under the sponsorship of a state or federal government 

agency, the documentation of which can be easily accessed by the 

public (such as those from ATSDR or the California EPA) when 

IRIS values are not available. The use of a surrogate reference 

value for chemicals in a chemical group (e.g., glycol ethers) is 

part of this approach when specific chemicals in the group do 

not have available reference values, and/or emissions are 

reported generically for the chemical group and not specific 

chemicals. In this case, the IRIS RfC for ethylene glycol 

monomethyl ether (EGME) is the lowest (i.e., most health 

protective) of the available reference values for glycol ethers 

from our hierarchy of reference values. Using the surrogate 

approach described above, the maximum chronic non-cancer Target 

Organ-Specific Hazard Index (HI) for the source category could 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 109 of 185 

be as high as 0.4 (based on actual emissions) and 0.8 (based on 

allowable emissions), with emissions of n-hexane dominating. 

 In reviewing data sources for this residual risk 

assessment, we identified a Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity 

Value (PPRTV) for assessing chronic noncancer health risks from 

inhalation of DGBE, which is emitted in non-trivial quantities 

by some facilities in this source category. Provisional Peer 

Reviewed Toxicity Values are reference values, developed by EPA 

for use specifically in EPA’s Superfund Program when an 

acceptable reference value, such as those found in EPA’s IRIS 

database, is not otherwise available. 

 The DGBE PPRTV was prepared for EPA’s Superfund Program in 

2009. Inhalation toxicity information for DGBE is essentially 

limited to the results of a single 5-week study in rats (Gushow 

et al., 1984), which resulted in slight vacuolization of the 

liver cells consistent with fatty change. An uncertainty factor 

of 3000 was applied in deriving the PPRTV, and confidence in the 

provisional RfC (p-RfC) value is low. 

 Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values differ from IRIS 

values in that PPRTVs do not receive the multiprogram review 

provided for IRIS values. As stated in the DGBE PPRTV document, 

this is because “...IRIS values are generally intended to be used 

in all U.S. EPA programs, while PPRTVs are developed 

specifically for the Superfund Program.” The EPA’s Superfund 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 110 of 185 

Program uses PPRTVs in conjunction with assessments to support 

site-specific clean-up decisions. PPRTVs are applied to high 

quality exposure data developed for each Superfund site using 

measurements of the specific chemical for which the PPRTV was 

developed. Each final cleanup decision, as memorialized in a 

Record of Decision, is subject to public notice and comment, and 

it is at this stage of the process that a public review of how a 

PPRTV was used in that site-specific context may occur, which 

may include consideration of comments on the development of the 

PPRTV itself (i.e., the PPRTV development document is not 

explicitly the subject of a separate public review or comment 

period). The current process for development of the reference 

values used to support today’s proposed decisions includes a 

public comment period prior to a final external peer review of 

the assessment. This more rigorous review process prior to the 

release of the values enables immediate use of the derived 

values across multiple EPA Program Offices, including providing 

support for national regulatory decisions (e.g., RTR). 

Contrasting the site-specific Superfund application of 

PPRTVs and related Records of Decision, the Wood Furniture RTR 

proposal is of national scope and will not be subject to ongoing 

review related to each application to a facility. Based on the 

foregoing discussion, EPA has determined that reliance on the 

DGBE PPRTV value in this RTR rule is beyond the specific purpose 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 111 of 185 

for which it was developed, and would exacerbate the cumulative 

uncertainty in the baseline Wood Furniture risk assessment 

stemming from limitations in the underlying exposure and 

toxicity data. Accordingly, EPA has not used the DGBE PPRTV 

value in the risk assessment supporting this proposed action, 

noting that a suitable alternative value (in this case, it is 

the RfC for EGME from IRIS) is available to represent the 

toxicity of glycol ethers without hierarchically based noncancer reference values in the assessment. 

In characterizing the potential cancer and non-cancer 

risks, it is important to consider the uncertainties related to 

the risk assessments, particularly for formaldehyde and glycol 

ethers. Some of the general uncertainties with health values 

and the modeling approach were described earlier in this 

preamble. With regard to emissions, there are various areas of 

potential uncertainty for these HAP. First, only about 23 

percent of the facilities reported glycol ether emissions and 

about half reported formaldehyde. We recognize that not all 

facilities necessarily emit these HAPs. Nevertheless, we 

believe the actual number of facilities with emissions of glycol 

ethers and formaldehyde could possibly be higher than the number 

we have in our data set because of the uncertainties in the NEI 

database, including the lack of quantified emissions from curing 

and gluing. Second, most facilities reporting glycol ether 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 112 of 185 

emissions reported them generically as the class “glycol ethers” 

and not as particular species. We developed a profile to 

speciate these generic glycol ethers, which was generated from a 

composite of reported speciated glycol ethers emissions data 

from facilities across the source category; however, there is 

uncertainty regarding how representative this profile is for the 

other facilities in the source category since the profile is 

based on limited data. Additionally, as previously discussed, a 

limited number of the glycol ether compounds have non-cancer 

reference values and therefore a surrogate value was used. For 

the acute assessment, glycol ethers were assessed individually 

and not as a combined group. Third, the reported levels of 

formaldehyde in the NEI are likely derived from coatings and 

contact adhesives content and may not account for curing or 

other types of gluing operations that may create and emit 

volatile HAP (including formaldehyde). Recognizing that there 

is no approved method for estimating formaldehyde emissions from 

curing, this is an uncertainty that could possibly bias the risk 

estimates low, but the extent of underestimation, if any, is 

unknown. 

With regard to the acute inhalation assessment, the maximum 

acute non-cancer HQs of 7 for formaldehyde with the REL and 0.35 

with the AEGL and 10 for propyl cellosolve were derived partly 

based on using an acute multiplier of 4 from the annual average 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 113 of 185 

hourly emissions. The factor of 4 is based on readily available 

information for the emissions driving the risk. The 

information we have may not be representative of all sources in 

the category. For more information on this factor, see the 

memorandum Acute Effects Factor for Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations, dated November 23, 2010, in the docket for this 

action. 

Thus, because of the uncertainties described above, we 

solicit additional data and comments that would improve our 

emissions estimates. Specifically, we solicit data on glycol 

ethers (speciated to the extent known) and formaldehyde used in 

coatings at wood furniture manufacturing facilities. We solicit 

data regarding facilities that use coatings that may form 

formaldehyde or other volatile HAPs during the curing process 

and data on HAP emissions related to gluing operations. We 

solicit comment on the emissions estimates and assumptions we 

have used in this proposal and whether there are scientifically 

credible methods to estimate curing and gluing emissions, based 

on known coatings or other methods. We also solicit comment on 

potential options for reducing the use in this source category 

of specific glycol ethers which are known to have (or are 

suspected to have) higher toxicity than other compounds in the 

class. Moreover, we request that comments include, if possible, 

the following types of data and information that might help 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 114 of 185 

reduce the uncertainties: (1) ranges of the HAP content in 

coating products and variability between product runs for 

different types of facilities; (2) ranges within the annual 

averages of VOHAP per pound of coating solids; (3) information 

regarding whether control devices are used and, if so, what types 

and at how many facilities.

c. Facility-wide Risk Assessment Results. 

 Table B.2 displays the results of the facility-wide risk 

assessment. This assessment was conducted based on actual 

emission levels. For detailed facility-specific results, see 

Table 2 of Appendix 6 of the “Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 

the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Source Category” in the docket 

for this rulemaking.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 115 of 185 

Table B.2. Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations Facility-Wide 

Risk Assessment Results 

Number of facilities analyzed 385 

Cancer Risk 

Estimated maximum facility-wide individual 

cancer risk (in 1 million) 100 

Number of facilities with estimated facilitywide individual cancer risks of 100-in-1 

million or more 

1 

Number of wood furniture manufacturing 

operations contributing 50 percent or more to 

facility-wide individual cancer risk of 100-

in-1 million or more

0 

Number of facilities with facility-wide 

individual cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or 

more 

74 

Number of wood furniture manufacturing 

operations contributing 50 percent or more to 

facility-wide individual cancer risk of 1-in1 million or more

64 

Chronic 

Non-cancer 

Risk

Maximum facility-wide chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI 3 

Number of facilities with facility-wide 

maximum non-cancer TOSHI of 1 or more 4

Number of wood furniture manufacturing 

operations contributing 50 percent or more to 

facility-wide maximum non-cancer TOSHI of 1 

or more

0 

 The maximum individual cancer risk from all HAP emissions 

at a facility that contains sources subject to the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing MACT standards is estimated to be 100-

in-1 million. Of the 385 facilities included in this analysis, 

one has a facility-wide maximum individual cancer risk of 100-

in-1 million or greater. At this facility, the wood furniture 

manufacturing operations contribute approximately 1 percent to 

Deleted: 3
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 116 of 185 

these facility-wide risks. Based on the data we have, the 

emissions source driving this higher cancer risk is a boiler, 

which is subject to the proposed Boiler NESHAP (see 75 FR 32006, 

June 4, 2010) which is scheduled to be finalized in the near 

future. 

 There are 74 facilities with facility-wide maximum 

individual cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater. Of these 

74 facilities, 64 have wood furniture manufacturing operations 

that contribute greater than 50 percent or greater to the 

facility-wide risks. The facility-wide cancer risks at most of 

these 74 facilities are primarily driven by emissions of ethyl 

benzene from wood furniture manufacturing operations. 

 The facility-wide maximum individual chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI is estimated to be 3. Of the 385 facilities included in 

this analysis, 4 have facility-wide maximum chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI values between 1 and 3 (the individual TOSHI values are 3, 

2, 1, and 1); all the rest are less than 1. Of these 3 

facilities, no facility had wood furniture manufacturing 

operations that contributed greater than 50 percent or greater 

to these facility-wide risks. The chronic non-cancer risks at 

these facilities are primarily driven by emissions of manganese 

and acrolein from boilers. 

c. Demographic Risk Analysis Results.

Deleted: 3
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 117 of 185 

 The results of the demographic analyses performed to 

investigate the distribution of cancer risks at or above 1-in-1 

million to the surrounding population are summarized in Table 

B.3 below. These results, for various demographic groups, are 

based on actual emissions levels for the population living 

within 50 km of the facilities. 

Table B.3. Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations Demographic 

Risk Analysis Results 

Population w/ cancer risk greater than 1 

in a million due to... 

 Nationwide Source Category HAP 

emissions 

Facility-wide HAP 

emissions 

Total 

population 

285,000,000 20,000 26,000 

Race by percent

White 75 63 65 

All Other Races 25 37 35 

Race by percent

White 75 63 65 

African 

American 12 13 17 

Native American 0.9 0.7 0.6 

Other and 

Multiracial 12 23 17 

Ethnicity by percent

Hispanic 14 34 24 

Non-Hispanic 86 66 76 

Income by percent

Below poverty 13 16 16 

Above poverty 87 84 84 

Education by percent

Over 25 and 

without high 

school diploma 

13 19 19 

Over 25 and 

with a high 

school diploma 

87 81 81 

 The results of the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 118 of 185 

source category demographic analysis indicate that there are 

20,000 people exposed to a cancer risk greater than or equal to 

1-in-1 million based HAP on emissions from the source category. 

Of this population, an estimated 37 percent can be classified as 

a minority (listed as “All Other Races” in the table above), 

including 13 percent in the “African American” demographic 

group, and 23 percent in the “Other and Multiracial” demographic 

group). Of the 20,000 people with estimated cancer risks above 

1-in-1-million from the source category, 34 percent are in the 

“Hispanic” demographic group, 16 percent are in the “Below 

Poverty” demographic group, and 19 percent are in the “Over 25 

and Without High School Diploma” demographic group. These 

percentages all appear to be somewhat higher than the respective 

percentages for these demographic groups across the United 

States. The percentages for the other demographic groups are 

lower than their respective nationwide values. The table also 

shows that there are approximately 26,000 people exposed to an 

estimated cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million 

based on facility-wide emissions. Of this population, the 

results of the facility-wide demographic analysis indicate that 

the percentages are higher than nationwide percentages for those 

included in the “African American,” “Other and Multiracial,” 

“Hispanic,” “Below Poverty” level,” and the “Over 25 and Without 

High School Diploma” demographic groups. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 119 of 185 

4. What are our proposed decisions on risk acceptability and 

ample margin of safety?

a. Risk Acceptability. 

 As noted in section III.B of this preamble, we weigh all 

health risk factors and measures in our risk acceptability 

determination, including cancer risks to the individual most 

exposed, risk estimation uncertainty, and other health 

information. For the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations 

source category, the risk analysis we performed indicates that 

the cancer risks to the individual most exposed could be up to 

20-in-1 million due to actual emissions and up to 40-in-1 

million due to MACT-allowable emissions. These values are 

considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the 

presumptive limit of acceptability. The risk analysis also 

shows low cancer incidence (1 in every 200 years), no potential 

for adverse environmental effects or human health multi-pathway 

effects, and that chronic non-cancer health impacts are 

unlikely. 

 When estimated maximum 1 hour peak emissions estimates for 

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

to the REL for EGME (used as a surrogate for propyl cellosolve), 

the assessment indicates that a maximum acute non-cancer HQ up 

to 10 could occur at 1 facility. Eight facilities (or 2 percent 

of the total) had an estimated HQ greater than 1. All other 

Deleted: as high as

Deleted: as high as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 120 of 185 

facilities modeled had HQs less than 1. Nevertheless, exposures 

above the REL do not necessarily indicate that adverse effects 

will occur. There are no other appropriate acute reference 

values available for glycol ethers that may be used to assess 

acute risks for glycol ethers. 

 When estimated one-hour peak emissions estimates for 

formaldehyde are compared to the formaldehyde REL, the 

assessment indicates a maximum acute non-cancer HQ up to 7 could 

occur. Eleven facilities (or 3 percent of the total) had an 

estimated HQ between 1 and 7 for formaldehyde. All other 

facilities modeled had HQs less than 1. The maximum acute HQ 

for formaldehyde based on an AEGL-1 or ERPG-1 value is 0.35. 

Exposures immediately above the REL do not necessarily indicate 

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

threshold for an effect); on the other hand, AEGL-1 and ERPG-1 

are levels that may be associated with mild, but reversible, 

adverse effects, and are designed with an assumption that they 

occur very rarely (i.e., once-in-a-lifetime). 

To better characterize the potential health risks 

associated with estimated acute exposures to HAPs, EPA examines 

a wide range of available acute health metrics. In this case, 

to place the acute formaldehyde results in context, we note that 

the maximum estimated acute exposure outside the facility fence

line for this source category (0.39 mg/m3) exceeds workplace 

Deleted: 1 

Formatted: Superscript
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 121 of 185 

ceiling level guidelines designed to protect a presumed healthy 

worker population for short duration (< 15 minutes) increases in 

exposure to formaldehyde. Comparisons of the estimated maximum 

off-site one hour exposure levels are not typically made to 

occupational levels for the purpose of characterizing public 

health risks in RTR assessments. This is because occupational 

ceiling values are, for most chemicals, set at levels higher 

than a one hour AEGL-1: they are not generally considered 

protective for the general public. In the case of formaldehyde, 

however, these values are higher than the one-hour CA-REL (0.055 

mg/m3), but below the one-hour AEGL (1.1 mg/m3). As a result of 

this comparison, we cannot claim with certainty that the maximum 

HQAEGL-1 of 0.35 is without potential for acute risks to members 

of the general populations, including sensitive subpopulations. 

3 3Nevertheless, as described earlier in this preamble, the 

acute assessment includes some conservative assumptions and some 

uncertainties. Moreover, the RELs are protective and designed 

to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population by 

inclusion of margins of safety. Therefore, overall we believe 

that it is unlikely that HAP emissions from this source category 

pose unacceptable acute non-cancer risks. However, as described 

below, we still have concerns about the uncertainties associated 

with acute non-cancer risks. 

Formatted: Superscript

Formatted: Superscript

Formatted: Subscript

Deleted: The maximum acute exposure 

outside the facility fence line for 

this source category (0.39 mg/m3

) 

would be a health concern if it 

occurred in the workplace with a 

presumed healthy worker population; 

therefore, it can be reasonably 

assumed that those concerns may be 

greater for susceptible 

subpopulations in the general 

public. The occupational guideline 

ceiling values for short excursions 

in exposure developed by the ACGIH

Deleted: 32 and the NIOSH

Deleted: 33 are designated as “not to 

be exceeded at any time” (ACGIH 

value of 0.37 mg/m3

; HQACGIH = 1) or 

for any 15 minute period in a work 

day (NIOSH value of 0.12 mg/m3

; 

HQNIOSH = 3). Additionally, the 

estimated maximum acute exposure 

exceeds the Air Quality Guideline 

value that was developed for Europe 

by the World Health Organization

Deleted: 34 for 30 minute exposures 

(0.1 mg/m3

; HQWHO = 4). These 

occupational and international 

values are indicators that the 1 

hour AEGL-1 value may not provide 

adequate protection when 

formaldehyde exposures are more 

frequent than once-in-a-lifetime.¶
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 122 of 185 

 While our additional analysis of facility-wide risks shows 

that there is 1 facility with a maximum facility-wide cancer 

risk of 100-in-1 million and 3 facilities with a maximum chronic 

non-cancer TOSHI of 1 or more, it also shows that wood furniture 

manufacturing operations do not drive these risks. Our 

additional analysis of the demographics of the exposed 

population indicates disparities in risks between demographic 

groups may exist; however, the overall risks are not high and 

the total number of people exposed to cancer risks of 1-in-1 

million or greater due to emissions from the source category is 

relatively low (20,000). 

 EPA has weighed the various health measures and factors and 

uncertainties discussed above and in section IV.A.7 of this 

preamble, and is proposing that the risks from the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category are 

acceptable. We are proposing that the risks are acceptable 

after weighing concerns about possible acute non-cancer risks, 

especially acute non-cancer risks due to formaldehyde (acute HQ 

up to 7 with the REL and up to 0.35 with the AEGL) and glycol 

ethers (acute HQ up to 10), and uncertainties in the emissions 

data as described above. We have considered these HAPs further 

under the ample margin of safety analyses, as described below, 

and are seeking data and comments to help us refine the 

assessments. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 123 of 185 

b. Ample Margin of Safety. 

 Although we are proposing that the risks from the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category are 

acceptable, risk estimates for 20,000 individuals in the exposed 

population are above 1-in-1 million, and while there is 

uncertainty associated with our assessment of acute non-cancer 

risks, non-cancer impacts, we remain concerned about the 

potential for them. Consequently, we considered whether the 

Wood Furniture MACT standards provide an ample margin of safety. 

In this analysis, we investigated available emissions control 

options that might reduce the risks associated with emissions 

from the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category 

and considered this information along with all of the health 

risks and other health information considered in the risk 

acceptability determination. 

i. Emissions Control Options. 

 We evaluated the emissions reductions and cost associated 

with various control options for the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations source category. One option would 

require lower VOHAP content in wood furniture coatings, which we 

estimate could reduce HAP emissions from this source category by 

up to 56 TPY from the estimated baseline level of 5,900 TPY.35 

 

35 We estimate that lower-VOHAP coatings could be applied nationwide 

for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 124 of 185 

The estimated capital and annualized costs for this option would 

be $12,200,000 and $2,800,000, respectively. We estimate the 

cost-effectiveness would be about $30,000 per ton of HAP 

emissions reduced. We estimate this requirement to lower VOHAP 

content from wood furniture coatings would not appreciably 

reduce the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk, the maximum 

chronic non-cancer TOSHI value, or the maximum acute non-cancer 

TOSHI value. These values would remain at about 20-in-1 million 

for the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk, 0.4 for the 

maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value, and 10 for the maximum 

acute HQ value using the REL.36 Table B.5 summarizes the 

nationwide costs and cost-effectiveness of this option. 

Table B.5. Lower VOC Coating Limits for Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations – Costs and Risk Reductions 

Control 

Option 

Number 

of 

Affected 

Facilit

ies 

Emission 

Reduction 

(TPY) 

Capital 

Costs 

($milli

on) 

Annualized 

Costs ($

million/

yr) 

Costeffecttiveness

($/ton) 

Max MIR 

After 

Control 

(in 1 

million)

Max 

TOSHI 

After 

Control

Max 

Acute 

HQ 

After 

Control 

Lower 

VOC 

coating 

limits 

406 56 $12.2 $2.8 $30,000 20 0.4 10 

 

because the coatings are applied inside buildings at the facilities 

and the external temperature is not a limiting factor. 

36 We estimate this requirement to lower VOHAP content from wood 

furniture coatings would reduce the maximum lifetime individual cancer 

risk and the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value by approximately 1 

percent. However, as the maximum individual risk values are presented 

with one significant digit due to the precision of the data used to 

estimate these values, the risk values would still be presented as 20 

for the maximum individual cancer risk, 0.4 for the maximum individual 

non-cancer TOSHI, and 10 for the maximum acute HQ value. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 125 of 185 

 Another potential emissions reduction option involving an 

RTO add-on control device was investigated but found not to be 

feasible for implementation by the majority of the facilities in 

the source category. This control technology is discussed below 

in section IV.B.5 of this preamble. 

 A third emissions reduction option is to limit formaldehyde 

emissions by restricting formaldehyde use to 400 pounds per 

rolling 12 month period, or if a control device is used, to an 

amount adjusted from 400 pounds per rolling 12 month period 

based on the overall control efficiency of the control system. 

The limit would apply to wood furniture coatings and contact 

adhesives. This emissions level is currently included in Table 

5 of the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT standards 

as part of the work practice requirement to have a Formulation 

Assessment Plan for finishing operations. The usage level 

provided in Table 5 of the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations MACT standards is 0.2 TPY. Under the current Wood 

Furniture MACT standards, if a facility’s annual usage of 

formaldehyde exceeds its baseline level, the owner or operator 

of the facility provides a written notification to the 

permitting authority describing the amount of the increase and 

explains the reasons for exceedance of the baseline level. If 

the exceedance is no more than 15 percent above the baseline, or 

if usage is below the level in Table 5, then no further 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 126 of 185 

explanation is required. See 40 CFR 63.803(l). This third 

option would change the formaldehyde usage level in the existing 

Wood Furniture Operations MACT standards to a limit not to be 

exceeded at any time. Based on the updated dataset described in 

section V.B.2, 39 of the 385 facilities use (and emit) more than 

400 pounds per rolling 12 month period of formaldehyde. By 

setting a usage limit of 400 pounds per rolling 12 month period, 

the formaldehyde emissions from these 39 facilities will be 

reduced from 20.125 TPY to 10.665 TPY, a 9.46 TPY or 47 percent 

reduction. 

 As described in the risk assessment section above, we 

estimate that formaldehyde emissions from 11 facilities (about 3 

percent) could result in exceedances of the acute REL, 

indicating a potential for acute non-cancer risks of concern. 

We did not see a potential for any facility to cause exceedances 

of the acute ERPG-1 or AEGL-1 levels. These 11 facilities are 

among the 39 facilities that use and emit formaldehyde in excess 

of 400 pounds per year. Moreover, formaldehyde emissions from 

these facilities also drive the maximum lifetime individual 

cancer risks. Therefore, reductions in formaldehyde emissions 

will reduce these risks. We estimate that limiting formaldehyde 

use to no more than 400 pounds per rolling 12 month period will 

reduce the maximum acute HQ value based on the REL for 

formaldehyde from 7 to 3, and will reduce the maximum lifetime 

Deleted: (and associated risk) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 127 of 185 

individual cancer risk from 20-in-1 million to approximately 10-

in-1 million, both based on the actual emissions level. 

 There are many coatings and adhesives available from 

several suppliers that contain no or low quantities of 

formaldehyde and that are approximately equivalent in cost to 

the coatings and adhesives that contain formaldehyde. Many 

facilities currently use these no- or low-formaldehyde coatings 

and adhesives. Based on our data, the wood furniture 

manufacturing operations at the facilities using more than 400 

pounds per rolling 12 month period of formaldehyde are similar 

to operations at facilities currently using less than 400 pounds 

per rolling 12 month period of formaldehyde. Therefore, we 

believe it is feasible for the remaining facilities (including 

the 11 facilities with HQ greater than 1) to switch to coatings 

and adhesives containing no or low amounts of formaldehyde, at 

little or no extra cost, and reduce their overall usage to no 

more than 400 pounds per rolling 12 month period.

 We are proposing to limit the formaldehyde usage to 400 

pounds per 12 month rolling period as a means of reducing 

emissions of formaldehyde. This limit will reduce the maximum 

acute HQ value for formaldehyde from 7 to 3, and reduce the 

maximum lifetime individual cancer risk from 20-in-1 million to 

approximately 10-in-1 million. All affected sources are 

expected to meet this limit by using no- or low-formaldehyde 

Deleted: However, facilities would 

also have the option to control 

formaldehyde emissions using an 

add-on control device. Also 

associated with this option are 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for the formaldehyde 

content of finishing materials and 

contact adhesives, which are not 

required by the current Wood 

Furniture Operations MACT 

standards. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 128 of 185 

coatings. We solicit comment on compliant coatings as a method 

for reducing the risk associated with formaldehyde, the 

appropriateness of the 400 lb per rolling 12 month period 

emissions limit on formaldehyde usage, and the feasibility and 

cost associated with using compliant coatings to achieve the 

limit on formaldehyde usage.

ii. Ample Margin of Safety Evaluation

In accordance with the approach established in the Benzene 

NESHAP, EPA weighed all health risk measures and information 

considered in the risk acceptability determination, along with 

the costs and economic impacts of emissions controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties, and other relevant 

factors, in making our ample margin of safety determination. We 

considered all of these factors in our ample margin of safety 

decision, and concluded that the costs of the add-on control 

options analyzed are not reasonable considering the emissions 

reductions and health benefits potentially achievable with the 

controls. However, as discussed above, we believe it is 

feasible for facilities to limit formaldehyde use to less than 

400 pounds per rolling 12 month period by using no- or lowformaldehyde coatings and adhesives. This limit on formaldehyde 

use will also result in reduced emissions. As a result, we 

propose to establish a usage limit of 400 pounds per rolling 12 

month period for formaldehyde under section 112(f) of the CAA. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 129 of 185 

We chose this level (of 400 pounds per rolling 12 month 

period) as the proposed usage limit since it is currently used 

in the MACT standard and since limiting emissions to this level 

will lead to significant reductions in cancer risks and the 

potential for acute non-cancer risks of concern. This limit 

would reduce formaldehyde emissions by an estimated 9.46 TPY 

from the baseline level of 20.125 TPY. The estimated maximum 

lifetime individual cancer risk would be reduced to 

approximately 10-in-1 million from the baseline of 20-in-1 

million, the estimated cancer incidence due to emissions from 

the source category would be reduced by about 15 percent 

nationwide, and the estimated maximum acute HQ would be reduced 

from 7 to 3, based on the REL for formaldehyde, and from 0.35 to 

0.15 based on the AEGL-1 for formaldehyde. We estimate that 

there would be either no or minimal additional costs associated 

with this option, as the prices of low no- or low-formaldehyde 

coatings and adhesives are approximately equal to other coating 

and adhesive products containing larger quantities of 

formaldehyde. We believe this formaldehyde limit is technically 

feasible for all wood manufacturing operations and is a costeffective measure to achieve emissions and health risk 

reductions. Therefore, we propose that with this formaldehyde 

limit, the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT 

standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 130 of 185 

health. Nevertheless, we are seeking comments on the proposed 

formaldehyde limit of 400 pounds per rolling 12 month period, 

and whether there may be an alternative level that we should 

consider. In addition, we are seeking comments and data on the 

cost and feasibility of using coatings, solvents, adhesives, and 

any other products covered by the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations MACT standards that have lower HAP content, or 

contain less toxic HAP, as well as information that would help 

us to refine our assessment of the chronic or acute risks of 

formaldehyde emissions from this source category. 

While we propose that the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations MACT standards, revised to include the 400 pounds per 

rolling 12 month period formaldehyde emissions limit, will 

provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, 

uncertainties remain concerning that an acute HQ of up to 10 may 

occur due to emissions of glycol ethers based on our screening 

level assessment. The potential risk reduction options 

identified would not appreciably reduce emissions or the 

potential acute risks associated with glycol ethers. Therefore, 

we are seeking comments and data regarding the use of glycol 

ethers in wood furniture manufacturing operations. This 

information includes the quantities of coatings and adhesives 

used (TPY), the speciated glycol ethers content in these 

products; whether the use of these products is in the kitchen 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 131 of 185 

cabinet, business furniture, or home furnishings sector; and the 

availability and feasibility of using coatings and adhesive 

products with a lower content of glycol ethers. 

5. What are our proposed decisions on the technology review?

We evaluated developments in practices, processes, and 

control technologies applicable to the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations source category. This included an 

internet search, a search of the RBLC Clearinghouse, a review of 

relevant subsequently developed regulations, and contacts with 

industry. We found 1 advance in add-on control technology since 

the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT standards were 

promulgated, we have determined that there are more stringent 

VOC-based coatings limits for wood furniture manufacturing 

facilities in 1 area of California, and we have found that fewer 

conventional spray guns are in use. For more detail, see the 

memorandum Developments in Practices, Processes, and Control 

Technologies, dated August 24, 2010, in the docket for this 

action that describes the technology review for the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category. 

 With regard to add-on technology, we identified 1 facility 

in Indiana that manufactures kitchen cabinets and uses an RTO to 

control spray booth emissions from its wood furniture 

manufacturing operations. The facility coats flat panels using 

an automated process with high speed lines. We estimate cost-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 132 of 185 

effectiveness of the RTO system at this facility to be $20,000 

per ton of HAP reduced. 

Nationwide, we estimate that fewer than 5 facilities 

manufacture wood furniture using automated, high speed lines, 

and could install this type of add-on control device. 

Therefore, the RTO control technology is not applicable across 

the entire wood furniture source category. The estimated 

emissions reduction, based on these 5 facilities, is 98 tons of 

HAP per year. The cost to treat low-HAP concentration, high 

volume air streams routed to the RTO is estimated to be $20,000 

per ton of HAP reduced, and is considered economically 

prohibitive when compared to the amount of emissions reduced. 

Based on per facility sales, we determined that this option is 

not affordable. The cost as a percentage of revenues was 

estimated to be 73 percent or greater. Additional information 

on the affordability of controls is discussed in the memorandum 

Affordability of Lower VOHAP Coatings and Add-on Controls for 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations, dated October 28, 2010, 

in the docket for this action. The large amount of fuel 

required for this type of add-on control is considered cost 

prohibitive and the fuel produces NOx emissions, a by-product of 

combustion. Finally, facilities must have a large physical land 

space to house the RTO. For these reasons, we determined that 

the installation of a RTO on spray booths is not a viable option 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 133 of 185 

for the wood furniture manufacturing industry. For more detail, 

see the memo Cost Analyses for Control Options, dated September 

27, 2010, in the docket for this action that describes the cost 

analysis for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source 

category. 

In our review of developments in practices, processes, and 

control technologies, we identified the Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District in California as having adopted more 

stringent VOC coating emission limits than the volatile HAP 

coating emission limits in the Wood Furniture MACT standards. 

However, the California limits came into effect in July 2010, 

and we do not have data to demonstrate whether the facilities in 

this area have been able to achieve compliance with these limits 

or the measures they may be taking to comply with them. The 

California limits are VOC-based, and coating limits in the Wood 

Furniture MACT standard are VOHAP-based. We do not have 

information on the exact correlation between lower-VOC content 

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

leads to lower HAP content). We believe that coatings used in 

the industry average approximately 50 percent HAP and 50 percent 

non-HAP VOC, however the HAP and non-HAP VOC content varies 

between specific coating products.37 Using this assumed average 

 

37 Case Studies comparing HAP and VOC content of wood furniture 

coatings at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/wood/low/casebyco.html. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 134 of 185 

HAP VOC content, we estimate that by adopting the California VOC 

limits, the industry-wide emission reduction would be 56 tons of 

HAP per year at a cost of $30,000 per ton of HAP reduced for the 

approximately 406 facilities in the source category. Based on 

per facility sales, we determined that this option may be 

affordable. The cost as a percentage of revenues was estimated 

to be less than 4 percent. Additional information on the 

affordability of lower VOHAP coatings is discussed in the 

memorandum Affordability of Lower VOHAP Coatings and Add-on 

Controls for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations, dated 

October 28, 2010, in the docket for this action. Due to the 

limited emissions reduction potential and the cost 

effectiveness, we are not proposing to require lowering the 

VOHAP content in coatings in the MACT standards. However, we 

solicit comments and data regarding lower VOHAP coatings and 

information on the types of wood furniture manufacturing coating 

operations for which they may be applicable. 

When the Wood Furniture MACT standards were promulgated, 

conventional guns were used extensively by industry. Since 

promulgation, the use of conventional guns in the wood furniture 

industry has diminished drastically, and they are now rarely 

used. We are proposing to remove the provision in the Wood 

Furniture MACT standards that allows the use of conventional air 

spray guns; thereby codifying current industry practice. This 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 135 of 185 

proposed action will prevent future increases in the use of 

conventional spray guns, which have lower transfer efficiencies 

and higher emissions than other spray gun types. Based on our 

findings, with proper operator training it is possible to 

replace conventional air spraying with more efficient spray 

application methods such as air assisted airless spraying. We 

anticipate no changes in coating formulation will be needed to 

use air assisted airless spray guns rather than conventional 

spray guns. As conventional spray guns are now rarely used, we 

do not estimate there will be any appreciable emission 

reductions as a result of this proposed provision. For more 

details, see Impacts of Prohibiting the Use of Conventional 

Spray Guns in the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations Source 

Category, dated October 19, 2010. 

The associated cost of discontinuing use of conventional 

air spray guns is believed to be minimal. Overall, we do not 

believe many conventional guns are in use and need to be 

replaced. However, for the remaining conventional spray guns, 

we also estimate there to be a net cost savings by switching to 

air assisted airless spray guns. While an air assisted airless 

spray gun is estimated to cost approximately $300 more than a 

conventional spray gun, the 10 percent increase in transfer 

efficiency results in an equally lower coating use and cost 

savings. We estimate that for a single spray gun, if the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 136 of 185 

coating cost is $10/gallon and the rate of coating use is at 

least 1.1 gallons per day, the initial cost difference between 

the guns is made up within a year. For more expensive coatings, 

the cost difference is made up more quickly. In addition, the 

expected life of a conventional spray gun is estimated to be, at 

most, 2 years. The compliance period of the rule is 3 years; 

therefore, no air assisted airless guns would be required to 

replace a conventional spray gun before the end of its useful 

life as a result of the revised Wood Furniture MACT standards. 

For more details, see Impacts of Prohibiting the Use of 

Conventional Spray Guns in the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations Source Category, dated October 19, 2010 in the docket 

for this action. We solicit comment on the accuracy of our 

assumptions about coating use, coating costs, spray gun 

replacement frequency, any additional cost associated with 

switching gun technology such as attachment replacements, and 

the extent to which facilities are already using air assisted 

airless spray guns. 

In summary, as a result of the technology review under 

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

use of conventional spray guns by facilities regulated by the 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT standard. Existing 

sources would be required to comply with this proposed change by 

3 years after the effective date.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 137 of 185 

6. What other actions are we proposing?

We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in 

the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT standards. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA is proposing standards 

in this rule that apply at all times. We are proposing several 

revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ regarding the standards 

that apply during periods of SSM. Specifically, we are 

proposing to revise Table 1 to indicate that the requirements in 

40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) of the General Provisions do not apply. 

Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) requires owners or operators to act 

according to the general duty to “operate and maintain any 

affected source, including associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with 

safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 

emissions.” We are separately proposing to incorporate this 

general duty to minimize emissions into section 63.802(c). 

Section 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) also requires the owner or operator of 

an affected source to develop a written SSM plan. We are 

proposing to remove the SSM plan requirement. We are also 

proposing to add SSM-associated reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.806 and 63.807 to require reporting 

and recordkeeping for periods of malfunction, add a requirement 

in 40 CFR 63.805 to require performance tests to be performed 

under normal operating conditions, and to revise Table 1 to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 138 of 185 

specify that 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and (ii), 63.6(e)(3), 

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

and the last sentence of 63.8(d)(3), 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i),(ii), 

(iv), and (v), 63.10(c)(10), (11), and (15), and 63.10(d)(5) of 

the General Provisions do not apply. In addition, as explained 

above, we are proposing to add an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for exceedances of emission limits caused by 

malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing the 

affirmative defense in section 63.800. EPA has attempted to 

ensure that we have not included in the proposed regulatory 

language any provisions that are inappropriate, unnecessary, or 

redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are 

specifically seeking comment on whether there are any such 

provisions that we have inadvertently incorporated or 

overlooked. 

VI. Proposed Action 

A. What actions are we proposing as a result of the technology 

reviews?

For the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (surface coating) 

Operations source category, we have determined that there have 

been no developments in practices, processes, or control 

technologies since the promulgation of the MACT standards that 

are feasible for the facilities in these source categories to 

implement at this time, and we are proposing that it is not 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 139 of 185 

necessary to revise the existing MACT requirements based on our 

CAA section 112(d)(6) review. 

For the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source 

category, we are proposing to amend the rule to prohibit the use 

of conventional spray guns under the authority of CAA section 

112(d)(6). 

B. What actions are we proposing as a result of the residual 

risk reviews?

 For the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (surface coating)

source category, we propose that the MACT standards provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent 

adverse environmental effects. Thus, we are proposing to readopt these standards for the purpose of meeting the 

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

 For the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source 

category, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 

health and prevent adverse environmental effects for the purpose 

of meeting the requirements of CAA section 112(f)(2), we propose 

to limit usage of formaldehyde in coatings and contact adhesives 

to 400 pounds per rolling 12 month period. 

 Existing sources would be required to comply with this 

proposed change by 3 years after the effective date. 

C. What other actions are we proposing? 

Deleted: Operations 

Deleted: , or if a control device is 

used, to 400 pounds per rolling 12 

month period of formaldehyde taking 

into account the overall control 

efficiency of the control device.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 140 of 185 

We propose to amend the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

(surface coating) and Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations 

MACT standards to remove the language that exempts facilities 

from the emissions standards that would otherwise be applicable 

during periods of SSM, and to add an affirmative defense to 

civil penalties for exceedances of emission standards caused by 

malfunctions. These changes are being made to ensure these 

rules are consistent with the court’s ruling in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

We also propose to clarify the applicability language for 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations to be consistent with 

surface coating rules issued after the promulgation of the Wood 

Furniture MACT standards in 1995. These include subparts MMMM, 

PPPP, QQQQ, and RRRR of part 63. Subparts MMMM, PPPP, QQQQ, and 

RRRR exempt surface coating operations that are subject to other 

subparts of Part 63, such as the Wood Furniture Operations MACT 

standards. (See 40 CFR §§63.3881(c)(6), 63.4481(c)(7), 

63.4681(c)(2), 63.4881(c)(2)). Similarly, we propose to amend 

the Wood Furniture Operations MACT standards to acknowledge that 

surface coating operations that are subject to subparts MMMM, 

PPPP, QQQQ, or RRRR of Part 63 are not subject to the Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations standards. Subparts MMMM, 

PPPP, and QQQQ also include provisions providing compliance 

options for facilities potentially subject to more than one 

Deleted: Operations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 141 of 185 

subpart applicable to surface coating operations. (See 40 CFR 

§§63.3881(e), 63.4481(e), 63.4681(d)).

We also propose to amend the applicability language for 

Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations to be consistent with 

surface coating rules that were promulgated since 1995. These 

include subparts MMMM, PPPP, QQQQ, and RRRR of Part 63. 

VII. Request for Comments 

We are soliciting comments on all aspects of this proposed 

action. All comments received during the comment period will be 

considered. In addition to general comments on the proposed 

actions, we are also interested in any additional data that may 

help to reduce the uncertainties inherent in the risk 

assessments. We are specifically interested in receiving 

corrections to the datasets used for risk modeling. Such data 

should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to 

allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of 

the data or information. Please see the following section for 

more information on submitting data. We are also interested in 

comments and information regarding add-on controls and any 

lower-HAP coatings available for use by these source categories 

and the types of coating activities for which they could be 

used. We are also seeking comments on the potential for lower 

HAP content in other products used in the Wood Furniture 

Production industry, including glues, resins and adhesives. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 142 of 185 

VIII. Submitting Data Corrections 

The facility-specific data used in the source category risk 

analyses, facility-wide analyses, and demographic analyses for 

each source category subject to this action are available for 

download on the RTR Web Page at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. These data files 

include detailed information for each HAP emissions release 

point at each facility included in the source category and all 

other HAP emissions sources at these facilities (facility-wide 

emissions sources). However, it is important to note that the 

source category risk analysis included only those emissions 

tagged with the MACT code associated with the source category 

subject to the risk analysis. 

If you believe the data are not representative or are 

inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your 

reason for concern, and provide any “improved” data that you 

have, if available. When you submit data, we request that you 

provide documentation of the basis for the revised values to 

support your suggested changes. To submit comments on the data 

downloaded from the RTR Web page, complete the following steps: 

1) Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions 

to the data fields appropriate for that information. The data 

fields that may be revised include the following: 

Data Element Definition 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 143 of 185 

Data Element Definition

Control Measure Are control measures in place? 

(yes or no) 

Control Measure Comment 

Select control measure from 

list provided, and briefly 

describe the control measure 

Delete Indicate here if the facility 

or record should be deleted 

Delete Comment Describes the reason for 

deletion 

Emission Calculation 

Method Code For Revised 

Emissions 

Code description of the method 

used to derive emissions. For 

example, CEM, material 

balance, stack test, etc. 

Emission Process Group 

Enter the general type of 

emission process associated 

with the specified emission 

point 

Fugitive Angle 

Enter release angle (clockwise 

from true North); orientation 

of the y-dimension relative to 

true North, measured positive 

for clockwise starting at 0 

degrees (maximum 89 degrees) 

Fugitive Length 

Enter dimension of the source 

in the east-west (x-) 

direction, commonly referred 

to as length (ft) 

Fugitive Width 

Enter dimension of the source 

in the north-south (y-) 

direction, commonly referred 

to as width (ft) 

Malfunction Emissions Enter total annual emissions 

due to malfunctions (TPY) 

Malfunction Emissions Max 

Hourly 

Enter maximum hourly 

malfunction emissions here 

(lb/hr) 

North American Datum 

Enter datum for 

latitude/longitude coordinates 

(NAD27 or NAD83); if left 

blank, NAD83 is assumed 

Process Comment Enter general comments about 

process sources of emissions 

REVISED Address Enter revised physical street 

address for MACT facility here 

REVISED City Enter revised city name here 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 144 of 185 

Data Element Definition

REVISED County Name Enter revised county name here

REVISED Emission Release 

Point Type 

Enter revised Emission Release 

Point Type here 

REVISED End Date Enter revised End Date here 

REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate Enter revised Exit Gas 

Flowrate here (ft3

/sec) 

REVISED Exit Gas 

Temperature 

Enter revised Exit Gas 

Temperature here (F) 

REVISED Exit Gas Velocity Enter revised Exit Gas 

Velocity here (ft/sec) 

REVISED Facility Category 

Code 

Enter revised Facility 

Category Code here, which 

indicates whether facility is 

a major or area source 

REVISED Facility Name Enter revised Facility Name 

here 

REVISED Facility Registry 

Identifier 

Enter revised Facility 

Registry Identifier here, 

which is an ID assigned by the 

EPA Facility Registry System 

REVISED HAP Emissions 

Performance Level Code 

Enter revised HAP Emissions 

Performance Level here 

REVISED Latitude Enter revised Latitude here 

(decimal degrees)

REVISED Longitude Enter revised Longitude here 

(decimal degrees) 

REVISED MACT Code Enter revised MACT Code here 

REVISED Pollutant Code Enter revised Pollutant Code 

here 

REVISED Routine Emissions Enter revised routine 

emissions value here (TPY) 

REVISED SCC Code Enter revised SCC Code here 

REVISED Stack Diameter Enter revised Stack Diameter 

here (ft) 

REVISED Stack Height Enter revised Stack Height 

here (Ft) 

REVISED Start Date Enter revised Start Date here

REVISED State Enter revised State here 

REVISED Tribal Code Enter revised Tribal Code here 

REVISED Zip Code Enter revised Zip Code here 

Shutdown Emissions Enter total annual emissions 

due to shutdown events (TPY) 

Shutdown Emissions Max 

Hourly 

Enter maximum hourly shutdown 

emissions here (lb/hr) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 145 of 185 

Data Element Definition

Stack Comment Enter general comments about 

emission release points 

Startup Emissions Enter total annual emissions 

due to startup events (TPY) 

Startup Emissions Max 

Hourly 

Enter maximum hourly startup 

emissions here (lb/hr) 

Year Closed Enter date facility stopped 

operations 

2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each 

suggested revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter 

organization, commenter e-mail address, commenter phone number, 

and revision comments). 

3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions 

revisions (e.g., performance test reports, material balance 

calculations, etc.). 

4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested 

revisions in Microsoft® Access format and all accompanying 

documentation to Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786 (through 

one of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble). To expedite review of the revisions, it would also 

be helpful if you submitted a copy of your revisions to the EPA 

directly at RTR@epa.gov in addition to submitting them to the 

docket. 

5. If you are providing comments on a facility with 

multiple source categories, you need only submit 1 file for that 

facility, which should contain all suggested changes for all 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 146 of 185 

source categories at that facility. We request that all data 

revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft® 

Access files, which are provided on the 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html Web page. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

this action is a significant regulatory action because it raises 

novel legal and policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this 

action to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866 and any 

changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed 

rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The ICR document prepared by EPA has been 

assigned EPA ICR number 1716.07. 

The proposed revisions to the SSM provisions for the 

standards being amended with today’s proposed rule will reduce 

the reporting burden associated with having to prepare and submit 

a SSM report. However, we are proposing new paperwork 

requirements to the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT 

standards. The proposed standards would require regulated 

entities to submit reports and keep records in accordance with 

Section V.B. We are not proposing any new paperwork requirements 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 147 of 185 

for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source 

category. 

We estimate that there are approximately 406 regulated 

entities currently subject to subpart JJ and that approximately 

150 of those entities will be subject to the proposed rule 

involving the 12-month rolling average formaldehyde limit. New 

and existing regulated entities would have no capital costs 

associated with the information collection requirements in the 

proposed rule. 

The estimated recordkeeping and reporting burden after the 

effective date of the proposed rule is estimated to be 4,140 

labor hours at a cost of $447,741.00. This estimate includes 

the cost of reporting, including reading instructions, and 

information gathering. Recordkeeping cost estimates include 

reading instructions, planning activities, calculation of 

formaldehyde usage, and maintenance of 12-month rolling data. 

The average hours and cost per regulated entity would be 10 

hours and $1,100.00. About 406 facilities would respond per 

year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9. 

Deleted: Operations 

Deleted: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 148 of 185 

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 

methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a 

public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under 

Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010. Submit any comments related 

to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to EPA. 

Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, OMB, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, 

Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [Insert 

date of publication in the Federal Register.], a comment to OMB 

is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by 

[Insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal 

Register.]. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection requirements contained in 

this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA or any other 

statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Small entities include small businesses, small 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 149 of 185 

organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

that is a small industrial entity as defined by the SBA’s 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic impacts of today’s proposed 

rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The costs associated with the proposed requirements 

in this proposed rule (i.e., the formaldehyde emissions limit 

and conventional spray gun prohibition) are negligible as 

discussed above. 

We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of 

the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on 

issues related to such impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This proposed rule does not contain a federal mandate that 

may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, 

local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 150 of 185 

private sector in any 1 year. This proposed rule does mandate a 

lowering of formaldehyde usage and a ban on the use of 

conventional spray guns but the nationwide annualized cost of 

these mandates are estimated to be less than $500,000 for 

affected sources. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. 

This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements 

of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments because it contains no requirements that apply to 

such governments nor does it impose obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. 

It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on 

the relationship between the national government and the states, 

or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 

13132. The burden to the respondents and the states is less 

than $500,000 for the entire source category. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with 

EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and state and 

local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from state and local officials. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 151 of 185 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments

Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal 

implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, 

and that is not required by statute, unless the federal 

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults 

with tribal officials early in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact 

statement. EPA has concluded that this proposed rule will not 

have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 

It will not have substantial direct effect on tribal 

governments, on the relationship between the federal government 

and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal government and Indian 

tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this action. 

EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this 

proposed action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 152 of 185 

significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not believe the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action would not relax the control measures on 

existing regulated sources. EPA’s risk assessments (included in 

the docket for this proposed rule) demonstrate that the existing 

regulations are associated with an acceptable level of risk and 

that the proposed additional requirements for the Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations source category will provide an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

 This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined 

under Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have 

significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy. This action will not create any new requirements for 

sources in the energy supply, distribution, or use sectors. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

 Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, Public Law Number 104-

113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use VCS in its 

regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 153 of 185 

standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The 

NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. 

 This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any 

VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on EJEJ. Its main 

provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to make EJ part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations in 

the United States. 

To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be 

associated with each source category, we evaluated the 

distributions of HAP-related cancer and non-cancer risks across 

different social, demographic, and economic groups within the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 154 of 185 

populations living near the facilities where these source 

categories are located. The methods used to conduct demographic 

analyses for this rule are described in section IV.A of the 

preamble for this rule. The development of demographic analyses 

to inform the consideration of EJ issues in EPA rulemakings is 

an evolving science. The EPA offers the demographic analyses in 

today’s rulemaking as examples of how such analyses might be 

developed to inform such consideration, and invites public 

comment on the approaches used and the interpretations made from 

the results, with the hope that this will support the refinement 

and improve utility of such analyses for future rulemakings. 

For the demographic analyses, we focused on the populations 

within 50 km of any facility estimated to have exposures to HAP 

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

non-cancer HI of 1 or greater (based on the emissions of the 

source category or the facility, respectively). We examined the 

distributions of those risks across various demographic groups, 

comparing the percentages of particular demographic groups to 

the total number of people in those demographic groups 

nationwide. The results, including other risk metrics, such as 

average risks for the exposed populations, are documented in 

source category-specific technical reports in the docket for 

both source categories covered in this proposal. 

As described in the preamble, for the Shipbuilding and Ship 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review *** 

Page 155 of 185 

Repair (Surface Coating) and Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations MACT standard source categories, our risk assessments 

demonstrate that the regulations are associated with an 

acceptable level of risk and that the proposed additional 

requirements for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations 

source category will provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. 

Our analyses also show that, for these source categories, 

there is no potential for an adverse environmental effect or 

human health multi-pathway effects, and that acute and chronic 

non-cancer health impacts are unlikely. EPA has determined that 

although there may be an existing disparity in HAP risks from 

these sources between some demographic groups, no demographic 

group is exposed to an unacceptable level of risk. The proposed 

rule would not relax the control measures on sources subject to 

the proposed regulated by the rule and, therefore, would not 

increase risks to any populations exposed to these sources. 

Deleted: Operations 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review*** 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions: Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) 

Operations; Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations 

--Page 156 of 185 

 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 

____________________________ 

Dated: 

____________________________ 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review*** 

Page 157 of 185 

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 

Protection Agency proposes to amend title 40, chapter I of the 

Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 63-–[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read 

as follows: 

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

Subpart II-–[AMENDED] 

2. Section 63.781 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to 

read as follows:

§ 63.781 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(d) If you are authorized in accordance with 40 CFR 

63.783(c) to use an add-on control system as an alternative 

means of limiting emissions from coating operations, in response 

to an action to enforce the standards set forth in this subpart, 

you may assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil 

penalties for exceedances of such standards that are caused by 

malfunction, as defined in 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties 

may be assessed, however, if the respondent fails to meet its 

burden of proving all the requirements in the affirmative 

defense. The affirmative defense shall not be available for 

claims for injunctive relief. 

(1) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 158 of 185 

enforce such a limit, the owners or operators of facilities must 

timely meet the notification requirements in paragraph (d)(2) of 

this section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence 

that: 

(i) The excess emissions: 

(A) Were caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner; and 

(B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, 

proper design or better operation and maintenance practices; and 

(C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have 

been foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and 

(D) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of 

inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and 

(ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when 

the applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 159 of 185 

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable 

to prevent loss of life, severe personal injury, or severe 

property damage; and 

(v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of 

the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment, 

and human health; and 

(vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept 

in operation if at all possible; and 

(vii) Your actions in response to the excess emissions were 

documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; 

and 

(viii) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner 

consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and 

(ix) The owner or operator has prepared a written root 

cause analysis 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 160 of 185 

facsimile 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 30 days of the initial 

occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in this subpart to 

demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, that 

it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 63.782 is amended by adding a definition for 

“affirmative defense” to read as follows: 

§63.782 Definitions. 

* * * 

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 

proceeding, a response or a defense put forward by a defendant, 

regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the 

merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a 

judicial or administrative proceeding. 

* * * * * 

4. Section 63.783 is amended by redesignating paragraphs 

(b)(1) and (b)(2) as (b)(2) and (b)(3) and adding a new 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 161 of 185 

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

§63.783 Standards. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) At all times the owner or operator must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution 

control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner 

consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices 

for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether such 

operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be 

based on information available to the Administrator which may 

include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of 

operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of the source. 

* * * * * 

5. Section 63.785 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to 

read as follows: 

§63.785 Compliance procedures. 

 * * * * * 

(e) Continuous compliance requirements. You must 

demonstrate continuous compliance with the emissions standards 

and operating limits by using the performance test methods and 

procedures in §63.786 for each affected source. 

Formatted: Font: Courier New, 12 pt
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 162 of 185 

(1) General requirements. 

(i) You must monitor and collect data, and provide a site 

specific monitoring plan, as required by §§63.783, 63.785, 

63.786 and 63.787. 

(ii) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, 

repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and 

required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control 

activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments), you must operate the 

monitoring system and collect data at all required intervals at 

all times the affected source is operating, and periods of 

malfunction. Any period for which data collection is required 

and the operation of the CEMS is not otherwise exempt and for 

which the monitoring system is out-of-control and data are not 

available for required calculations constitutes a deviation from 

the monitoring requirements. 

(iii) You may not use data recorded during monitoring 

system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality assurance or 

control activities in calculations used to report emissions or 

operating levels. A monitoring system malfunction is any 

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the 

monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring system 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 163 of 185 

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. 

6. Section 63.786 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to 

read as follows: 

§63.786 Test methods and procedures. 

* * * * * 

(e) For add-on control systems approved for use in limiting 

emissions from coating operations pursuant to §63.783(c), 

performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as 

the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on 

representative performance of the affected source for the period 

being tested. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make 

available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary 

to determine the conditions of performance tests. 

* * * * * 

7. Section 63.788 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(5) 

and revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§63.788 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) Each owner or operator that receives approval pursuant 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 164 of 185 

to §63.783(c) to use an add-on control system to control coating 

emissions shall maintain records of the occurrence and duration 

of each malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or 

the required air pollution control and monitoring equipment. 

Each owner or operator shall maintain records of actions taken 

during periods of malfunction to minimize emissions in 

accordance with §63.783(b)(1), including corrective actions to 

restore malfunctioning process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of operation. 

 (c) Reporting requirements. Before the 60th day following 

completion of each 6-month period after the compliance date 

specified in §63.784, each owner or operator of an affected 

source shall submit a report to the Administrator for each of 

the previous 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 

which the violation(s) occurred. To the extent possible, the 

report shall be organized according to the compliance 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 165 of 185 

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 is amended: 

a. By removing entry 63.6(e)-(f); 

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

63.6(e)(1)(iii); 63.6(e)(2), 63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1), and 

63.6(f)(2)-(f)(3); 

c. By removing entry 63.7; 

d. By adding entries 63.7(a)-(d), 63.7(e)(1), and 

63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4); 

e. By revising entry 63.8; 

f. By removing entry 63.10(a)-(b); 

g. By adding entries 63.10(a), 63.10(b)(1), 

63.10(b)(2)(i), 63.10(b)(2)(ii), 63.10(b)(2)(iii), 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 166 of 185 

63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v), 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(xiv), 

and 63.10(b)(3); 

h. By removing entries 63.10(c); 

i. By adding entries 63.10(c)(1)-(9), 63.10(c)(10)-(11), 

63.10(c)(10)-(11), 63.10(c)(12)-(14), and 63.10(c)(15); 

j. By removing entry 63.10(d); and 

k. By adding entries 63.10(d)(1)-(4) and 63.10(d)(5). 

The revisions read as follows: 

Table 1 to Subpart II of Part 63—General Provisions of 

Applicability to Subpart II 

Reference 

Applies 

to 

subpart 

II Comment 

* * * * * * * 

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

requirement. 

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

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

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

63.6(e)(3) No. 

63.6(f)(1) No. 

63.6(f)(2)-

(f)(3) 

No. If an alternative means of limiting 

emissions (e.g., an add-on control 

system) is used to comply with subpart II 

in accordance with §63.783(c), then this 

section does apply. 

* * * * * * * 

63.7(a)-(d) No If an alternative means of limiting 

emissions (e.g., an add-on control 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 167 of 185 

system) is used to comply with subpart II 

in accordance with §63.783(c), then these 

sections do apply.

63.7(e)(1) 

No If an alternative means of limiting 

emissions (e.g., an add-on control 

system) is used to comply with subpart II 

in accordance with §63.783(c), then see 

§63.786(e). 

63.7(e)(2)-

(e)(4) 

No If an alternative means of limiting 

emissions (e.g., an add-on control 

system) is used to comply with subpart II

in accordance with §63.783(c), then these 

sections do apply. 

* * * * * * * 

63.8 No If an alternative means of limiting 

emissions (e.g., an add-on control 

system) is used to comply with subpart II 

in accordance with §63.783(c), then this 

section does apply, with the exception of 

§63.8(c)(1)(i), §63.8(c)(1)(iii), and the 

last sentence of §63.8(d)(3). 

* * * * * * * 

63.10(a) Yes 

63.10(b)(1) Yes 

63.10(b)(2)(i) No 

63.10(b)(2)(ii) No See §63.788(b)(5) for recordkeeping of 

occurrence, duration, and actions taken 

during malfunctions. 

63.10(b)(2)(iii) Yes 

63.10(b)(2)(iv)-

(b)(2)(v) 

No 

63.10(b)(2)(vi)-

(b)(2)(xiv) 

Yes 

63.10(b)(3) Yes 

63.10(c)(1)-(9) No If an alternative means of limiting 

emissions (e.g., an add-on control 

system) is used to comply with subpart II 

in accordance with §63.783(c), then these 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 168 of 185 

sections do apply. 

63.10(c)(10)-

(11) 

No If an alternative means of limiting 

emissions (e.g., an add-on control 

system) is used to comply with subpart II 

in accordance with §63.783(c), then see 

§63.788(b)(5) for records of 

malfunctions. 

63.10(c)(12)-

(14) 

No If an alternative means of limiting 

emissions (e.g., an add-on control 

system) is used to comply with subpart II 

in accordance with §63.783(c), then these 

sections do apply. 

63.10(c)(15) No 

63.10(d)(1)-(4) Yes 

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

malfunctions. 

* * * * * * *

9. Table 3 to subpart II is amended by revising entry 

“Determination of whether containers meet...” to read as follows: 

Table 3 to Subpart II of Part 63—Summary of Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Requirementsabc

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 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

Subpart JJ-–[AMENDED] 

10. Section 63.800 is amended: 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 169 of 185 

(a) By adding paragraph (d); 

(b) By redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs 

(e) and (f); 

(c) By adding paragraph (g); 

(d) By redesignating paragraphs (f) and (g) as paragraphs 

(h) and (i); and 

(e) By adding paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§63.800 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(d) This subpart does not apply to any surface coating or 

coating operation that meets any of the criteria of paragraphs 

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

(1) Surface coating of metal parts and products other than 

metal components of wood furniture that meets the applicability 

criteria for miscellaneous metal parts and products surface 

coating (subpart MMMM of this part). 

(2) Surface coating of plastic parts and products other 

than plastic components of wood furniture that meets the 

applicability criteria for plastic parts and products surface 

coating (subpart PPPP of this part). 

(3) Surface coating of wood building products that meets 

the applicability criteria for wood building products surface 

coating (subpart QQQQ of this part). The surface coating of 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 170 of 185 

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 THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The 

owner or operator of an existing area source that increases its 

emissions of (or its potential to emit) HAP such that the source 

becomes a major source that is subject to this subpart shall 

comply with this subpart 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 171 of 185 

penalties may be assessed, however, if the respondent fails to 

meet its burden of proving all the requirements in the 

affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(1) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to 

enforce such a limit, the owner or operator of facilities must 

timely meet the notification requirements in paragraph (h)(2) of 

this section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence 

that: 

(i) The excess emissions: 

(A) Were caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner; and 

(B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, 

proper design or better operation and maintenance practices; and 

(C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have 

been foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and 

(D) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of 

inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and 

(ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when 

the applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 172 of 185 

shift and overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to 

make these repairs; and 

(iii) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess 

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum 

extent practicable during periods of such emissions; and 

(iv) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of 

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable 

to prevent loss of life, severe personal injury, or severe 

property damage; and 

(v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of 

the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment, 

and human health; and 

(vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept 

in operation if at all possible; and 

(vii) Owner or operator actions in response to the excess 

emissions were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 

(viii) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner 

consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and 

(ix) The owner or operator has prepared a written root 

cause analysis 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 173 of 185 

specify, using best monitoring methods and engineering judgment, 

the amount of excess emissions that were the result of the 

malfunction. 

(2) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility 

experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a 

malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or 

facsimile transmission as soon as possible, but no later than 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 30 days of the initial 

occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in this subpart to 

demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, that 

it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph (h)(1) of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

11. Section 63.801 is amended by: 

a. Adding a definition for “affirmative defense” and 

revising the definition for “wood furniture” in 

paragraph (a); and 

b. Adding nomenclature, in alphabetical order, for Cf, 

Ftotal, Gf, Vc, and Vg to paragraph (b). Deleted: f
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 174 of 185 

The additions and revisions read as follows: 

§63.801 Definitions. 

(a) * * * 

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 

proceeding, a response or a defense put forward by a defendant, 

regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the 

merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a 

judicial or administrative proceeding. 

* * * 

Wood furniture means any product made of wood, a wood 

product such as rattan or wicker, or an engineered wood product 

such as particleboard that is manufactured at any facility that 

is engaged, either in part or in whole, in the manufacture of 

wood furniture or wood furniture components, including, but not 

limited to, facilities under any of the following standard 

industrial classification codes: 2434, 2511, 2512, 2517, 2519, 

2521, 2531, 2541, 2599, or 5712. 

* * * 

(b) * * * 

* * * * * 

Cf=the formaldehyde content of a finishing material (c), in 

pounds of formaldehyde per gallon of coating (lb/gal). 

* * * * * 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 175 of 185 

Ftotal= total formaldehyde emissions in each rolling 12-month 

period. 

* * * * * 

Gf=the formaldehyde content of a contact adhesive (g), in 

pounds of formaldehyde per gallon of contact adhesive (lb/gal). 

* * * * * 

Vc=the volume of formaldehyde-containing finishing material 

(c), in gal. 

* * * * * 

Vg=the volume of formaldehyde-containing contact adhesive 

(g), in gal. 

* * * * * 

11. Section 63.802 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(4), 

(b)(4), and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 63.802 Emission limits. 

 (a) * * * 

(4) Limit total formaldehyde (Ftotal) emissions from 

finishing operations and contact adhesives to no more than 400 

lb per rolling 12-month period. 

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

Deleted: f

Deleted: free

Deleted: free 

Deleted: f
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 176 of 185 

(4) Limit total formaldehyde (Ftotal) emissions from 

finishing operations and contact adhesives to no more than 400 

lb per rolling 12-month period. 

* * * * * 

 (c) At all times, the owner or operator must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution 

control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner 

consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices 

for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether such 

operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be 

based on information available to the Administrator which may 

include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of 

operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of the source. 

* * * * * 

12. Section 63.803 is amended by removing paragraphs 

(h)(1)-(6) and revising paragraph (h) introductory text 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. 

Deleted: free 

Deleted: f
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 177 of 185 

* * * * * 

13. Section 63.804 is amended by adding paragraphs (g)(9) 

and (h) to read as follows: 

§63.804 Compliance procedures and monitoring requirements. 

 * * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(9) Continuous compliance requirements. You must 

demonstrate continuous compliance with the emissions standards 

and operating limits by using the performance test methods and 

procedures in §63.805 for each affected source. 

(1) General requirements. 

(i) You must monitor and collect data, and provide a site 

specific monitoring plan as required by §§63.804, 63.806 and 

63.807. 

(ii) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, 

repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and 

required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control 

activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments), you must operate the 

monitoring system and collect data at all required intervals at 

all times the affected source is operating and periods of 

malfunction. Any period for which data collection is required 

and the operation of the CEMS is not otherwise exempt and for 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 178 of 185 

which the monitoring system is out-of-control and data are not 

available for required calculations constitutes a deviation from 

the monitoring requirements. 

(iii) You may not use data recorded during monitoring 

system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality assurance or 

control activities in calculations used to report emissions or 

operating levels. A monitoring system malfunction is any 

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the 

monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring system 

failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless 

operation are not malfunctions. The owner or operator must use 

all the data collected during all other periods in assessing the 

operation of the control device and associated control system. 

(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 (h)(2). 

 (1) Calculate total formaldehyde emissions from all 

finishing materials and contact adhesives used at the facility 

using Equation 5 and maintain a value of Ftotal no more than 400 

lb per rolling 12-month period. 

Ftotal=(Cf1Vc1 + Cf2Vc2 + * * * + CfnVcn + Gf1Vg1 + Gf2Vg2 + * * * + GfnVgn) Equation 5

Deleted: free

Deleted: f

Deleted: 

Deleted: f
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 179 of 185 

(2) Use a control system with an overall control efficiency 

(R) such that the calculated value of Ftotal in Equation 6 is no 

more than 400 lb per rolling 12-month period. 

Ftotal=(Cf1Vc1 + Cf2Vc2 + *** + CfnVcn + GfiVg1 + Gf2Vg2 + *** + GfnVgn)* (1‐R)    Equation 6

* * * * * 

14. Section 63.805 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(1) to 

read as follows: 

§63.805 Performance test methods. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Performance tests shall be conducted under such 

conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or 

operator based on representative performance of the affected 

source for the period being tested. Upon request, the owner or 

operator shall make available to the Administrator such records 

as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance 

tests. 

* * * * * 

15. Section 63.806 is amended by removing paragraph (e)(4) 

and adding paragraphs (b)(4) and (k) to read as follows: 

§63.806 Recordkeeping Requirements.

(b) * * * 

Deleted: f

Deleted: f
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 180 of 185 

(4) The formaldehyde content, in lb/gal, as applied, of 

each finishing material and contact adhesive subject to the 

emission limits in §63.802. 

* * * * * 

(k) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to 

this subpart shall maintain records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of operation (i.e., process 

equipment) or the air pollution control equipment and monitoring 

equipment. The owner or operator shall maintain records of 

actions taken during periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with §63.802(c), including corrective 

actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution 

control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner 

of operation. 

* * * * * 

16. Section 63.807 is amended by revising paragraphs (c), 

(c)(3), and the first sentence in paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§63.807 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) The owner or operator of an affected source 

demonstrating compliance in accordance with §63.804(g)(1), (2), 

(3), (5), (7), (8), and (h)(1) shall submit a report covering 

Deleted: free 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 181 of 185 

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), and (h)(1), 

a statement of whether the affected source was in compliance or 

noncompliance, and, if the affected source was in noncompliance, 

the measures taken to bring the affected source into compliance. 

If there was a malfunction during the reporting period, the 

report shall also include the number, duration, and a brief 

description for each type of malfunction which occurred during 

the reporting period and which caused or may have caused any 

applicable emission limitation to be exceeded. The report must 

also include a description of actions taken by an owner or 

operator during a malfunction of an affected source to minimize 

emissions in accordance with §63.802(c), including actions taken 

to correct a malfunction. 

* * * * * 

 (d) The owner or operator of an affected source 

demonstrating compliance in accordance with §63.804(g)(4), (6), 

and (h)(2) of this subpart shall submit the excess emissions and 

continuous monitoring system performance report and summary 

report required by §63.10(e) of subpart A. * * * 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 182 of 185 

* * * * * 

17. Table 1 to Subpart JJ is amended: 

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

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

63.6(e)(1)(iii); 

c. By revising entries 63.6(e)(2) and (3); 

d. By removing entries 63.7 and 63.8; 

e. By adding entries 63.7(a)-(d), 63.7(e)(1), 63.7(e)(2)-

(e)(4), 63.8(a)-(b), 63.8(c)(1)(i), 63.8(c)(1)(ii), 

63.8(c)(1)(iii), 63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2), 63.8(d)(3), and 63.8(e)-(f); 

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

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

63.10(b)(2)(iii), 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v), 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-

(b)(2)(xiv); 

h. By removing entry 63.10(c); 

i. By adding entries 63.10(c)(1)-(9), 63.10(c)(10)-(11), 

63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14), and 63.10(c)(15); and 

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

The revisions read as follows: 

Table 1 to Subpart JJ of Part 63—General Provisions

Applicability to Subpart JJ 

Reference 

Applies to 

subpart JJ Comment 

* * * * * * * 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 183 of 185 

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

requirement. 

63.6(e)(1)(ii) No 

63.6(e)(1)(iii) Yes 

63.6(e)(2) No Section reserved. 

63.6(e)(3) No 

63.6(f)(1) No 

§63.7(a)-(d) Yes Applies only to affected sources 

using a control device to comply 

with the rule 

§63.7(e)(1) No See 63.805(a)(1). 

§63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4) Yes Applies only to affected sources 

using a control device to comply 

with the rule 

63.8(a)-(b) Yes Applies only to affected sources 

using a control device to comply 

with the rule. 

63.8(c)(1)(i) No 

63.8(c)(1)(ii) Yes Applies only to affected sources 

using a control device to comply 

with the rule. 

63.8(c)(1)(iii) No 

63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2) Yes Applies only to affected sources 

using a control device to comply 

with the rule. 

63.8(d)(3) Yes, except 

for last 

sentence 

Applies only to affected sources 

using a control device to comply 

with the rule. 

63.8(e)-(g) Yes Applies only to affected sources 

using a control device to comply 

with the rule 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 184 of 185 

* * * * * * * 

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 malfunction. 

63.10(b)(2)(iii) Yes Applies only to affected sources 

using a control device to comply 

with the rule 

63.10(b)(2)(iv)-

(b)(2)(v) 

No 

63.10(b)(2)(vi)-

(b)(2)(xiv) 

Yes Applies only to affected sources 

using a control device to comply 

with the rule 

* * * * * * *

63.10(c)(1)-(9) Yes 

63.10(c)(10)-(11) No See 63.806(k) for recordkeeping of

malfunctions. 

63.10(c)(12)-

(c)(14) 

Yes 

63.10(c)(15) No 

* * * * * * * 

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

malfunctions. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

18. Table 3 to Subpart JJ is amended by adding entry (e) 

under “Finishing Operations” to read as follows:

Table 3 to Subpart JJ of Part 63—Summary of Emission 

Limits 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review*** 

Page 185 of 185 

Emission point 

Existing 

source 

New 

source 

* * * * * * * 

(e) Achieve total free formaldehyde emissions

across all finishing operations and contact 

adhesives, lb per rolling 12-month period, as 

applied 

400 400 

19. Table 5 to Subpart JJ is amended by removing the entry 

for “Formaldehyde.”