# National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A02-7224 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** April 24, 2002 - **Citation:** 67 FR 20206 ## Text ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [FRL-7163-6] RIN 2060-AG55 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for metal furniture surface coating operations located at major sources of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. These proposed standards would implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring these operations to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The primary HAP emitted by these operations are xylene, toluene, glycol ethers, 2-butoxy ethanol, ethylbenzene, and methyl ethyl ketone. Each of the HAP can cause toxic effects such as eye, nose, throat, and skin irritation, and blood cell, heart, liver, and kidney damage. Implementation of the proposed standards would reduce nationwide HAP emissions from major sources by about 70 percent. DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before June 24, 2002. Public Hearing. If anyone wishes to contact EPA to request to speak at a public hearing, they should do so by May 14, 2002. If requested, a public hearing will be held within approximately 30 days following publication of this notice in the Federal Register . ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-97-40, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-97-40, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Room M-1500, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at our Office of Administration Auditorium in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. You should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (C539-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-7946, to request to speak at a public hearing or to find out if a hearing will be held. Docket. Docket No. A-97-40 contains supporting information used in developing the proposed standards. The docket is located at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mohamed Serageldin, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (C539-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-2379; facsimile number (919) 541-5689; electronic mail (e-mail) address: serageldin.mohamed@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by e-mail to: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect® file format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket number: A-97-40. No confidential business information (CBI) should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket: Dr. Mohamed Serageldin, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. The EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by EPA, the information may be made available to the public without further notice to the commenter. Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (C539-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-7946 at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing should also contact Ms. Eck to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed emission standards. Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may be obtained by mail from the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials. World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed rule is also available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of the proposed rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384. Regulated Entities. The proposed source category definition includes facilities that apply coatings to metal furniture or components of metal furniture. Metal furniture means furniture or components of furniture that are constructed either entirely or partially from metal. Metal furniture includes, but is not limited to, components of the following types of products as well as the products themselves: household, office, institutional, laboratory, hospital, public building, restaurant, barber and beauty shop, and dental furniture; office and store fixtures; partitions; shelving; lockers; lamps and lighting fixtures; and wastebaskets. In general, facilities that coat metal furniture are covered under the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes listed in table 1. However, facilities classified under other SIC or NAICS codes may be subject to the proposed regulation if they meet the applicability criteria. Not all facilities classified under the SIC and NAICS codes in table 1 will be subject to the proposed standard because some of the classifications cover products outside the scope of the proposed NESHAP for metal furniture. Table 1.—Metal Furniture Product Descriptions and Corresponding SIC and NAICS Codes Product description 1987 SIC Code Equivalent 1997 NAICS Code(s) Equivalent 1997 NAICS Product Description Metal Household Furniture 2514 337124 Metal Household Furniture Manufacturing. Office Furniture, Except Wood 2522 337214 Nonwood Office Furniture Manufacturing. Public Building and Related Furniture 2531 337127 Institutional Furniture Manufacturing. Office and Store Fixtures, Partitions, Shelving, and Lockers, Except Wood 2542 337215 Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing. Furniture and Fixtures, Not Classified Elsewhere 2599 337127 Institutional Furniture Manufacturing. Hardware, Not Classified Elsewhere 3429 332951 Hardware Manufacturing. Metal Stampings, Not Classified Elsewhere (Except Kitchen Utensils, Pots and Pans for Cooking, and Coins) 3469 332116 Metal Stamping. Wire Springs 3495 332612 Wire Spring Manufacturing. Fabricated Metal Products, Not Classified Elsewhere 3499 337215 Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing. Residential Electric Lighting Fixtures 3645 335121 Residential Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing. Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Electric Lighting Fixtures 3646 335122 Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing. Laboratory Apparatus and Furniture 3821 339111 Laboratory Furniture Manufacturing. Dental Equipment and Supplies 3843 339114 Dental Equipment Manufacturing. Manufacturing Industries, Not Classified Elsewhere 3999 337127 Institutional Furniture Manufacturing. Reupholster and Furniture Repair 7641 81142 Reupholstery and Furniture Repair. State/Federal Governmental Agencies State correctional institutions and military installations that apply coatings to metal furniture. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your coating operation would be regulated by this proposed action, you should examine the applicability criteria in § 63.4881 of the proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: I. Background A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP? B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP? C. What are the health effects associated with HAP emissions from the surface coating of metal furniture? II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. What source categories would be affected by this proposed rule? B. What is the relationship to other rules? C. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the emissions? D. What is the affected source? E. What are the proposed emission limits, operating limits, and other standards? F. What are the proposed testing and initial compliance requirements? G. What are the proposed continuous compliance provisions? H. What are the proposed notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements? III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards A. How did we select the source category? B. How did we select the regulated pollutants? C. How did we select the affected source? D. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed standards for exisiting and new sources? E. How did we select the format of the standards? F. How did we select the testing and initial compliance requirements? G. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements? H. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements? I. How did we select the compliance date? IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts A. What are the air impacts? B. What are the cost impacts? C. What are the economic impacts? D. What are the nonair health, environmental, and energy impacts? V. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 G. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. H. Paperwork Reduction Act I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act I. Background A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP? Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and subcategories of major sources and certain area sources of HAP and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The Surface Coating of Metal Furniture category of major sources was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) under the Surface Coating Processes industry group. Major sources of HAP are those that, considering controls, emit or have the potential to emit equal to, or greater than, 10 tons per year (tpy) of any one HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP? Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly referred to as the MACT. The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all major sources achieve a level of control at least as stringent as that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT, we 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 emission reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. C. What Are the Health Effects Associated with HAP Emissions From the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture? The major HAP emitted from the surface coating of metal furniture include xylene, toluene, glycol ethers, 2-butoxy ethanol, ethylbenzene, and methyl ethyl ketone. These compounds account for about 90 percent of the nationwide HAP emissions from this source category. Other HAP identified in emissions include methyl isobutyl ketone, hexane, and methylene chloride. These pollutants can cause reversible or irreversible toxic effects following sufficient exposure. The potential toxic effects include eye, nose, throat, and skin irritation; nausea, vomiting, headache, and dizziness, and liver and kidney damage. The degree of adverse effects to human health from exposure to HAP can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the human health effects may be experienced are dependent upon (1) the ambient concentration observed in the area (as influenced by emission rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain); (2) the frequency and duration of exposures; (3) characteristics of exposed individuals (genetics, age, preexisting health conditions, and lifestyle), which vary significantly with the population; and (4) pollutant-specific characteristics (toxicity, half-life in the environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence). II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. What Source Categories Would Be Affected by This Proposed Rule? The proposed rule would apply to you if you own or operate a metal furniture surface coating facility that is a major source, or is located at a major source, or is part of a major source of HAP emissions. We have defined a metal furniture surface coating facility as one that applies coatings to metal furniture or components of metal furniture. Metal furniture means furniture or components that are constructed either entirely or partially from metal. You would not be subject to the proposed rule if your metal furniture surface coating facility is located at an area source. An area source of HAP is any facility that has the potential to emit HAP but is not a major source. You may establish area source status by limiting the source's potential to emit HAP through appropriate mechanisms available through the permitting authority. You would not be subject to the proposed rule if you use only coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials that contain no organic HAP. The source category does not include research or laboratory facilities or janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations; or coating application using handheld nonrefillable aerosol containers. B. What Is the Relationship to Other Rules? Affected sources subject to the proposed rule may also be subject to other rules. The relationship between this proposed rule and other rules is discussed below. We specifically request comments on how monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements can be consolidated for sources that are subject to more than one rule. We also request comments regarding instances where a facility could be subject to multiple surface coating NESHAP or where the applicability of one NESHAP versus another is unclear. Commenters should provide specific examples of these instances and discuss any associated adverse effects that would result. New Source Performance Standards—40 CFR Part 60, Subpart EE. The metal furniture new source performance standards (NSPS) apply to facilities that apply organic coatings to metal furniture and that began construction, reconstruction, or modification after November 28, 1980. The pollutants regulated are volatile organic compounds (VOC). Emissions of VOC are limited to 0.09 kilogram (kg) per liter of coating solids applied, and the affected source is each individual coating operation. The proposed rule differs from the NSPS in three ways. First, the affected source for the proposed rule is defined broadly as the collection of all coating operations and related activities and equipment at the facility, whereas the affected facility for the NSPS is defined narrowly as each individual coating operation. This broader definition of affected source allows a facility's emissions to be combined for compliance purposes. Second, the proposed rule would regulate organic HAP. While most organic HAP emitted from metal furniture surface coating operations are VOC, some VOC are not listed as HAP and, therefore, the NSPS regulates a broader range of pollutants than would the proposed NESHAP. Third, the emission limitations in the proposed rule would be based on the amount of solids used at the affected source. The NSPS limitations are based on the amount of solids actually applied to the metal furniture which necessitates estimates of transfer efficiency in the compliance calculations. Because of the differences between the two rules, compliance with either rule cannot be deemed compliance with the other. A metal furniture surface coating facility that meets the applicability requirements of both rules must comply with both. Overlapping reporting, recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements may be resolved through the title V permit process. National Emission Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations—40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJ. There may be situations where a manufacturer of wood furniture also coats metal components of that wood furniture. The coating of these metal components would be subject to subpart JJ, the rule for wood furniture manufacturing. As such, the proposed rule would not apply to these facilities. The applicability section of the proposed rule clarifies this difference in applicability. Future national emission standards for the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts. Metal furniture often contains components, such as metal knobs, hinges, and screws, that have a wider use beyond metal furniture. The coating of such parts would not be subject to the proposed rule provided the coating takes place at a facility that does not apply coatings to other metal furniture. Such metal coating operations would be subject to the future NESHAP for the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts. Future national emission standards for the surface coating of plastic parts and products. Plastic parts and products may be components (e.g., plastic handles) of metal furniture. The coating of such plastic parts would be subject to the proposed rule if the coating takes place at a metal furniture surface coating facility; otherwise, the coating operation would be subject to the future NESHAP for the surface coating of plastic parts and products. C. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the Emissions? HAP Emission Sources. Emissions from coating application account for more than 60 percent of HAP emissions from the metal furniture surface coating process. Remaining emissions are primarily from cleaning. In most cases, HAP emissions from mixing and storage are relatively small. The organic HAP emissions associated with coatings (the term “coatings” includes protective and functional coatings, as well as adhesives) occur at several points. A coating is most often applied by using a spray gun in a spray booth or by dipping the substrate in a tank containing the coating. In a spray booth, volatile components evaporate from the coating applied to the part, as well as from the overspray. The coated part then passes through an open (flash-off) area where additional volatiles evaporate from the coating. The coated part then passes through a drying/curing oven, or is allowed to air dry, where the remaining volatiles are evaporated. Organic HAP emissions also occur from the activities undertaken during cleaning, where solvent is applied to remove coating residue or other unwanted materials. Cleaning in this industry includes cleaning of spray guns and transfer lines (e.g., tubing or piping), tanks, and the interior of spray booths. Cleaning also includes applying solvents to manufactured parts prior to coating application and to equipment (e.g., cleaning rollers, pumps, conveyors, etc.). Mixing and Storage. Organic HAP emissions can also occur from displacement of organic vapor-laden air in containers used to store HAP solvents or to mix coatings containing HAP solvents. The displacement of organic HAP vapor-laden air can occur due to filling of containers, temperature or barometric pressure changes, or due to agitation during mixing. Organic HAP. Available emission data collected during the development of the proposed NESHAP show that the primary organic HAP emitted from the surface coating of metal furniture include xylene, toluene, glycol ethers, 2-butoxy ethanol, ethylbenzene, and methyl ethyl ketone. These compounds account for over 90 percent of this category's nationwide organic HAP emissions. Other significant organic HAP identified include methyl isobutyl ketone, hexane, and methylene chloride. Inorganic HAP. Based on information reported in survey responses during the development of the proposed NESHAP, inorganic HAP, including chromium, lead, and manganese compounds are contained in two kinds of coatings used by this source category. No inorganic HAP were reported in cleaning materials. Nationwide inorganic HAP emissions are estimated to be less than 5 megagrams per year (Mg/yr). D. What Is the Affected Source? We define an affected source as a stationary source, group of stationary sources, or part of a stationary source to which a specific emission standard applies. This proposed rule defines the affected source as the collection of all operations associated with the surface coating of metal furniture or components of metal furniture that are performed at a contiguous area under common control. These operations include preparation of a coating for application (e.g., mixing with thinners); surface preparation of the metal furniture or component; coating application and flash-off; drying and/or curing of applied coatings; cleaning of equipment used in surface coating; storage of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and handling and conveyance of waste materials from the surface coating operations. Coatings include such materials as adhesives and protective or decorative coatings. E. What Are the Proposed Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Other Standards? We are proposing standards that, if promulgated, would limit HAP emissions from the surface coating of metal furniture. The proposed standards include emission limits and operating limits. Emission Limits. We are proposing to limit organic HAP emissions from each new and reconstructed affected source to no more than 0.094 kilogram HAP per liter of coating solids used (kg/liter) (0.78 pound per gallon (lb/gal)) each calendar month. The proposed limit for each existing affected source is 0.12 kg HAP/liter used (1.0 lb/gal). You would choose from several compliance options in the proposed rule to achieve the emission limit(s). You could comply by applying materials (coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials) that meet the emission limit, either individually or collectively, during each monthly compliance period. You could also use a capture system and add-on control device to meet the emission limit, or a combination of both approaches. Operating Limits. If you reduce emissions by using a capture system and add-on control device (other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a monthly liquid-liquid material balance), the proposed operating limits would apply to you. These limits are site-specific parameter limits you determine during the initial performance test of the system. For capture systems, you would establish average volumetric flow rate limits for each capture device (or enclosure) in each capture system. You would also establish limits on average pressure drop across openings in the capture system. For thermal and catalytic oxidizers, you would monitor temperature. For solvent recovery systems for which you do not conduct a monthly liquid-liquid material balance, you would monitor the carbon bed temperature and the amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed. For condensers, you would monitor the temperature of the outlet gas temperature from the condenser. All operating limits must reflect operation of the capture system and control devices during a performance test that demonstrates achievement of the emission limit during representative operating conditions. General Provisions. The General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) also would apply to you as outlined in the proposed rule. The General Provisions codify certain procedures and criteria for all 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP. The General Provisions contain administrative procedures, preconstruction review procedures for new sources, and procedures for conducting compliance-related activities such as notifications, reporting, and recordkeeping, performance testing, and monitoring. The proposed rule refers to individual sections of the General Provisions to emphasize key sections that you should be aware of. However, unless specifically overridden in the proposed rule, all of the applicable General Provisions requirements would apply to you. F. What Are the Proposed Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements? Compliance Dates. Existing affected sources would have to be in compliance with the final standards no later than 3 years after the effective date of the subpart. The effective date is the date on which the final rule is published in the Federal Register . New and reconstructed sources would have to be in compliance upon startup of the affected source or no later than the effective date, whichever is later. The proposed initial compliance period is 1 month and begins on the compliance date and ends on the last day of the first full calendar month following the compliance date; except that for new and reconstructed sources required to conduct performance tests, it ends on the last day of the first full calendar month following the performance test. Being “in compliance” means that the owner or operator of the affected source meets all the requirements of the rule to achieve the proposed emission limit(s) and operating limits by the end of the initial compliance period. At the end of the initial compliance period, the owner or operator would use the data and records generated to determine whether or not the affected source is in compliance for that period. If it does not meet the applicable limit(s), then it is out of compliance for the entire initial compliance period. Emission Limit(s). There are several proposed options for complying with the proposed emission limit(s), and the testing and initial compliance requirements vary accordingly. If you demonstrate compliance based on the materials used in the affected source, you would determine the mass of organic HAP and the volume of solids in all materials used during the initial compliance period. To determine the mass of organic HAP in coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials and the volume coating solids, you could either rely on manufacturer's data or on results from the test methods listed below. Under § 63.4941 of the proposed rule, you would be required to determine the mass of organic HAP in coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. To do this, you would count HAP that are present at 1 percent by mass or more if they are not carcinogens identified by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) at 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4), and count HAP that are present at 0.1 percent by mass or more if they are OSHA-identified carcinogens. Coating and solvent manufacturers are accustomed to providing a breakdown of material components according to this distinction and routinely report the values on Material Safety Data Sheets for the materials, as required by OSHA. We could have selected some other way to count HAP components of materials but concluded that allowing this long-standing approach to be used for compliance with the proposed NESHAP would provide the information needed for compliance assurance and would not impose any additional burden on the industry. We request comment on the appropriateness of this provision of the proposed rule. You may use alternative test methods provided you get EPA approval in accordance with the NESHAP General Provisions, § 63.7(f). If there is any inconsistency between the test method results (either EPA's or an approved alternative) and manufacturer's data, the test method results would prevail for compliance and enforcement purposes. • For organic HAP content, use Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A; • The proposed rule allows you to use nonaqueous volatile matter as a surrogate for organic HAP, which would include all organic HAP plus all other organic compounds. If you choose this option, then use Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; and • For volume coating solids, use either manufacturer's data or ASTM Method D2697-86 (1998) or ASTM Method D6093-97. To demonstrate initial compliance based on the materials used, you would be required to either ensure that the organic HAP content of each coating meets the emission limit and that you use no organic HAP-containing thinners or cleaning materials; or ensure that the total mass of organic HAP in all coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials divided by the total volume of coating solids meets the emission limit. For the latter option, you would be required to: • For the initial compliance period, determine the quantity of each coating, thinner, and cleaning material used in the affected source. • Determine the mass of organic HAP in each coating, thinner, and cleaning material. • Determine the volume fraction solids for each coating. • Calculate the total mass of organic HAP for materials and total volume of coating solids used in the affected source for the compliance period. You may subtract from the total mass of organic HAP the amount contained in waste materials you send to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) regulated under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266. The proposed calculation equation (Equation 1 in § 63.4951) adds together all the organic HAP in the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials and allows you to subtract organic HAP in waste materials as indicated above. The calculated mass of organic HAP is, therefore, not based on actual measurement of emissions to the atmosphere but rather assumes that all organic HAP used (less those in waste materials as appropriate) are emitted. This means of determining organic HAP emissions for compliance is consistent with the means by which we calculated emission rates from industry data on which the proposed emission limits are based. We believe that Equation 1 is a simple mass-balance relationship which adequately quantifies the organic HAP emissions without imposing an excessive burden on respondents. We request comment on our approach for determining emissions and on any alternatives. • Calculate the ratio of the total mass of organic HAP for the materials used to the total volume of coating solids used. • Record the calculations and results and include them in your notification of compliance status (see section II.H of this preamble). If you use a capture system and control device, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a monthly liquid-liquid material balance, you would: • Conduct an initial performance test to determine the capture and control efficiencies of the equipment (described below) and to establish operating limits to be achieved on a continuous basis (also described below). The performance test would have to be completed no later than the compliance date for existing sources and 180 days after the compliance date for new and reconstructed sources. You would also need to schedule it in time to obtain the results for use in completing your compliance determination for the initial compliance period. • Determine the mass of organic HAP in each material and the volume fraction coating solids for each coating used during the initial compliance period. • Calculate the organic HAP emissions from all the controlled coating operations using the capture and control efficiencies determined during the performance test and the total mass of organic HAP in materials used in controlled coating operations. • Calculate the total mass of organic HAP emissions from uncontrolled coating operations. • Calculate the ratio of the total mass of HAP emissions from both controlled and uncontrolled coating operations to the total volume of coating solids used during the initial compliance period. • Record the calculations and results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status. The capture and control efficiency for a capture and control system, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct monthly liquid-liquid material balances, would be demonstrated based on emission capture and reduction efficiency. To determine the capture efficiency, you would either verify the presence of a permanent total enclosure using EPA Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M (and all materials must be applied and dried within the enclosure), or use one of three protocols in § 63.4965 to measure capture efficiency. If you have a permanent total enclosure and all materials are applied and dried within the enclosure and you route all exhaust gases from the enclosure to a control device, then you would assume 100 percent capture. To determine the emission reduction efficiency of the control device, you would conduct measurements of the inlet and outlet gas streams. The test would consist of three runs, each run lasting 1 hour, using the following EPA Methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A: • Method 1 or 1A for selection of the sampling sites. • Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the gas volumetric flow rate. • Method 3, 3A, or 3B for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. • Method 4 to determine stack moisture. • Method 25 or 25A to determine organic volatile matter concentration. In lieu of Method 25 or 25A, you may use Method 18 if you know the HAP constituents in the inlet and outlet gas streams and you quantify at least 90 percent of the organic compounds in the gas stream. Alternatively, any other test method or data that have been validated according to the applicable procedures in Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, and approved by the Administrator, could be used. If you use a solvent recovery system, you could determine the overall control efficiency using a liquid-liquid material balance instead of conducting an initial performance test. If you use the material balance alternative, you would be required to measure the amount of all materials used in the affected source during the initial compliance period and determine the total volatile matter contained in these materials. You would also measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery system during the compliance period. Then you would compare the amount recovered to the amount used to determine the overall control efficiency, and apply this efficiency to the organic HAP to solids ratio for the materials used. You would record the calculations and results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status. Operating Limits. In accordance with section 114(a) of the CAA, the proposed operating limits would require the use of continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) to ensure that sources are in compliance. The monitoring must be capable of detecting deviations with sufficient representativeness, accuracy, precision, reliability, frequency, and timeliness to determine if compliance is continuous during a reporting period. As mentioned above, you would establish operating limits as part of the initial performance test of a capture system and control device, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances. The operating limits are the minimum or maximum (as applicable) values achieved for capture systems and control devices during the most recent performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. If you operate your capture system and control device at different sets of representative operating conditions, you must establish operating limits for the parameters for each different operating condition. The proposed rule specifies the parameters to monitor for the types of emission control systems commonly used in the industry. You would be required to install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate all monitoring equipment according to manufacturer's specifications and ensure that the CPMS meet the requirements in § 63.4968 of the proposed rule. If you use control devices other than those identified in the proposed rule, you would submit the operating parameters to be monitored to the Administrator for approval. The authority to approve the parameters to be monitored is retained by the EPA and is not delegated to States. We request comment on whether there are alternative means of monitoring performance for add-on controls which would be appropriate. Commenters should address the relative effectiveness and cost of alternatives. If you use a thermal or catalytic oxidizer, you would continuously monitor temperature and record it at least every 15 minutes. For thermal oxidizers, the temperature monitor is placed in the firebox or in the duct immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs. The operating limit would be the average temperature measured during the performance test, and during each 3-hour period the average temperature would have to be at or above this limit. For catalytic oxidizers, temperature monitors are placed immediately before and after the catalyst bed. The operating limits would be the average combustion temperature just before the catalyst bed and the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed during the performance test, and for each 3-hour period the average combustion temperature and the average temperature difference would have to be at or above these limits. If you use a solvent recovery system, and do not conduct liquid-liquid material balances to demonstrate compliance, then you would monitor the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration and the total amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed for each regeneration. The operating limits would be the carbon bed temperature (not to be exceeded) and the amount of steam or nitrogen used for desorption (to be met as a minimum). If you use a condenser, you would monitor the outlet gas temperature to ensure that the air stream is being cooled to a low enough temperature. The operating limit would be the average condenser outlet gas temperature measured during the performance test, and for each 3-hour period the average temperature would have to be at or below this limit. For each capture system, you would establish operating limits for gas volumetric flow rate and pressure drop across an opening in each enclosure or capture device. The operating limit would be the average volumetric flow rate and average pressure drop across the opening during the performance test, to be met as a minimum. We request comment on the proposed testing and initial compliance requirements discussed above. G. What Are the Proposed Continuous Compliance Provisions? Emission Limit(s) If you demonstrate compliance with the proposed emission limit(s) based on the materials used in the affected source, you would ensure, for each monthly compliance period, that the ratio of organic HAP to coating solids meets the emission limit. You would follow the same procedures as you would for the initial compliance period, as described in section II.F of this preamble. For each coating operation on which you use a capture system and control device, other than solvent recovery for which you conduct a monthly liquid-liquid material balance, you would use the continuous parameter monitoring results for the month in determining the mass of organic HAP emissions. If the monitoring results indicate no deviations from the operating limits and there were no bypasses of the control device, then you would assume the capture system and control device is achieving the same percent emission reduction efficiency as it did during the performance test. You would then apply this percent reduction to the total mass of organic HAP in materials used in controlled coating operations to determine the monthly emission rate from those operations. If there were any deviations from the operating limits during the month or any bypasses of the control device, you would account for them in the calculation of the monthly emission rate by assuming the capture system and control device were achieving zero emission reduction during the periods of deviation. For each coating operation on which you use a solvent recovery system and conduct a liquid-liquid material balance each month, you would use the liquid-liquid material balance to determine control efficiency. To determine the overall control efficiency, you must measure the amount of all materials applied during each month and determine the volatile matter content of these materials. You must also measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery system during the month, calculate the overall control efficiency, and apply it to the total mass of organic HAP in the materials used to determine total organic HAP emissions. The monthly emission rate for your affected source would be the total mass of organic HAP emissions from all controlled and uncontrolled coating operations divided by the total volume of coating solids used during the compliance period. Operating Limits. If you use a capture system and control device, the proposed rule would require you to achieve on a continuous basis the operating limits you establish during the performance test described in section II.F of this preamble. If the continuous monitoring shows that the capture system and control device is operating outside the range of values established during the performance test, then you have deviated from the established operating limits. If you operate a capture system and control device that allows emissions to bypass the control device, you would have to demonstrate that HAP emissions from each emission point within the affected source are being routed to the control device by monitoring for potential bypass of the control device. You may choose from the following four monitoring procedures: (1) Flow control position indicator to provide a record of whether the exhaust stream is directed to the control device; (2) Car-seal or lock-and-key valve closures to secure the bypass line valve in the closed position when the control device is operating; (3) Valve closure continuous monitoring to ensure any bypass line valve or damper is closed when the control device is operating; or (4) Automatic shutdown system to stop the coating operation when flow is diverted from the control device. If the bypass monitoring procedures indicate that emissions are not routed to the control device, then you have deviated from the emission limit. Operations During Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and operate according to a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction of the capture system and control device. Emissions Reductions Plan for Mixing, Storage, and Waste Handling. If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and operate according to a plan for reducing emissions from mixing operations, storage tanks or other containers, and waste handling operations. This plan would include a description of all steps taken to minimize emissions from these sources (e.g., using closed storage containers, practices to minimize emissions during filling and transfer of contents from containers, using spill minimization techniques, placing solvent-laden cloth in closed containers immediately after use, etc.). If you do not develop a plan or you do not implement the plan, this would be a deviation from the work practice standard. We request comment on the proposed continuous compliance requirements discussed above. H. What Are the Proposed Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? You would be required to comply with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in the proposed rule. The General Provisions notification requirements include: (1) Initial notifications, (2) notification of performance test if you are complying using a capture system and control device, (3) notification of compliance status, and (4) additional notifications required for affected sources with continuous monitoring systems. The General Provisions also require certain records and periodic reports. Initial Notifications. If the proposed standards apply to you, you would be required to send a notification to the EPA Regional Office in the region where your facility is located and to your State agency at least 1 year before the compliance date for existing sources and within 120 days after the date of initial startup for new and reconstructed sources, or 120 days after publication of the final rule, whichever is later. This report notifies us and your State agency that you have an existing facility that is subject to the proposed standard or that you have constructed a new facility. Thus, it allows you and the permitting authority to plan for compliance activities. You would also need to send a notification of planned construction or reconstruction of a source that would be subject to the rule and apply for approval to construct or reconstruct. Notification of Performance Test. If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture system and control device for which you do not conduct a monthly liquid-liquid material balance, you would be required to conduct a performance test, as described in section II.F of this preamble, no later than the compliance date for your affected source. You would be required to notify your EPA Regional Office (or the delegated State or local agency) at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as indicated in the General Provisions for the NESHAP. Notification of Compliance Status. Your compliance procedures would depend on which compliance option you choose. For each compliance option, you would send us a Notification of Compliance Status within 30 days after the end of the initial compliance period described in section II.F of this preamble. In the notification, you would certify whether the affected source has complied with the standards, identify the option you used to demonstrate initial compliance, summarize the data and calculations supporting the compliance demonstration, and describe how you will determine continuous compliance. If you elect to comply by using a capture system and control device for which you conduct performance tests, you must provide the results of the tests. Your notification would also include the measured range of each monitored parameter and the operating limits established during the performance test, and information showing whether the source has achieved its operating limits during the initial compliance period. Recordkeeping Requirements. You would be required to keep records of reported information and all other information necessary to document compliance with the proposed rule for 5 years. As required under the General Provisions, records for the 2 most recent years would be required to be kept on-site; the other 3 years' records could be kept off-site. Records pertaining to the design and operation of the control and monitoring equipment would have to be kept for the life of the equipment. Depending on the compliance option that you choose, you could need to keep records of the following: • Organic HAP content, volatile matter content, solids content, and quantity of the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used during each compliance period; • All documentation supporting initial notifications and notifications of compliance status. If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture system and control device, you would also need to keep records of the following: • The occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the emission capture system and control device; • All maintenance performed on the capture system and control device; • Actions taken during startup, shutdown, and malfunction that are different from the procedures specified in the affected source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan; • All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with the affected source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan when the plan procedures are followed; • All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with the affected source's plan for minimizing emissions from mixing, storage, and waste handling operations; • Each period during which a CPMS is malfunctioning or inoperative (including out-of-control periods); • All required measurements needed to demonstrate compliance with the standards; and • All results of performance tests. The proposed rule would require you to collect and keep records according to certain minimum data requirements for the CPMS. Failure to collect and keep the specified minimum data would be a deviation that is separate from any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard. Deviations, as determined from these records, would need to be recorded and also reported, as described in section II.H of this preamble. A deviation is any instance when any requirement or obligation established by the proposed rule including, but not limited to, the emission limit(s), operating limits, and work practice standards, is not met. If you use a capture system and control device to reduce HAP emissions, you would have to make your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan available for inspection if the Administrator requests to see it. It would stay in your records for the life of the affected source or until the source is no longer subject to the standards. If you revise the plan, you would need to keep the previous superceded versions on record for 5 years following the revision. Periodic Reports. Each reporting year is divided into two semiannual reporting periods. If no deviations occur during a semiannual reporting period, you would submit a semiannual report stating that the affected source has been in continuous compliance. If deviations occur, you would need to document them in the report as follows: • Report each deviation from the monthly emission limit. • If you are complying by using a thermal oxidizer, report all times when a 3-hour average temperature is below the operating limit. • If you are complying by using a catalytic oxidizer, report all times when a 3-hour average temperature difference across the catalyst bed is below the operating limit, and when a 3-hour average combustion temperature before the catalyst bed is below the operating limit. • If you are complying by using oxidizers, or solvent recovery systems where liquid-liquid material balances are not conducted, report all times when the value of the site-specific operating parameter used to monitor the capture system performance was less than the operating limit established for the capture system. • If you are complying by using a carbon adsorber for which you do not conduct liquid-liquid material balances, report all times when the steam or nitrogen flow is less than, and/or the carbon bed temperature is more than, the operating limits. • If you are complying by using a condenser, report all times when a 3-hour average outlet temperature is higher than the operating limit. • If your capture system contains bypass lines that could divert emissions from the control device to the atmosphere, report all times when emissions were not routed to the control device. • Report other specific information on the periods of time the deviations occurred. You would also have to include an explanation in each semiannual report if a change occurs that might affect the compliance status of the affected source or you change to another option for meeting the emission limit. Other Reports. You would be required to submit reports for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction of the capture system and control device. If the procedures you follow during any startup, shutdown, or malfunction are inconsistent with your plan, you would report those procedures with your semiannual reports in addition to the immediate reports required by § 63.10(d)(5)(ii). We request comment on the proposed notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements discussed above. III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards A. How Did We Select the Source Category? The surface coating of metal furniture is a source category that is on the list of source categories to be regulated because it contains major sources which emit or have the potential to emit, considering controls, at least 10 tons of any one HAP or at least 25 tons of any combination of HAP annually. The proposed rule would control HAP emissions from both new and existing major sources. Area sources are not being regulated under this proposed rule. The surface coating of metal furniture as described in the listing includes any facility engaged in the surface coating and manufacture or repair of metal furniture parts or products (including, but not limited to, chairs, tables, cabinets, and bookcases). We use the metal furniture product lists contained in the SIC and NAICS code descriptions to describe the vast array of metal furniture parts and products. We intend the source category to include facilities for which the surface coating of metal furniture is either their principal activity or is an integral part of a production process which is the principal activity. Most coating operations are located at plant sites that are dedicated to these activities. However, some may be located at sites for which some other activity is principal. Collocated surface coating operations comparable to the types and sizes of the dedicated facilities, in terms of the coating process and applicable emission control techniques, are included in the source category. The source category does not include research or laboratory facilities or janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations. The statute gives us discretion to determine if and how to subcategorize. Once the floor has been determined for new or reconstructed and existing affected sources for a source category or subcategory, we must set MACT standards that are no less stringent than the MACT floor. Such standards must then be met by all sources within the source category or subcategory. A subcategory is a group of similar sources within a given source category. As part of the regulatory development process, we evaluate the similarities and differences between industry segments or groups of facilities comprising a source category. In establishing subcategories, we consider factors such as process operations (type of operation, raw materials, chemistry/formulation data, associated equipment, and final products); emission characteristics (amount and type of HAP); control device applicability; and opportunities for pollution prevention. We may also consider existing regulations or guidance from States and other regulatory agencies in determining subcategories. The data available to us indicate that there are not significant differences across the source category in the substrates coated, the coating technologies used, the range of HAP content in the coatings and materials used, or the applicability of control measures used. Based on this information, we believe that subcategories are not warranted for the metal furniture surface coating source category. We specifically request comment on this view and ask that commenters provide data, information, and rationale to support their position. B. How Did We Select the Regulated Pollutants? Organic HAP. Available emission data collected during the development of the proposed NESHAP show that the primary organic HAP emitted from the surface coating of metal furniture include xylene, toluene, glycol ethers, 2-butoxy ethanol, ethylbenzene, and methyl ethyl ketone. These compounds account for about 90 percent of this category's nationwide organic HAP emissions. However, many other organic HAP are used, or can be used, in metal furniture coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. Therefore, the proposed rule would regulate emissions of all organic HAP. Inorganic HAP. Based on information reported in response to surveys during the development of the proposed NESHAP, most of the coatings used in this source category do not contain inorganic HAP. Approximately 680 coatings were reported in the survey responses from the metal furniture industry, and only 2 coatings are reported as containing inorganic HAP such as chromium, lead, or manganese compounds. These 2 coatings represent less than 0.5 percent of the total volume of coatings reported in the survey responses. The facilities in this source category using coatings with inorganic HAP employ either a waterwash system or dry particulate filters that reduce inorganic HAP emissions from the spray booth exhaust. At this time, it does not appear that emissions of inorganic HAP from this source category warrant Federal regulation. C. How Did We Select the Affected Source? In selecting the affected source(s) for emission standards, our primary goal is to ensure that MACT is applied to HAP-emitting operations or activities within the source category being regulated. The affected source also serves to distinguish where new source MACT applies under a particular standard. Specifically, the General Provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 define the terms “construction” and “reconstruction” with reference to the term “affected source” (40 CFR 60.2) and provide that new source MACT applies when construction or reconstruction of an affected source occurs (40 CFR 60.5). The collection of equipment and activities evaluated in determining MACT (including the MACT floor) is used in defining the affected source. When an emission standard is based on a collection of emissions sources, or total facility emissions, we select an affected source based on that same collection of emission sources, or the total facility, as well. This approach for defining the affected source broadly is particularly appropriate for industries where a plantwide emission standard provides the opportunity and incentive for owners and operators to utilize control strategies that are more cost effective than if separate standards were established for each emission point within a facility. Selection of the Affected Source. The affected source for these proposed standards is broadly defined to include all operations associated with the coating and cleaning of metal furniture and cleaning of equipment. These operations include storage and mixing of coatings and other materials; surface preparation of the metal furniture prior to coating application; coating application and flash-off, drying and curing of applied coatings; cleaning operations; and waste handling operations. In selecting the affected source, we considered, for each operation, the extent to which HAP-containing materials are used and the level of HAP that are emitted. Cleaning and coating application, flash-off, and curing/drying operations account for the majority of HAP emissions at metal furniture surface coating operations, and most of the industry's emission reduction efforts have been focused on these areas. Thus, we included these operations in the affected source. We were not able to obtain data to adequately quantify HAP emissions from storage, mixing, and waste handling. However, solvents that are added to coatings as thinners, and other HAP-containing additives to coatings, may be emitted during mixing and storage. The level of emissions would depend on the type of mixing equipment, the type of storage container, and the work practices adopted at the facility. Emissions from waste handling operations depend on the type of system used to collect and transport organic HAP-containing waste coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials in the facility. For example, solvent-laden rags that are used to clean spray booths or tanks could be a source of HAP emissions. The method used to isolate and store such rags would affect the level of emissions to ambient air. Mixing, storage, and waste handling operations are included in the affected source. A broad definition of the affected source was selected to provide maximum flexibility in complying with the proposed emission limits for organic HAP. In planning its total usage of HAP- containing materials, each facility can select among available coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials to comply with the proposed limits. Additional information on the metal furniture surface coating operations selected for regulation, and other operations, are included in the docket for the proposed standards. D. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources? The sections below present the rationale for determining the MACT floor, regulatory alternatives beyond the floor, and selection of the proposed standards for existing and new affected sources. How did we determine the MACT floor technology? After we identify the specific source categories or subcategories of sources to regulate under section 112, we must develop emission standards for each category or subcategory. Section 112 establishes a minimum baseline or “floor” for standards. For new sources in a category or subcategory, the standards cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source (section 112(d)(3)). The standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources (or the best-performing 5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). Within the metal furniture industry, organic HAP emission control for cleaning and surface coating operations is accomplished primarily through the use of lower-HAP coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. Add-on capture and control systems for organic HAP are rarely used by the industry. While lower organic HAP materials are broadly used throughout the industry, each particular coating technology is not used at every facility. Rather, facilities use various combinations of low-HAP coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. Thus, the most reasonable approach to establishing a MACT floor appeared to be evaluation of a facility's organic HAP emissions from all coating-related operations. To account for differences in production levels from one facility to another, we normalized the organic HAP emissions by the volume of coating solids used. We believe coating solids usage is an appropriate indicator of overall production level. We used information obtained from industry survey responses to estimate the sourcewide organic HAP emissions. We calculated total organic HAP emissions by assuming that 100 percent of the volatile components in all coatings (including adhesives), thinners, and cleaning materials (including surface preparation materials) are emitted. The survey response information was also used to determine the total volume of coating solids used. We included protective and functional coatings, as well as adhesives, in this total. Using the sourcewide organic HAP emissions and the total volume of coating solids used. We calculated the normalized organic HAP emission rate in units of kilograms organic HAP per liter of coating solids used. The facilities were then ranked from the lowest emission rate to the highest. We based this analysis on a total of 49 facilities reporting over 9 million liters usage of approximately 680 coatings and adhesives, as well as 730,000 liters of cleaning materials. A detailed description of the determination of the MACT floor is provided in a memo (the MACT floor memo) in the docket for the proposed rule. The description includes all the assumptions and it documents the methodology that was used. (See ADDRESSES section of this preamble for information on the docket). We specifically request comment on the methodology used to determine the MACT floor, as summarized below. The MACT floor for existing sources was determined by the arithmetic mean of the HAP emission rates of the top 12 percent of 49 facilities, which were the top 6 facilities. This mean value was 0.12 kg organic HAP/liter of coating solids used (1.0 lb/gal) and represents the existing source MACT floor for organic HAP. The survey data showed no appreciable differences between the floor facilities and the remaining facilities in the database in the substrates coated, the coating technologies used, or the applicability of control measures across the various operations. Using the list of facilities ranked by emission rates, we observed that the best controlled source emitted 0.094 kg organic HAP/liter of coating solids used (0.78 lb/gal). Before establishing this level of emissions as the new source MACT floor, we evaluated the metal furniture surface coating operations at this source to determine if the coating technology (in terms of the coating type and application method) used was transferable throughout the industry. We also determined whether the product type produced at this source affected the emissions such that the source may not be similar to all other sources in the category. For example, a source that coats only interior parts could have significantly different requirements and coating choices than a source that had the visual and quality requirements associated with coating parts for the exterior of the product. We also determined that the emission limit represented by the lowest-emitting source could be achieved through the use of add-on control devices for those facilities electing to use higher organic HAP coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. The best-controlled source produces products (metal storage cabinets, lockers, and racks) that are not unusual for the industry. The source spray applies solvent-based coatings, and all cleaning materials used for surface preparation prior to coating are free of organic HAP. Coating application equipment is cleaned with solvents containing organic HAP. Thus, the source is employing technologies that are already in widespread use throughout the metal furniture coating industry. We believe that this source is similar to other sources in the category and represents the best-controlled source in our database. We recognize that some sources may have limited choices in the coatings available for their particular application. As a result, lower-HAP coatings may not be available to meet the needs of every source. However, if the source is also using cleaning materials that contain organic HAP, then it may be able to meet the emission limit by reformulating these cleaning materials. A source also would have the option of using capture systems and control devices to reduce emissions although we believe choice of this option is not likely for most sources. How did we consider beyond-the-floor technology? After the floors have been determined for new and existing sources in a source category or subcategory, we must set emission standards that are no less stringent than the floors. Such standards must then be met by all sources within the category or subcategory. We identify and consider any reasonable regulatory alternatives that are “beyond the floor,” taking into account emission reduction, cost, nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. These alternatives may be different for new and existing sources because of different MACT floors, and separate standards may be established for new and existing sources. We identified three regulatory alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor level of control for organic HAP. These alternatives were (1) conversion to powder coatings; (2) conversion to liquid coatings that have a very low, or no, organic HAP content; and (3) use of add-on capture systems and control devices. Information indicates that several metal furniture surface coating facilities have converted to using only powder coatings. Such facilities typically produce a single type of product (such as warehouse shelving units), do not require unusual finishes, and use a small number of colors. Many metal furniture surface coating facilities, however, manufacture more than one product and often use a wide array of colors. Many also achieve finish types that cannot be duplicated with powder coatings. Powder coating may not produce the varied surface finishes and colors available from liquid coatings. Although powder coatings may be somewhat more durable than conventional liquid coatings, specialty finishes such as antique and crackle, as well as the palette of designer colors offered by some manufacturers, may not be adequately duplicated by powder coatings. Consequently, while powder coating is a proven technology that can be used in many situations, we do not believe it is appropriate to require the use of powder coatings for all segments of the metal furniture industry and have not included them in our proposal as a beyond-the-floor option. Lower organic HAP liquid coatings fall into two primary categories. The most common are coatings formulated with solvents that are not organic HAP (but may be VOC). The second category are those coatings that result from alternate technologies such as Ultraviolet (UV)-curable coatings and autophoretic coatings. The UV-curable coatings may or may not include organic solvents, which may contain HAP or VOC, to keep the pigment and other components of the coating in solution until curing. Autophoretic coatings use no organic HAP and only small amounts of VOC, but they may contain inorganic HAP. These coatings are applied using a dip application method where a chemical reaction deposits the coating on the surface of the part. These lower organic HAP coatings are currently in production use but their applicability is limited for this industry. The selection of lower organic HAP coatings is limited and is not extensive enough to broadly meet the needs of all segments of the metal furniture industry. Given the limited applicability of UV-curable and autophoretic coating technologies, we do not believe it is feasible to require the use of these coating technologies and have not included them in our proposal as a beyond-the-floor option for organic HAP. It is technically feasible to achieve organic HAP emission rates lower than the MACT floor levels through the use of emission capture systems and control devices. For example, the use of a permanent total enclosure and an oxidizer could further reduce organic HAP emissions from typical sources by about 4.2 Mg (4.6 tons) to 31 Mg (34 tons) per year. However, the cost of such a system could be approximately $1 million. We believe that the additional emission reduction would not justify the additional cost. Therefore, we have not included the use of emission capture and control systems in our proposal as a beyond-the-floor option. How did we select the standards? For existing sources, we based the standards on the existing source MACT floor. As described earlier, we believe that beyond-the-floor options are not technically or economically feasible for all existing sources. For the same reasons, we are basing the proposed standards for new sources on the new source MACT floor. Without having information on the benefits that would be achieved by further reducing emissions beyond the floor, we believe that the additional emission reductions that could be achieved do not warrant the costs that each source could incur. Therefore, we would not require beyond-the-floor levels of emission reductions in this proposed rule. After implementation of a final MACT rule for this category, we will evaluate the health and environmental risks that may be posed as a result of exposure to emissions from the metal furniture surface coating source category, as required by section 112(f) of the CAA. At that time, we will evaluate whether additional controls are warranted in light of the available risk information. We specifically request comment on our proposal not to base the CAA section 112(d) standards on a beyond-the-floor option. A beyond-the-floor option could apply to all segments of the metal furniture surface coating source category or to only certain segments. Comments supporting our proposed decision not to go beyond the floor as well as comments opposing the decision should include data, information, and rationale supporting the position of the commenter. We note here that our assumption, in the development of the MACT floors, that 100 percent of the organic HAP in the materials used are emitted by the affected source would not apply when the source sends waste organic HAP-containing materials to a facility for treatment or disposal. We made this assumption because the industry survey responses provided little information as to the amount of organic HAP recovered and recycled or treated and disposed. We, therefore, believe that this practice is not common within the metal furniture industry. We recognize, however, that some metal furniture facilities may conduct such activities and should be allowed to account for such activities in determining their emissions. Thus, the proposed regulation would allow you to reduce the affected sourcewide organic HAP emissions by the amount of any organic HAP contained in waste treated or disposed at a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility that is regulated under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266. E. How Did We Select the Format of the Standards? Numerical emission standards are required by section 112 of the CAA unless we determine that it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard, in which case a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard can be set (section 112(h) of the CAA). The formats considered for the proposed standards and the considerations in selection of the format are discussed below. We selected as the format of the proposed standards for organic HAP, mass of organic HAP per volume of coating solids used. The performance-based nature of this proposed format would allow metal furniture coating operation owners and operators flexibility in choosing any combination of means (including coating reformulation, use of lower-HAP or non-HAP materials, solvent elimination, work practices, and add-on control devices) to comply with the emission limit that is workable for their particular situations. We selected volume of coating solids as a component of the proposed standards to normalize the rate of organic HAP emissions across all sizes and types of facilities. We could not normalize by surface area due to lack of information. We selected the volume of coating solids used because it is directly related to the surface area coated (i.e., the average dry film thickness of coatings on most metal furniture products is generally consistent) and, therefore, provides an equitable basis for all coatings, regardless of differences in coating densities. A format based on the mass or weight of coating solids (instead of volume) could result in inequitable standards for higher-density pigmented coatings, such as basecoats or enamels, compared to coatings with lower densities per unit volume. Other choices for the format of the standards that we considered, but rejected, included a usage limit (mass per unit time) and a never-to-be-exceeded limit on the organic HAP content of coatings and cleaning materials. As it is not our intent to limit a facility's production under these proposed standards, we have not proposed a usage limit. We also chose not to propose a never-to-be-exceeded limit because the availability of all the different kinds of coatings required by the metal furniture industry at or below such a limit does not appear to be sufficient to meet the needs of all segments of the industry. F. How Did We Select the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements? The proposed standards would allow you to choose among several methods to demonstrate compliance with the proposed standards for organic HAP: (1) Coatings with low or no organic HAP; (2) an overall organic HAP emission rate from all coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials that is less than the applicable emission limit; or (3) capture systems and control devices. Coatings with Low or No Organic HAP. You would be required to document the organic HAP content of all coatings and show that each is less than the applicable emission limit. You would also have to show that each thinner and each cleaning material used contains no organic HAP. Method 311 is the method developed by EPA for determining the mass fraction of organic HAP in coatings and has been used in previous surface coating NESHAP. We have not identified any other methods that provide advantages over Method 311 for use in the proposed standards. Method 24 is the method developed by EPA for determining the mass fraction of volatile matter for coatings and can be used if you choose to determine the nonaqueous volatile matter content as a surrogate for organic HAP. In past standards, VOC emission control measures have been implemented in the coatings industry, with Method 24 as the compliance method. We have not identified any other methods that provide advantages over Method 24 for use in the proposed standards. The proposed requirements for determining volume coating solids would allow you to choose between using manufacturer's data or measuring the volume with either ASTM Method D2697-86 (1998) or ASTM Method D6093-97. Overall Organic HAP Emission Rate. To demonstrate compliance using this option, you would calculate the organic HAP emission rate for your affected source, based on the mass of organic HAP in all coatings, thinners, and cleaners and the volume of coating solids used during the compliance period, and demonstrate that it does not exceed the applicable emission limit. You would document these values using the methods discussed previously. Capture Systems and Control Devices. If you use a capture system and control device, other than a solvent recovery device for which you conduct a monthly liquid-liquid material balance, you would be required to conduct an initial performance test of the system to determine its overall control efficiency. For a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance, you would determine the quantity of volatile matter applied in the affected source and the quantity recovered during the initial compliance period to determine its overall control efficiency. For both cases, the overall control efficiency would be combined with the monthly mass of organic HAP in the coatings and other materials used in the affected source to derive the monthly HAP emission rate in kg HAP/liter of coating solids used. If you conduct a performance test, you would also determine parameter operating limits during the test. The test methods that the proposed standards would require for the performance test (described in section II.F of this preamble) have been required under many standards of performance for industrial surface coating sources under 40 CFR part 60 and NESHAP under 40 CFR part 63. We have not identified any other methods that provide advantages over these methods. G. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements? To ensure continuous compliance with the proposed organic HAP emission limit(s) and/or operating limits, the proposed standards would require continuous parameter monitoring of capture systems and control devices and recordkeeping. We selected the following requirements based on reasonable cost, ease of execution, and usefulness of the resulting data to both the owners or operators and EPA for ensuring continuous compliance with the emission limit(s) and/or operating limits. We are proposing that certain parameters be continuously monitored for the types of capture systems and control devices commonly used in the industry. These monitoring parameters have been used in other standards for similar industries. The values of these parameters that correspond to compliance with the proposed emission limit(s) are established during the initial or most recent performance test that demonstrates compliance. These values are your operating limits for the capture system and control device. You would be required to determine consecutive 3-hour average values for most monitored parameters for the affected source. We selected this averaging period to ensure the control system is continuously operating at conditions that are the same or better than those recorded during a performance test demonstrating compliance with the emission limit(s). To demonstrate continuous compliance with the monthly emission limit(s), you would also need records of the quantity of coatings and other materials used and the data and calculations supporting your determination of their HAP content. If you conduct monthly liquid-liquid material balances, you would need records of the quantity of volatile matter used in the affected source and the quantity recovered by the solvent recovery system each month. H. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? You would be required to comply with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in Table 2 of the proposed subpart RRRR. We evaluated the General Provisions requirements and included those we determined to be the minimum notification, recordkeeping, and reporting necessary to ensure compliance with, and effective enforcement of, the proposed standards. I. How Did We Select the Compliance Date? You would be allowed 3 years to comply with the final standards for existing affected sources. This is the maximum period allowed by the CAA. We believe that 3 years for compliance is necessary to allow adequate time to accommodate the variety of compliance methods that existing sources may use. Most sources in this category would need this 3-year maximum amount of time to develop and test reformulated coatings, particularly those who may opt to comply using a different lower-emitting coating technology. We want to encourage the use of these pollution prevention technologies. In addition, time would be needed to establish records management systems required for enforcement purposes. Sources that choose to use emission capture and control systems may need this time to purchase and install them and to obtain a permit for the use of add-on controls. The CAA requires that new or reconstructed affected sources comply with standards immediately upon startup or the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later. IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts Model plants were developed to aid in the estimation of the impacts the MACT floor level of control would have on the metal furniture industry. Three model plants distinguished by size, as measured by the total volume of coating solids used, were developed. Impacts were then developed for each model plant, and these individual impacts were scaled to nationwide levels based on the number of facilities corresponding to each model plant size. We used the model plant approach because we did not have adequate data to determine impacts for each actual facility. A variety of compliance methods are available to the industry to meet the proposed emission limit(s). We analyzed the information obtained from the industry survey responses, industry site visits, trade groups, and industry representatives to determine which compliance methods would most likely be used by existing and new sources. We expect that the most widely-used method would be low-HAP content liquid coatings (coatings with HAP contents at or below the emission limits) and lower-HAP cleaning materials. Powder coatings and add-on capture and control systems would likely be used to a lesser extent. Various combinations of these methods may be used. For the purpose of assessing impacts, we assumed that all existing sources would convert to lower-HAP content liquid coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. We assumed that new sources would also use lower-HAP materials. We first estimated the impacts of the proposed emission limits on the three model plants. To scale up the model plant impacts to nationwide levels, we multiplied the individual model plant impacts by the estimated number of major sources in the United States corresponding to each model plant size. We used United States Census Bureau data as the basis for this estimate, which was a total of 655 facilities. For more information on how impacts were estimated, see Chapters 7 and 8 of the background information document, EPA-453/R-01-010. A. What Are the Air Impacts? For existing major sources, we estimated that compliance with the proposed emission limits would result in a reduction of nationwide organic HAP emissions of 13,900 Mg/yr (15,274 tpy). This represents a reduction of approximately 70 percent from the baseline organic HAP emissions of 20,300 Mg/yr (22,308 tpy). The estimated baseline organic HAP emissions for new sources (20 over the first 5 years after promulgation of the final rule) would be approximately 635 Mg (698 tons) in the fifth year. Emissions from new sources would be reduced by approximately 465 Mg (511 tons) in the fifth year as a result of the proposed standards (73 percent reduction). B. What Are the Cost Impacts? An affected source may incur three types of costs to comply with the proposed standards: capital, direct, and indirect. Capital costs represent the one-time purchase of equipment. We have included coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials as direct costs incurred on a continuing basis for materials consumed in the manufacturing process. The cost of utilities, where applicable, is also included in the direct costs. Indirect costs typically include overhead, taxes, insurance, and administrative costs, as well as capital recovery costs. Existing sources. To comply with the proposed emission limits, we estimated that existing facilities would likely use reformulated coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. No capital costs have been attributed to these compliance methods. We estimated full costs for 517 facilities. Approximately 60 facilities would have only recordkeeping and reporting costs because these facilities would already be in compliance with the proposed standards (based on survey responses). Facilities that would achieve area source status before the compliance date of the final standards will only incur costs of reading the rule. In addition to the direct costs, all affected sources would incur some recordkeeping and reporting costs. We estimated no incremental costs associated with the use of lower-HAP coatings and thinners. Only the incremental cost of organic HAP-free cleaning materials over organic HAP cleaning materials was counted. The average annual cost for each facility incurring full costs is approximately $26,574. This value includes monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs. We estimated total nationwide annual costs in the fifth year to comply with the proposed emission limits to be $14.8 million for existing sources. These costs include $4.66 million direct costs associated with material usage and $10.1 million for recordkeeping and reporting. New Sources. We estimated the number of new major sources based on information from industry trade groups. Starting with the anticipated annual sales growth for the industry, excluding price increases and inflation, we determined the amount of coating capacity that would be needed to meet the predicted increase in demand. Based on information provided by industry representatives, we assumed that 75 percent of this coating capacity could be absorbed by excess capacity at existing facilities. The remaining 25 percent increase in capacity was estimated to be met by the construction of four new facilities per year for the first 5 years after promulgation of the final standards. Based on available information, we determined which compliance methods will most likely be used by new sources and, therefore, which compliance methods to use to estimate the cost impacts. We determined that new sources would choose reformulated lower organic HAP content materials to meet the new source emission limit. For the 20 new facilities anticipated over the 5-year period after promulgation of the final standards, annual costs in the fifth year are estimated to be $0.6 million. We estimated no incremental costs associated with use of lower-HAP coatings and thinners. Only the incremental cost of organic HAP-free cleaning materials over organic HAP cleaning materials was counted. There are no anticipated capital costs. C. What Are the Economic Impacts? We performed an economic impact analysis (EIA) to provide an estimate of the facility and market impacts of the proposed standards as well as its social costs. In general, we expect the economic impacts of the proposed standards to be minimal, with price increases and production decreases of less than 0.1 percent. Given the negligible market impacts of this proposed rule, the social costs are expected to be roughly the same as the estimated engineering compliance costs of $14.8 million for existing sources. For affected facilities, the distribution of costs is slanted toward the lower impact levels with many facilities incurring only those related to recordkeeping and reporting. The EIA indicates that these regulatory costs are expected to represent only 0.1 percent of the value of product shipments, which should not cause producers to cease or alter their current operations. Hence, no firms or facilities are expected to become at risk of closure because of the proposed standards. International trade impacts would only occur for the metal household furniture segment of the industry, but the small price increase (i.e., 0.04 percent) on this segment indicates negligible impacts, if any. Based on the projected characteristics and costs for new sources, EPA does not expect any differential impacts on these sources. For more information, refer to the “Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed NESHAP: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture” (Docket No. A-97-40). D. What are the Nonair Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts? Based on information from the industry survey responses, there was no indication that the use of low organic HAP content coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials would result in any increase or decrease in nonair health, environmental, and energy impacts. There would be no change in the utility requirements associated with the use of these materials, so there would be no change in the amount of energy consumed as a result of the material conversion. Also, we estimate that there would be no significant change in the amount of materials used or the amount of waste produced and there would be no additional energy requirements for affected sources. V. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA that it considers this a “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA has submitted the action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the docket (see ADDRESSES section of this preamble). B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.” Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism 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 State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. 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. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 13132, it has been determined that this rule does not have “federalism implications,” because it does not meet the necessary criteria. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule. C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.” This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 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. No tribal governments own or operate metal furniture surface coating facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks. No children's risk analysis was performed because no alternative technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at a reasonable cost. Furthermore, this rule has been determined not to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866. E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in 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 a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this proposed rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. Affected sources are expected to comply with the proposed rule through pollution prevention rather than end-of-pipe controls, and therefore, there would be no increase in energy usage. F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. The EPA has determined that 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 the private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost of this rule for any year has been estimated to be less than $15.4 million. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule contains requirements that may apply to State governments' correctional institutions that manufacture or repair metal furniture. However, these requirements do not uniquely or significantly affect those institutions. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA. G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed standards on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business ranging from 100-1,000 employees or less than $5 million in annual sales (see Table 2); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Table 2.—Small Business Administration (SBA) Small Business Size Standards for Companies Owning Facilities in the Metal Furniture Source Category by NAICS Codes a, b 1997 NAICS code Product description SBA size standard (employees) 421610 Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring Supplies, and Construction Material Wholesalers 100 337124 Metal Household Furniture Manufacturing 500 337214 Nonwood Office Furniture Manufacturing 500 336360 Motor Vehicle Fabric Accessories and Seat Manufacturing 500 337127 Institutional Furniture Manufacturing 500 337215 Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing 500 332951 Hardware Manufacturing 500 332116 Metal Stamping 500 332612 Wire Spring Manufacturing 500 337215 Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing 500 335121 Residential Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing 500 335122 Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing 500 339111 Laboratory Apparatus and Furniture Manufacturing 500 339114 Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing 500 337211 Wood Office Furniture Manufacturing 500 337212 Custom Architectural Woodwork and Millwork Manufacturing 500 332312 Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing (pt) 500 336391 Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning Manufacturing 750 811420 Reupholstery and Furniture Repair $5 million (sales) a The Agency assumed a small business size definition of 1,000 employees for those companies included in the SBREFA analysis without available information on SIC or NAICS code. b Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Small Business Size Standards-Part 121. 13-CFR-121. January 2001. As obtained from . 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. In accordance with the RFA and SBREFA, the EPA conducted an assessment of the proposed standards on small businesses within the metal furniture coating industry. Based on Small Business Administration size definitions and reported sales and employment data, EPA's survey identified 10 of the 24 companies owning metal furniture facilities as small businesses. Although small businesses represent almost 42 percent of the companies within the source category, they are expected to incur 12 percent of the total industry compliance costs. Under the proposed standards, the average annual compliance cost share of sales for small businesses is 0.18 percent, with two of the ten small businesses not expected to incur any additional costs because they are permitted as synthetic minor HAP emission sources. In addition, small businesses in this industry typically have 5 percent profit margins. For more information, consult the docket for this project. Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has nonetheless worked aggressively to minimize the impact of this proposed rule on small entities, consistent with our obligations under the CAA. We solicited input from small entities during the data-gathering phase of the proposed rulemaking. We are proposing compliance options which give small entities flexibility in choosing the most cost effective and least burdensome alternative for their operation. For example, a facility could purchase and use low-HAP coatings (i.e., pollution prevention) that meet the proposed standards instead of using add-on capture and control systems. This method of compliance can be demonstrated with minimum burden by using purchase and usage records. No testing of materials would be required, as the facility owner could show that their coatings meet the emission limits by providing formulation data supplied by the manufacturer. 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. H. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in the proposed standards have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1952.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at the Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, by email at farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them. The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all owners and operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The proposed standards would require maintaining records of all coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials data and calculations used to determine compliance. This information includes the volume used during each monthly compliance period, mass fraction organic HAP, density, and, for coatings only, volume fraction solids. If an add-on control device is used, records must be kept of the capture efficiency of the capture system, destruction or removal efficiency of the add-on control device, and the monitored operating parameters. In addition, records must be kept of each calculation of the affected sourcewide emissions for each monthly compliance period and all data, calculations, test results, and other supporting information used to determine this value. The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden in the fifth year after the effective date of the promulgated rule is estimated to be approximately 165,000 labor hours at a cost of approximately $11 million for new and existing sources. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. , the EPA must consider the paperwork burden imposed by any information collection request in a proposed or final rule. Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; or by courier, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 401 M Street, SW., Room 925H, West Tower; Washington, DC; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked “Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.” Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after April 24, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by May 24, 2002. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by one or more VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when EPA does not use available and applicable VCS. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS for use in emissions monitoring. The search for emissions monitoring procedures identified 20 VCS that appeared to have possible use in lieu of EPA standard reference methods. However, after reviewing the available standards, EPA determined that ten of the candidate consensus standards (ASTM D3154-00, ASTM D3271-87, ASTM D3464-96, ASTM D3796-90, ASTM D3960-98, ASTM D6053-96, ASTM E337-84, ISO 9096: 1992, PTC 19-10-1981, and EN 1093-4:1996) identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to the proposed emission standards would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, and validation data (Docket A-97-47). Seven of the remaining candidate consensus standards (BSR/ASME MFC 13m, ASTM Z6871Z, ISO/DIS 14164, ISO PWI 17895, ISO/DIS 11890-1, ISO/DIS 11890-2, and PREN 12619) are under development. The EPA plans to follow, review, and consider adopting these standards after their development is completed. The ASTM 2369-98 is practical for EPA use as an acceptable alternative in measuring the volatile matter content of surface coatings. This VCS uses the same techniques, equipment, and procedures as Method 24. The EPA will incorporate by reference ASTM D2369-98 into 40 CFR 63.14 in the near future. The ASTM D2697-86 (1998) and ASTM D6093-97 are acceptable procedures for use in determining the volume fraction of solids for a variety of coatings. The EPA will incorporate by reference ASTM D2697-86 (1998) and ASTM D6093-97 into 40 CFR 63.14 in the near future. Six consensus standards: ASTM D1475-98, ASTM D2369-98, ASTM D3792-99, ASTM D4017-96a, ASTM D4457-85(Reapproved 91), and ASTM D5403-93 are already incorporated by reference in EPA Method 24; and five consensus standards: ASTM D1979-97, ASTM D3432-89, ASTM D4747-87, ASTM D4827-93, and ASTM PS 9-94 are incorporated by reference in EPA Method 311. The EPA takes comment on proposed compliance demonstration requirements in the proposed standards and specifically invites the public to identify potentially-applicable VCS. Commentors should also explain why the proposed standards should adopt these VCS in lieu of EPA's methods. Emission test methods and performance specifications submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used to validate the candidate method (if method other than Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, was used). Sections 63.4964 through 63.4966 of the proposed standards list EPA testing methods and performance standards included. Most of the standards have been used by States and industry for more than 10 years. Nevertheless, any State or source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative methods in place of any of the EPA testing methods or performance standards listed. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: March 19, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 63—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart RRRR to read as follows: Subpart RRRR—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture Sec. What This Subpart Covers 63.4880 What is the purpose of this subpart? 63.4881 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.4882 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? 63.4883 When do I have to comply with this subpart? Emission Limitations 63.4890 What emission limits must I meet? 63.4891 What are my options for meeting the emission limits? 63.4892 What operating limits must I meet? 63.4893 What work practice standards must I meet? General Compliance Requirements 63.4900 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? 63.4901 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? Notifications, Reports, and Records 63.4910 What notifications must I submit? 63.4920 What reports must I submit? 63.4930 What records must I keep? 63.4931 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? Compliance Requirements for the Compliant Material Option 63.4940 By what date must I conduct the initial compliance demonstration? 63.4941 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? 63.4942 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? Compliance Requirements for the Emission Rate Without Add-On Controls Option 63.4950 By what date must I conduct the initial compliance demonstration? 63.4951 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? 63.4952 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? Compliance Requirements for the Emission Rate With Add-On Controls Option 63.4960 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations? 63.4961 How do I demonstrate ini [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A02-7224. Public record. Not legal advice.