[Federal Register: July 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 142)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42977-43011]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23jy08-12]
[[Page 42977]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area Source
Standards for Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Source Categories;
Final Rule
[[Page 42978]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0306; FRL-8683-3]
RIN 2060-AO27
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area
Source Standards for Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Source
Categories
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is issuing national emission standards for control of
hazardous air pollutants for nine metal fabrication and finishing area
source categories (identified in section I.A. below). This final rule
establishes emission standards in the form of management practices and
equipment standards for new and existing operations of dry abrasive
blasting, machining, dry grinding and dry polishing with machines,
spray painting and other spray coating, and welding operations. These
standards reflect EPA's determination regarding the generally
achievable control technology and/or management practices for the nine
area source categories.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 23, 2008. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in this final rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 23, 2008.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0306. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g. , CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Area Source
Categories Docket, at the EPA Docket and Information Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Donna Lee Jones, Sector Policies
and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(D243-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5251; fax number:
(919) 541-3207; e-mail address: jones.donnalee@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information for This Final Rule
III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
A. Applicability
B. Compliance Dates
C. Standards and Compliance Requirements
D. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
E. Definitions
F. Other
IV. Summary of Final Standards
A. Do the final standards apply to my source?
B. When must I comply with these standards?
C. What processes does this final rule address?
D. What are the emissions control requirements?
E. What are the initial compliance requirements?
F. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
G. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
V. Summary of Comments and Responses
A. Applicability
B. Compliance Dates
C. Scope of Rule
D. Impacts of Rule
E. Management Practices
F. Monitoring
VI. Impacts of the Final Standards
A. What are the air impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy
impacts?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this
final action are shown in Table 1 below. This final rule applies to
area sources \a\ where the primary activity of their facilities is in
one of the following nine source categories: (1) Electrical and
Electronic Equipment Finishing Operations; (2) Fabricated Metal
Products; (3) Fabricated Plate Work (Boiler Shops); (4) Fabricated
Structural Metal Manufacturing; (5) Heating Equipment, except Electric;
(6) Industrial Machinery and Equipment Finishing Operations; (7) Iron
and Steel Forging; (8) Primary Metal Products Manufacturing; and (9)
Valves and Pipe Fittings. More specifically, this rule applies to area
sources in these nine source categories that use or have the potential
to emit compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, or nickel from
metal fabrication or finishing operations. Facilities affected by this
final rule are not subject to the miscellaneous coating requirements in
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH, ``National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface
Coating Operations at Area Sources,'' for their affected source(s) that
are subject to the requirements of this final rule. There potentially
may be other operations at the area sources that are not subject to the
requirements of this final rule, but are instead subject to subpart
HHHHHH of this part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Section 112(a) of the Clean Air Act defines an area source
as any stationary source of HAP that is not a major source. A major
source is defined as any stationary source or group of stationary
sources located within a contiguous area and under common control
that emits, or has the potential to emit, considering controls, in
the aggregate, 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or
25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP.
[[Page 42979]]
Table 1.--Regulated Categories and Entities Potentially Affected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal fabrication and finishing category NAICS codes \1\ Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electrical and Electronics Equipment 335999, 335312 Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
Finishing Operations. motors and generators; and electrical machinery,
equipment, and supplies, not elsewhere classified.
The electrical machinery equipment and supplies
industry sector of this source category includes
facilities primarily engaged in high energy
particle acceleration systems and equipment,
electronic simulators, appliance and extension
cords, bells and chimes, insect traps, and other
electrical equipment and supplies, not elsewhere
classified. The Motors and Generators Manufacturing
industry sector of this source category includes
those establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing electric motors (except engine
starting motors) and power generators; motor
generator sets; railway motors and control
equipment; and motors, generators and control
equipment for gasoline, electric, and oil-electric
buses and trucks.
Fabricated Metal Products............... 332117, 332999 Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
fabricated metal products, such as fire or burglary
resistive steel safes and vaults and similar fire
or burglary resistive products; and collapsible
tubes of thin flexible metal. Also included are
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
powder metallurgy products, metal boxes; metal
ladders; metal household articles, such as ice
cream freezers and ironing boards; and other
fabricated metal products not elsewhere classified.
Fabricated Plate Work (Boiler Shops).... 332313, 332410, Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
332420 power and marine boilers, pressure and nonpressure
tanks, processing and storage vessels, heat
exchangers, weldments and similar products.
Fabricated Structural Metal 332312 Establishments primarily engaged in fabricating iron
Manufacturing. and steel or other metal for structural purposes,
such as bridges, buildings, and sections for ships,
boats, and barges.
Heating Equipments, except Electric..... 333414 Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
heating equipment, except electric and warm air
furnaces, including gas, oil, and stoker coal fired
equipment for the automatic utilization of gaseous,
liquid, and solid fuels. Typical products produced
in this source category include low-pressure
heating (steam or hot water) boilers, fireplace
inserts, domestic (steam or hot water) furnaces,
domestic gas burners, gas room heaters, gas
infrared heating units, combination gas-oil
burners, oil or gas swimming pool heaters, heating
apparatus (except electric or warm air), kerosene
space heaters, gas fireplace logs, domestic and
industrial oil burners, radiators (except
electric), galvanized iron nonferrous metal range
boilers, room heaters (except electric), coke and
gas burning salamanders, liquid or gas solar energy
collectors, solar heaters, space heaters (except
electric), mechanical (domestic and industrial)
stokers, wood and coal-burning stoves, domestic
unit heaters (except electric), and wall heaters
(except electric).
Industrial Machinery and Equipment 333120, 333132, Establishments primarily engaged in construction
Finishing Operations. 333911 machinery manufacturing; oil and gas field
machinery manufacturing; and pumps and pumping
equipment manufacturing. The construction machinery
manufacturing industry sector of this source
category includes establishments primarily engaged
in manufacturing heavy machinery and equipment of
types used primarily by the construction
industries, such as bulldozers; concrete mixers;
cranes, except industrial plan overhead and truck-
type cranes; dredging machinery; pavers; and power
shovels. Also included in this industry are
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
forestry equipment and certain specialized
equipment, not elsewhere classified, similar to
that used by the construction industries, such as
elevating platforms, ship cranes and capstans,
aerial work platforms, and automobile wrecker
hoists. The oil and gas filed machinery
manufacturing industry sector of this source
category includes establishments primarily engaged
in manufacturing machinery and equipment for use in
oil and gas fields or for drilling water wells,
including portable drilling rigs. The pumps and
pumping equipment industry sector of this source
category includes establishments primarily engaged
in manufacturing pumps and pumping equipment for
general industrial, commercial, or household use,
except fluid power pumps and motors. This category
includes establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing domestic water and sump pumps.
Iron and Steel Forging.................. 33211 Establishments primarily engaged in the forging
manufacturing process, where purchased iron and
steel metal is pressed, pounded or squeezed under
great pressure into high strength parts known as
forgings. The process is usually performed hot by
preheating the metal to a desired temperature
before it is worked. The forging process is
different from the casting and foundry processes,
as metal used to make forged parts is never melted
and poured.
Primary Metals Products Manufacturing... 332618 Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
products such as fabricated wire products (except
springs) made from purchased wire. These facilities
also manufacture steel balls; nonferrous metal
brads and nails; nonferrous metal spikes, staples,
and tacks; and other primary metals products not
elsewhere classified.
Valves and Pipe Fittings................ 332919 Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
metal valves and pipe fittings; flanges; unions,
with the exception of purchased pipes; and other
valves and pipe fittings not elsewhere classified.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be effected by this
action. For descriptions of the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes, you can view information on the U.S. Census site
at http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97brdg. To determine whether your
facility would be regulated by this action you should examine the
applicability criteria in the final rule (40 CFR 63.11514, ``Am I
subject to this subpart?''). If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the
air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative
as
[[Page 42980]]
listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
C. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
by September 22, 2008. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background Information for This Final Rule
Section 112(d) of the CAA requires us to establish national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for both major
and area sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) that are listed for
regulation under CAA section 112(c). A major source emits or has the
potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or
25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. An area source is a
stationary source that is not a major source.
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least
30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas.
EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air
Toxics Strategy, (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in the
Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health
threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``30 urban
HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or
subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing
90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to
regulation. We selected these nine source categories for regulation
based on these required analyses. We then implemented these
requirements through the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR
38715, July 19, 1999) and subsequent updates to the source category
list.
Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of
generally available control technologies or management practices by
such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' As
explained in the preamble to the proposed NESHAP, we are issuing
standards based on generally available control technology (GACT).
We are issuing these final national emission standards in response
to a court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for 11
source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) by June
15, 2008 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01-1537, D.D.C., March 2006). We
have already issued regulations addressing one of the 11 area source
categories. See regulations for Wood Preserving (72 FR 38864, July 16,
2007.) Other rulemakings will include standards for the remaining
source categories that are due in June 2008.
III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
A. Applicability
In response to comments, we made several changes to clarify the
applicability of this final rule. Specifically, we have revised the
definition of metal fabrication and finishing HAP (MFHAP) to mean any
compound of cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel. We also
clarified throughout this final rule that this final rule applies only
to area sources in the nine source categories that use or have the
potential to emit MFHAP.\b\ In addition, we have revised the definition
of MFHAP to clarify that material that ``contains'' MFHAP means a
material containing one or more MFHAP as shown in formulation data
provided by the manufacturer or supplier, such as the Material Safety
Data Sheet for the material. Any material that does not contain
cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel in amounts greater than or equal to
0.1 percent by weight (as the metal), and does not contain manganese in
amounts greater than or equal to 1.0 percent by weight (as the metal),
is not considered to be a material containing MFHAP. We have also added
language clarifying that the rule does not apply to military
installations, NASA and National Nuclear Security facilities, and
aerospace facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\b\ Note that the control devices and management practices that
control and/or reduce emissions of MFHAP in this rule also control
and/or reduce emissions of all HAP (including the additional metal
HAP of arsenic, cobalt, and selenium, for example) that have the
potential to be emitted, as those HAP are included in, or adsorbed
or condensed onto, the PM. All potential metal HAP emissions are
thereby controlled because the equipment standards and management
practices in this rule control particulate matter (PM) as a
surrogate for MFHAP and any other metal HAP (as listed above), that
have the potential to be emitted, via these PM controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Compliance Dates
We made changes to the compliance dates of this final rule.
Specifically, we have extended the two-year compliance period to three
years for existing affected sources. We have also corrected errors in
the compliance dates for new sources.
C. Standards and Compliance Requirements
In response to comments, we have made several changes to the
standards for operations at the nine metal fabrication and finishing
source categories, and more specific changes to the standards for
abrasive blasting, painting, and welding.
[[Page 42981]]
For all operations where the proposed rule required regularly
scheduled sweeping, we have changed the requirement to take measures
necessary to minimize excess dust.
For abrasive blasting, we have revised the rule text to clarify the
requirements for objects greater than 8 feet in any dimension. These
objects are allowed to be abrasive blasted without control devices, but
sources must still comply with all applicable management practices for
such operations and conduct visible emissions monitoring. We have also
changed the requirements for outdoor abrasive blasting to remove the
prohibition on blasting during wind events and on substrates with
coatings containing lead.
For painting operations, in response to comments we have removed
the VOHAP coating limit requirements. Also, we have revised the
provisions regulating MFHAP emissions from painting so that sources in
the Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing source category (Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) 3441, NAICS 332312) are only subject to
the spray painting management practices (i.e., use of HVLP paint guns,
painter training and certification, and spray gun cleaning
requirements).
For welding, we have revised the rule to clarify that the
management practices are to be implemented ``as practicable,'' and in
accordance with sound welding engineering principles, while maintaining
required weld quality. We have also removed the requirement for
specific control efficiency for welding fume control systems.
We have also changed the process by which facilities seek approval
to use an alternative equipment standard other than those specifically
listed in this final rule. In the proposal we indicated that facilities
that would like to use equipment other than those listed must seek
approval to do so pursuant to the procedures in Sec. 63.6(g) of the
General Provisions to part 63. We did not receive any comments on this
part of the proposal, nor did any commenters identify any alternative
equipment standards that are equivalent to those specified in this
final rule. We believe that facilities should be able to request
approval to use an alternative equipment standard, and therefore, we
have identified two different options available to facilities that
would like to use alternative equipment that achieves at least
equivalent MFHAP emission reductions as the controls specified in this
final rule: (1) Facilities may petition the Agency to amend this final
rule pursuant to section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act, or
(2) facilities may work with state permitting authorities pursuant to
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR subpart E (``Approval of State Programs and
Delegation of Federal Authorities''). Subpart E implements section
112(l) of the CAA, which authorizes EPA to approve alternative state/
local/tribal HAP standards or programs when such requirements are
demonstrated to be no less stringent than EPA promulgated standards. We
believe that these options are more appropriate mechanisms for area
sources subject to section 112(d)(5) rules to obtain approval of
alternative equipment standards.
In response to comments, we have also made several changes to the
compliance requirements. We eliminated the visual determination of
fugitive emissions requirements for dry abrasive blasting performed in
vented chambers, dry grinding and dry polishing with machines, and
machining. We have maintained the visual determination of fugitive
emissions requirement for abrasive blasting of objects greater than 8
feet in any dimension performed without the use of a control device. We
have changed the graduated schedule for visible emissions testing to
allow for quarterly testing after three months of successful monthly
tests (i.e., tests where no visible emissions are detected). We have
also removed the visual emissions determination requirements for
smaller welding operations that annually use less than 2,000 pounds of
welding rod containing one or more MFHAP.
D. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
We have revised Sec. 63.11519, ``What are my notification,
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements?'' of this final rule to add
a requirement for submittal of annual certification and compliance
reports (which were already required to be prepared and maintained on-
site.) We have also corrected the submittal dates for the Initial
Notification and Compliance of Notification Status reports.
E. Definitions
We have made several changes to the definitions in Sec. 63.11522,
``What definitions apply to this subpart?'', of this final rule and
have added definitions for other terms used in this final rule. We
added definitions for control device, filtration control device,
material containing MFHAP, military munitions, and quality control
activities. We have revised the definitions of dry grinding and
polishing with machines, facility maintenance, and MFHAP.
F. Other
We also corrected some typographical errors that appeared in
various sections of the proposed rule.
IV. Summary of Final Standards
A. Do the final standards apply to my source?
This final rule (subpart XXXXXX) applies to new or existing
affected metal fabrication and finishing area sources in one of the
following nine source categories (listed alphabetically) that use or
emit MFHAP: (1) Electrical and Electronic Equipment Finishing
Operations; (2) Fabricated Metal Products; (3) Fabricated Plate Work
(Boiler Shops); (4) Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing; (5)
Heating Equipment, Except Electric; (6) Industrial Machinery and
Equipment Finishing Operations; (7) Iron and Steel Forging; (8) Primary
Metal Products Manufacturing; and (9) Valves and Pipe Fittings. A more
detailed description of these source categories can be found in section
II.B, above. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit
authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed
in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions). Source categories
affected by this final rule are not subject to the miscellaneous
coating requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH, ``National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint Stripping and
Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources,'' for their
operations subject to the requirements of this final rule. There
potentially may be other operations at the facility not subject to the
requirements of this final rule that are instead subject to subpart
HHHHHH of this part.
B. When must I comply with these standards?
All existing area source facilities subject to this final rule will
be required to comply with the rule requirements no later than July 25,
2011. New sources must comply with the requirements of this final rule
by July 23, 2008 or start-up; whichever is later.
C. What processes does this final rule address?
There are five general production operations common to the nine
metal fabrication and finishing source categories that can emit MFHAP.
These five production operations are: (1) Dry abrasive blasting; (2)
dry grinding and
[[Page 42982]]
dry polishing with machines; (3) machining; (4) spray painting; and (5)
welding, which we have further differentiated into nine distinct metal
fabrication and finishing processes.
For dry abrasive blasting operations, this final rule addresses
three distinct types of blasting operations: (1) Those performed in
completely enclosed chambers that do not allow any air or emissions to
escape, (2) those performed in vented enclosures, and (3) those
performed on objects greater than 8 feet in any dimension that are not
performed in vented enclosures.
We identified three distinct types of spray painting operations
that emit MFHAP: (1) Operations that spray paint objects less than or
equal to 15 feet in any dimension where paint spray booths or spray
rooms are commonly used; (2) operations that spray paint objects
greater than 15 feet in any dimension for which paint spray booths or
spray rooms are not used; and (3) spray painting operations in the
Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing source category, which also
do not use paint spray booths or spray rooms. The latter two types of
processes that do not use spray booths or spray rooms were combined for
applicability of this final rule. Therefore this final rule addresses:
(1) Spray painting of objects, in general, and (2) spray painting of
objects greater than 15 feet in any dimension or spray painting
operations in the Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing source
category.
For dry grinding and dry polishing with machines, machining, and
welding, we did not observe any distinct differences that would warrant
further distinguishing the operations into separate processes.
Therefore, these three processes, combined with the three for dry
abrasive blasting and the two for painting described above, results in
eight total processes addressed by this final rule, as follows: (1) Dry
abrasive blasting performed in completely enclosed and unvented blast
chambers; (2) dry abrasive blasting performed in vented enclosures; (3)
dry abrasive blasting of objects greater than 8 feet in any dimension
that are not performed in vented enclosures; (4) dry grinding and dry
polishing with machines; (5) machining; (6) control of MFHAP in the
spray painting of objects in paint spray booths or spray rooms; (7)
control of MFHAP in the spray painting of objects greater than 15 feet
in any dimension, or spray painting operations in the Fabricated
Structural Metal Manufacturing source category; and (8) welding.
D. What are the emissions control requirements?
The following is a description of the control requirements for the
eight metal fabrication and finishing processes described above in
section III.C of this preamble. The control requirements only apply
when an operation is being performed that uses materials that contain
or have the potential to emit MFHAP.\c\ The definition of
``containing'' MFHAP is identical to the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) definitions specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4),
where carcinogens are contained in quantities of 0.1 percent by mass or
more, and 1.0 percent by mass or more for noncarcinogens, as shown in
formulation data provided by the manufacturer or supplier, such as the
Material Safety Data Sheet for the material. For MFHAP, this
corresponds to materials that contain cadmium, chromium, lead, or
nickel in amounts greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight (as
the metal), and manganese in amounts greater than or equal to 1.0
percent by weight (as the metal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\c\ See footnote (b) above that discusses the co-control of all
HAP via control of MFHAP with the PM controls of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Standards for Dry Abrasive Blasting Performed in Completely Enclosed
and Unvented Blast Chambers
Completely enclosed and unvented blast chambers are generally small
``glove box'' type dry abrasive blasting operations. Because there are
no vents or openings in the enclosures, there are no emissions directly
from the operation itself.
This final rule requires owners or operators of completely enclosed
and unvented blast chambers to comply with the following two management
and pollution prevention practices: (1) Minimize dust generation during
emptying of the enclosure; and (2) operate all equipment used in the
blasting operation according to manufacturer's instructions.
2. Standards for Dry Abrasive Blasting Performed in Vented Enclosures
This final rule requires owners or operators of affected new and
existing dry abrasive blasting operations performed in vented
enclosures to perform blasting with a control system that includes an
enclosure as a capture device, and a cartridge, fabric, or HEPA filter
as a control device to control particulate matter (PM) emissions, as a
surrogate for MFHAP, from the process.
An enclosure is defined to be any structure that includes a roof
and at least two complete walls, with side curtains and ventilation as
needed to ensure that no air or PM exits the chamber while blasting is
performed. Apertures or slots may be present in the roof or walls to
allow for transport of the blasted objects using overhead cranes, or
cable and cord entry into the blasting chamber.
This final rule also requires owners or operators of all affected
new and existing dry abrasive blasting operations performed in vented
enclosures to comply with the following three management and pollution
prevention practices: (1) As practicable, take measures necessary to
minimize excess dust in the surrounding area to reduce MFHAP emissions;
(2) enclose abrasive material storage areas and holding bins, seal
chutes and conveyors transporting abrasive materials; and (3) operate
all equipment according to manufacturer's instructions.
3. Standards for Dry Abrasive Blasting of Objects Greater Than 8 Feet
in Any Dimension
This final rule requires owners or operators of affected new and
existing dry abrasive blasting operations that perform abrasive
blasting on substrates greater than 8 feet in any dimension without
control systems to comply with the following four management and
pollution prevention practices to minimize MFHAP emissions from the
processes: (1) Switch from high PM-emitting blast media (e.g., sand) to
low PM-emitting blast media (e.g., crushed glass, specular hematite,
steel shot, aluminum oxide), whenever practicable; (2) do not re-use
the blast media unless contaminants (i.e., any material other than the
base metal, such as paint residue) have been removed by filtration or
screening so that the abrasive material conforms to its original size
and makeup; (3) enclose abrasive material storage areas and holding
bins, seal chutes and conveyors transporting abrasive materials; and
(4) operate all equipment according to manufacturer's instructions.
This final rule also requires that visible emissions monitoring be
performed.
4. Standards for Dry Grinding and Dry Polishing With Machines
Dry grinding and dry polishing with machines operations often emit
significant PM, which is a surrogate for MFHAP. Dry grinding and dry
polishing with machines operations do not include dry grinding and dry
polishing operations performed with hand-held or bench-scale devices.
This final rule requires owners or operators of affected new and
existing
[[Page 42983]]
dry grinding and dry polishing with machines operations to capture PM
emissions, as a surrogate for MFHAP, and vent the exhaust to a
cartridge, fabric, or HEPA filter.
This final rule also requires owners or operators of affected new
and existing dry grinding and dry polishing with machines operations to
comply with the following two management and pollution prevention
practices: (1) As practicable, take measures necessary to minimize
excess dust in the surrounding area to reduce PM emissions; and (2)
operate all equipment used in dry grinding and dry polishing with
machines according to manufacturer's instructions.
5. Standards for Machining
The majority of the PM released by machining operations consists of
large particles or metal shavings that fall immediately to the floor.
Any MFHAP that is released would originate from the part or product
being machined. Machining is totally enclosed and/or uses lubricants or
liquid coolants that do not allow small particles to escape. This final
rule requires owners or operators of affected new and existing
machining operations to comply with the following two management and
pollution prevention practices to minimize dust generation in the
workplace: (1) As practicable, take measures necessary to minimize
excess dust in the surrounding area to reduce PM emissions; and (2)
operate equipment used in machining operations according to
manufacturer's instructions.
6. Standards for Control of MFHAP From Spray Painting
This final rule requires new and existing spray painting affected
sources to comply with two equipment standards: (1) Use of spray booths
or spray rooms equipped with PM filters and (2) the use of low-emitting
and pollution preventing spray gun technology. This final rule also
requires two management practices associated with the spray gun
technology: (1) Spray painter training; and (2) spray gun cleaning. The
requirement for PM filters does not apply to spray painting of objects
greater than 15 feet in any dimension and spray painting at Fabricated
Structural Metal Manufacturing facilities not performed in spray
booths, which are discussed separately in IV.D.7, below.
The following painting activities are not covered in this final
rule:
(1) Paints applied from a hand-held device with a paint cup
capacity that is less than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 cubic centimeters);
(2) Surface coating application using powder coating, hand-held,
non-refillable aerosol containers, or non-atomizing application
technology, including, but not limited to, paint brushes, rollers, hand
wiping, flow coating, dip coating, electrodeposition coating, web
coating, coil coating, touch-up markers, or marking pens;
(3) Any painting or coating that normally requires the use of an
airbrush or an extension on the spray gun to properly reach limited
access spaces; or the application of paints or coatings that contain
fillers that adversely affect atomization with HVLP or equivalent spray
guns, and the application of coatings that normally have a dried film
thickness of less than 0.0013 centimeter (0.0005 in.).
Spray painting also does not include thermal spray operations, also
known as metallizing, flame spray, plasma arc spray, and electric arc
spray, among other names, in which solid metallic or non-metallic
material is heated to a molten or semi-molten state and propelled to
the work piece or substrate by compressed air or other gas, where a
bond is produced upon impact. Thermal spraying operations at area
sources are subject to the Plating and Polishing Area Source NESHAP,
subpart WWWWWW of this part.
Spray Booth PM Control Requirement. This final rule requires the
spray booths or spray rooms \d\ of affected new and existing facilities
to be fitted with fiberglass or polyester fiber filters or other
comparable filter technology that has been demonstrated to achieve at
least 98 percent control efficiency of paint overspray (also referred
to as ``arrestance''). As an alternate compliance option, spray booths
or spray rooms can be equipped with a water curtain, called a
``waterwash'' or ``waterspray'' booth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\d\ The spray booth roof may contain narrow slots for connecting
the parts and products to overhead cranes, or for cord or cable
entry into the spray booth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
98 Percent PM Control Filter--For spray booths or spray rooms
equipped with a PM filter, the procedure used to demonstrate filter
efficiency must be consistent with the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Method 52.1,
``Gravimetric and Dust-Spot Procedures for Testing Air-Cleaning Devices
Used in General Ventilation for Removing Particulate Matter, June 4,
1992'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14). The Director of
the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a
copy from the ASHRAE at 1791 Tullie Circle, NE. Atlanta, GA 30329 or by
electronic mail at orders@ashrae.org. You may inspect a copy at the
NARA. For information on the availability of this material at NARA,
call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. Compliance with the
filter efficiency standard also can be demonstrated through data
provided by the filter manufacturer. The test paint for measuring
filter efficiency must be a high-solids bake enamel delivered at a rate
of at least 135 grams per minute from a conventional (non-HVLP) air-
atomized spray gun operating at 40 pounds per square inch air pressure
(psi); the air flow rate across the filter shall be 150 feet per
minute. Affected facilities may use published filter efficiency data
provided by filter vendors to demonstrate compliance with the 98
percent efficiency requirement and would not be required to perform
this measurement.
Waterwash spray booths or spray rooms--As an alternative compliance
option, spray booths or spray rooms may be equipped with a water
curtain that achieves at least 98 percent control of MFHAP. The
waterwash or ``waterspray'' spray booths or spray rooms must be
required to operated and maintained according to the manufacturer's
specifications.
Spray Gun Technology Requirements. This final rule requires all
affected new and existing facilities using spray-applied paints to use
HVLP spray guns, electrostatic application, or airless spray
techniques.
If you would like to use paint spray equipment that you believe is
equivalent to HVLP spray guns, you must seek the appropriate approval,
as explained above in section III.C. The method that you use to show
the equivalency of the alternate spray equipment must conform with the
California South Coast Air Quality Management District's ``Spray
Equipment Transfer Efficiency Test Procedure for Equipment User, May
24, 1989'' and ``Guidelines for Demonstrating Equivalency with District
Approved Transfer Efficient Spray Guns, September 26, 2002''
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14).
The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by
reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may
obtain a copy from the California South Coast Air Quality Management
District Web site at
[[Page 42984]]
http://www.aqmd.gov/permit/docspdf/
TransferEfficiencyTestingGuidelinesforHVLPEquivalency.pdf and http://
www.aqmd.gov/permit/docspdf/Spray-Eqpt-Trfr-Efficiency.pdf. You may
inspect a copy at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA,
call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. The requirements of
this paragraph do not apply to painting performed by students and
instructors at paint training centers.
Spray Painting Training Requirements. This final rule requires all
workers that perform spray painting at affected new and existing
facilities to be trained, with certification made available that this
training has occurred. The painters must be certified as having
completed classroom or hands-on training in the proper selection,
mixing, and application of paints. Refresher training must be repeated
at least once every 5 years. These requirements do not apply to
operators of robotic or automated surface painting operations. The
initial and refresher training must address the following topics to
reduce paint overspray, which has a direct effect on emissions
reductions, as follows:
Spray gun equipment selection, set up, and operation,
including measuring paint viscosity, selecting the proper fluid tip or
nozzle, and achieving the proper spray pattern, air pressure and
volume, and fluid delivery rate.
Spray technique for different types of paints to improve
transfer efficiency and minimize paint usage and overspray, including
maintaining the correct spray gun distance and angle to the part, using
proper banding and overlap, and reducing lead and lag spraying at the
beginning and end of each stroke.
Routine spray booth and filter maintenance, including
filter selection and installation.
For the purposes of the training requirements, the facility owner
or operator may certify that their employees have completed training
during ``in-house'' training programs. Also, facilities that can show
by documentation or certification that a painter's work experience and/
or training has resulted in training equivalent to the training
described above are not required to provide the initial training
required for these painters.
Spray painters at existing sources must be trained by the
compliance date, or 180 days after hiring, whichever is later. Spray
painters at new sources must be trained and certified no later than
January 20, 2009, 180 days after startup, or 180 days after hiring,
whichever is later. These training requirements do not apply to the
students of an accredited surface painting training program who are
under the direct supervision of an instructor who meets the
requirements of this paragraph. The training and certification for this
rule is valid for a period not to exceed 5 years after the date the
training is completed.
Spray Gun Cleaning Requirements. This final rule requires all paint
spray gun cleaning operations at affected new and existing facilities
to be done with either non-HAP gun cleaning solvents, or in such a
manner that an atomized mist or spray of spray gun cleaning solvent and
paint residue is not created outside of a container that collects used
gun cleaning solvent. Spray gun cleaning may be done, for example, by
hand cleaning of parts of the disassembled gun in a container of
solvent, by flushing solvent through the gun without atomizing the
solvent and paint residue, or by using a fully enclosed spray gun
washer. A combination of these non-atomizing methods above may also be
used.
7. Standards for Control of MFHAP From Spray Painting of Objects
Greater Than 15 Feet in Any Dimension and Spray Painting at Fabricated
Structural Metal Manufacturing Facilities Not Performed in Spray Booths
This final rule requires owners or operators of new and existing
spray painting affected sources which paint objects greater than 15
feet in any dimension and owners or operators of new and existing spray
painting affected sources in the Fabricated Structural Metal
Manufacturing source category, that are not performed in spray booths,
to comply with an equipment standard, the use of low-emitting and
pollution preventing spray gun technology. This final rule also
requires two management practices: (1) Spray painter training and (2)
spray gun cleaning. Paint operations that comply with these
requirements do not need to comply with the PM filter requirements
listed above for spray painting of objects in spray booths.
Sources subject to the MFHAP requirements from spray painting
objects greater than 15 feet in any dimension must also meet the same
requirements for spray gun technology standards, spray painting
training requirements, and spray gun cleaning requirements as those
specified above in IV.D.6 for the spray painting of objects in paint
spray booths or rooms.
8. Standards for Welding
This final rule requires owners or operators of affected new and
existing welding operations to minimize emissions of MFHAP by
implementing one or more of the following management practices to be
used as practicable, while concurrently maintaining the required
welding quality through the application of sound welding engineering
judgment:
(A) Use of welding processes with reduced fume generation
capabilities (e.g., gas metal arc welding (GMAW)--also called metal
inert gas welding (MIG));
(B) Use of welding process variations (e.g., pulsed GMAW), which
can reduce fume generation rates;
(C) Use of welding filler metals, shielding gases, carrier gases,
or other process materials which are capable of reduced welding fume
generation;
(D) Optimize welding process variables (e.g., electrode diameter,
voltage, amperage, welding angle, shield gas flow rate, travel speed)
to reduce the amount of welding fume generated; and
(E) Use of a welding fume capture and control system, operated
according to the manufacturer's specifications.
E. What are the initial compliance requirements?
To demonstrate initial compliance with this final rule, owners or
operators of affected new and existing sources with dry abrasive
blasting, machining, dry grinding and dry polishing with machines,
spray painting, and welding operations must certify that they have
implemented all required management and pollution prevention practices.
In addition, owners or operators of new and existing affected
sources with spray painting operations that use or have the potential
to emit MFHAP must also certify that they are in compliance with the
following requirements: use of PM filters in spray booths or spray
rooms; use of approved spray delivery and cleaning systems; and proper
training of workers in spray painting application techniques.
F. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
There are continuous requirements for all affected processes in
metal fabrication and finishing sources. There are also additional
continuous compliance requirements for specific processes or groups of
processes, as follows: visual emissions testing for dry abrasive
blasting of objects greater than 8 feet in any dimension; PM control
efficiency rating of filters used in spray painting objects in spray
booths or spray
[[Page 42985]]
rooms for MFHAP control; and visual emissions testing for welding at
facilities that use 2,000 pounds or more per year of MFHAP-containing
welding rod (on a rolling 12-month average basis). These requirements
are discussed in more detail below.
1. Continuous Compliance Requirements for All Sources
This final rule requires owners or operators of all affected new
and existing sources to demonstrate continuous compliance by adhering
to the management practices specified in this final rule and
maintaining the appropriate records to document this compliance.
Owners or operators that comply with this final rule by operating
capture and control systems must operate and maintain each capture
system and control device according to the manufacturer's
specifications. They also must maintain records to document conformance
with this requirement and keep the manufacturer's instruction manual
available at the facility at all times.
2. Visual Emissions Testing for Dry Abrasive Blasting of Objects
Greater Than 8 Feet in Any Dimension To Determine Continuous Compliance
Visible Emissions Testing. For new and existing affected sources of
dry abrasive blasting operations of objects greater than 8 feet in any
dimension who comply with the provisions of Sec. 63.11516(a)(3),
``What are my standards and management practices?'', this final rule
requires visible emissions testing to demonstrate continuous compliance
with management and pollution prevention practices intended to reduce
emissions of PM, as a surrogate for MFHAP.
The affected sources of dry abrasive blasting of objects greater
than 8 feet in any dimension must perform visual determinations of
fugitive emissions, according to the graduated schedule described
below, using EPA Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7) for a period
of 15 continuous minutes at the fence line or property border nearest
to the outdoor abrasive blasting operation, or at the primary vent,
stack, exit, or opening from the building for indoor blasting
operations. The presence of visible emissions must be noted if any
emissions are observed for more than a total of 6 minutes during the
15-minute period. In case of failure in any Method 22 test, immediate
corrective action is required to reduce or eliminate the visible
emissions. The affected source is then required to perform more
frequent visible emissions testing, as described in the graduated
schedule below.
Graduated Testing Schedule. The graduated schedule for continuous
compliance with visible emissions testing for this rule, which
progresses from daily to weekly to monthly to quarterly testing, is as
follows.
Affected sources of dry abrasive blasting of objects greater than 8
feet in any dimension are required to be tested daily for visible
emissions with Method 22 for 10 consecutive days that the source is in
operation. If visible emissions are not observed during these 10 days,
the affected source can be tested once every 5 consecutive days
(weekly) that the source is in operation. If no visible emissions are
observed during these four consecutive weekly Method 22 tests, the
affected source can be tested once per consecutive 21 days (month) of
operation. If no visible emissions are observed during three
consecutive monthly Method 22 tests, the affected source can be tested
once per consecutive three months of operation (quarterly). If any
visible emissions are observed during the weekly, monthly, or quarterly
testing, the affected source must resume visible emissions testing on
the more frequent schedule, i.e. , weekly visible emissions testing is
increased to daily, monthly testing is increased to weekly, and
quarterly testing is increased to monthly.
3. Tests for Spray Painting for MFHAP Control To Determine Continuous
Compliance
Affected new and existing facilities that perform spray painting
must ensure and certify that: (1) All new and existing personnel,
including contract personnel, who spray-apply surface paints with MFHAP
are trained in the proper application of surface paints; (2) all spray-
applied paints with MFHAP are applied with a HVLP spray gun,
electrostatic application, airless spray gun, or equivalent; (3)
emissions of MFHAP are minimized during mixing, storage, and transfer
of paints; and (4) paint and solvent lids are kept closed when not in
use.
In addition, for spray painting objects less than or equal to 15
feet in any dimension (except for spray painting affected sources in
the Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing source category), owners
or operators of affected processes must ensure and certify that paint
spray booths or spray rooms are fitted with fiberglass or polyester
fiber filters or other comparable filter or waterspray technology that
can be demonstrated to achieve at least 98 percent control efficiency
of the MFHAP in the paint.
4. Visual Emissions Testing for Welding To Determine Continuous
Compliance
For new and existing affected sources with welding operations that
use 2,000 pounds or more per year of MFHAP-containing welding rod (on a
rolling 12-month average basis), this final rule requires visible
emissions testing from a vent, stack, exit, or opening from the
building containing the welding metal fabrication and finishing
operations to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emissions
standards in this rule, which are expressed as management practices and
equipment standards. This testing has a three-tier compliance
structure.
Tier 1. The first tier for welding compliance requires visual
determinations of fugitive emissions using EPA Method 22 and allows the
same graduated testing schedule described above in section III.F.2 for
dry abrasive blasting of objects 8 feet or more in any dimension, which
includes provisions for reducing the frequency of the Method 22 tests
when no visible emissions are observed in consecutive time periods of
operation. If no visible emissions are found, no corrective action is
required.
If visible emissions are present during any Method 22 test,
immediate corrective action will be required that includes inspection
of all fume sources and control methods in operation, and documentation
of the visual emissions test results. In this instance, the graduated
schedule requires the affected source to resume visible emissions
testing in the previous, more frequent schedule, i.e., weekly visible
emissions testing is increased to daily, monthly testing is increased
to weekly, and quarterly testing is increased to monthly.
Tier 2. The second tier for welding compliance must be implemented
if visible emissions are detected for the second time in any
consecutive 12-month period. The second tier requires corrective action
and documentation of the detection of visible emissions and the
corrective action taken. Corrective action must take place immediately
after the failed Method 22 test. In addition, the second tier for
welding compliance requires a facility to perform a visual
determination of emissions opacity using EPA Method 9 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-4) within 24 hours of the failed Method 22 test. In EPA
Method 9, the average of 24 15-second intervals of opacity observation
is determined, producing a total of 360 seconds or 6
[[Page 42986]]
minutes of opacity observation or 6-minute average opacity.
If in the second tier tests using Method 9 the average of the 6-
minute opacities is determined to be 20 percent or less, implementation
of Method 9 testing is required with a graduated schedule of reduced
frequency like that used for the Method 22 tests, described above in
section III.F.2, from daily to weekly to monthly to quarterly for
consecutive successful tests. If opacity continues to be less than or
equal to 20 percent and, pursuant to the graduated schedule the Method
9 testing for the welding processes is able to be reduced to once a
month, the facility would have the choice of switching back to
performing Method 22 tests on a monthly basis. Alternatively, the
facility could choose to continue performing monthly Method 9 tests.
With either test method, the facility can reduce to quarterly testing
if there are no exceedences in three consecutive monthly tests.
If the average of the 6-minute opacities is determined to be
greater than 20 percent in the Method 9 tests in the second tier, the
third tier of welding compliance requirements is required, as described
below.
Tier 3. The third tier for welding compliance includes the
development and implementation of a Site-specific Welding Emissions
Management Plan (SWMP) within 30 days and submittal of the SWMP to the
delegated authority. The SWMP must be kept at the facility in a readily
accessible location for inspector review. Also, the facility must
report any exceedence of the 20 percent opacity limit on an annual
basis along with their annual certification and compliance report.
The purpose of the SWMP is to ensure that no visible emissions
occur in the future from this process, as determined by EPA Method 22
tests or 20 percent opacity or less by EPA Method 9. Application of the
SWMP may involve more effective implementation of the management and
pollution prevention practices, beyond the levels already in place at
the facility, or, as a final option, the use of capture equipment and
control devices. During the development of the SWMP, daily Method 9
tests are required to continue to be performed, according to the
graduated schedule. The SWMP must be updated after any failures to meet
20 percent or less opacity as determined by Method 9. If opacity
continues to be 20 percent or less and Method 9 testing of the welding
processes at the facility falls to once a month, according to the
graduated testing schedule, the facility will have a choice of changing
to monthly Method 22 tests or remaining with monthly Method 9, as
above. The SWMP must be updated annually and include revisions to
reflect any changes in welding operations or controls at the facility.
The SWMP must address the following: the type(s) of welding
operation(s) currently used at the facility; the measures used to
minimize welding fume at each of type of welding operation or each
welding station; and procedures used by the facility to ensure that
these measures are being implemented. No outside consultants or
professional engineer certification is required or necessary to prepare
the SWMP.
G. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
The affected new and existing sources are required to comply with
certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart
A), which are identified in Table 2 of this final rule. Each new source
is required to submit an Initial Notification no later than 120 days
after initial startup or November 20, 2008, whichever is later.
Existing affected sources must submit the Initial Notification no later
than July 25, 2011. Notification of Compliance Status reports are
required to be submitted according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9
in the General Provisions no later than 120 days after the applicable
compliance date. The affected source is required to prepare and submit
an annual certification and compliance status report. If there are any
exceedences during the year, the facility must submit this annual
certification and compliance report with any exceedence reports
prepared during the year. The exceedence reports must describe the
circumstance of the exceedence and the corrective action taken.
Facilities also are required to maintain all records that
demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with this final rule,
including records of all required notifications and reports, with
supporting documentation; and records showing compliance with
management and pollution prevention practices. Owners and operators
must also maintain records of the following, if applicable: date and
results of all visual determinations of fugitive emissions, including
any follow-up tests and corrective actions taken; date and results of
all visual determinations of emissions opacity, and corrective actions
taken; and a copy of the SWMP, if it is required.
V. Summary of Comments and Responses
We received a total of 24 comments on the proposed NESHAP from
industry representatives, trade associations, federal and state
agencies, and the general public during the public comment period.
Sections V.A through V.F of this preamble provide responses to the
significant public comments received on the proposed NESHAP.
A. Applicability
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern regarding potential
overlap between the applicability of this subpart (XXXXXX) and other
part 63 NESHAP. One commenter said that EPA should clarify that the
proposed rule does not apply to ``dry grinding and dry polishing with
machines'' affected sources that are also subject to the proposed area
source standards for plating and polishing operations, subpart WWWWWW.
Commenters also indicated that there appeared to be overlap with Paint
Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating NESHAP, subpart HHHHHH, as
there was overlap in the potentially applicable NAICS codes provided in
the preambles. The commenter said that EPA should clarify that the rule
does not apply to metal fabrication and finishing operations that are
subject to a major source NESHAP, in particular the Aerospace
Manufacturing NESHAP (subpart GG).
Response: Operations at a facility in one of the nine area source
categories specifically listed in Sec. 63.11514, ``Am I subject to
this subpart?'', specifically paragraphs (a)(1) through (9), are
subject to this final rule. Each of these area source categories is
characterized by the descriptions provided in Table 1 in section I.A of
this preamble. The miscellaneous surface coating requirements in
subpart HHHHHH are more generic regulations that apply to processes at
many different types of facilities. The specificity regarding the
applicability of this final rule overrides the more generic
miscellaneous coating regulation in subpart HHHHHH, mainly because it
is specified as such in subpart HHHHHH. In other words, if a facility
is in one of the nine area source categories included under this final
rule, it is not subject to any other area source regulation for the
operations regulated by this final rule: abrasive blasting, dry
grinding and dry polishing with machines, machining, spray painting,
and welding.
On the other hand, operations addressed by the Plating and
Polishing NESHAP (subpart WWWWWW), such
[[Page 42987]]
as dry mechanical polishing operations performed after plating to
complete the plating processes, and thermal spraying are subject to
subpart WWWWWW. Therefore, any area source facilities that conduct
polishing after plating or thermal spraying would be subject to subpart
WWWWWW for their plating and polishing operations. However, the MFHAP
control requirements for dry polishing with machines are identical
between subpart WWWWWW for ``dry mechanical polishing,'' and this final
rule for ``dry polishing with machines.'' The recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are also the same between the two rules for
polishing operations. At the time of this final rule, we were not aware
of any overlap of facilities between these two area source rules, but
since there may be sources in the future where there is an overlap, we
leave open the possibility of the applicability of both rules.
With regard to the comment related to the major sources subject to
the Aerospace NESHAP, we would point out that (1) Aerospace facilities
would not be included under any of the nine source categories subject
to this final rule, and (2) major sources are not subject to this final
rule, as this final rule applies only to area sources.
Comment: Other commenters more specifically addressed the potential
overlap between the Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Area Source
Category rule and subpart HHHHHH, Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous
Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources NESHAP. The commenters noted
that the proposed rule indicated that facilities covered by the
proposed rule would be exempt from subpart HHHHHH. However, they said
since subpart HHHHHH is already final, permitting authorities cannot
exempt facilities from it merely on the basis of a subsequent proposed
regulation, such as the metal fabrication NESHAP. One commenter
recommended that EPA reverse the applicability and state that
facilities subject to and complying with the requirements of subpart
HHHHHH would be considered in compliance with the MFHAP provisions for
painting operations under this metal fabrication NESHAP. The commenter
said that facilities would still be required to comply with other
provisions that are not covered under subpart HHHHHH.
Response: While we understand the potential confusion between the
applicability of these two area source regulations, coating operations
at a facility in one of the nine source categories specifically listed
in Sec. 63.11514, ``Am I subject to this subpart?'', specifically
paragraphs (a)(1) through (9), are subject to this final rule and not
subpart HHHHHH (the Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations Sources NESHAP). We believe that the simplicity of having
all affected sources at a single facility in one of these nine metal
fabrication and finishing area source categories subject to a single
subpart is better in the long term. Further, subpart HHHHHH was
promulgated on January 9, 2008, and its compliance date for existing
sources is not until January 10, 2011. We believe that any short term
permitting complexities that have arisen in the five or six months
between promulgation of the final Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous
Surface Coating NESHAP and the Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing
Area Source Category NESHAP can be addressed in the two and one-half
years before their compliances dates. Therefore, we did not make
changes in accordance with the commenter's recommendation.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification of potential overlap
of the metal fabrication rule and subpart HHHHHH. They note that the
applicability section of the proposed rule states that if a facility is
``subject to'' the provisions of this final rule, it is not subject to
subpart HHHHHH, the Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations Rule. The
commenter interprets this to mean that if a facility is in one of the
nine source categories covered by this final rule, it is ``subject to''
this final rule, even though an exception in the rule may exempt it
from one or more of the rule's requirements. Thus, according to the
commenter, if the facility is not required to comply with the standards
for spray painting under this final rule, it is also not subject to
subpart HHHHHH.
Response: We agree with the commenter's analysis. As noted above,
facilities in one of the nine area source categories subject to this
final rule are not subject to the miscellaneous coating requirements of
the Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations
Sources NESHAP (subpart HHHHHH) because it is stated as such in the
subpart HHHHHH rule. In addition, if facilities in one of the nine area
source categories subject to this final rule use paints that do not
contain MFHAP, they are not subject to the painting requirements in
this final rule. The fact that subpart HHHHHH also has the same MFHAP
criteria for determining applicability of that rule's painting
requirements is not relevant to the applicability question.
Comment: One commenter stated that the mass balance necessary to
determine the amount of PM emissions from forging operations which
escape the building is not feasible. They suggested that the forging
industry should not be included in the standard as a result.
Response: For forging operations, the only emissions measurement
necessary is for determination of area source status for the facility
as a whole, which is in terms of HAP emissions and not PM. Further, no
mass balances are required for PM or MFHAP emissions from any affected
sources covered by the rule, including forging facilities.
Comment: Several commenters requested that maintenance activities,
and research and development operations be excluded from the rule.
Specifically, two commenters recommended welding and machining/grinding
performed for maintenance should be excluded, and stick welding
performed for maintenance was specifically mentioned in another
instance. Another commenter requested that the fabrication of unique
pieces of process equipment or materials handling equipment be
excluded. One of the commenters also requested an exemption for
research and development operations. Another requested an exemption for
quality assurance/quality control operations and training centers.
Alternatively, they requested that training centers be added to the
definition of research and laboratory activities. They claimed that
this exemption is necessary to cover trade schools and other academic
centers of learning, as well as industrial training facilities, many of
which will have to intensify their operations solely as a result of
this rule's training requirements.
Related to these comments, two commenters requested changes to the
definition of ``facility maintenance''. One commenter requested that
the definition from the Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface
Coating Operations NESHAP be used, specifically that the following
phrase: ``Facility maintenance includes the application of coatings to
stationary structures or their appurtenances at the site of
installation, to portable buildings at the site of installation, to
pavements, or to curbs.'' Another commenter proposed that EPA revise
the definition of ``facility maintenance'' to clarify that
infrastructure includes process and control equipment.
Response: Research and laboratory facilities, equipment repair
operations, and facility maintenance were excluded from the proposed
rule because emissions from these activities were not part of the 1990
inventory. Specifically, Sec. 63.11514(e) of Sec. 63.11514, ``Am I
subject to this subpart?'', states: ``This
[[Page 42988]]
subpart does not apply to research or laboratory facilities, as defined
in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA.'' Additionally, Sec. 63.11514(f)
states: ``This subpart does not apply to tool or equipment repair
operations, or facility maintenance as defined in Sec. 63.11522,
``What definitions apply to this subpart?''. We received no adverse
comment regarding whether the nine listed area source categories
included these activities, and we therefore did not make changes to
this final rule.
We agree with the commenter that it is appropriate to also exclude
quality control activities since, based on reasonable assumptions, we
believe that emissions from these activities were not part of the 1990
inventory. Therefore this final rule clarifies that the emission
control requirements do not apply to these activities. We have also
added a definition of quality control activities that is based on the
definition in the Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations Sources NESHAP (subpart HHHHHH).
With regard to the definition of facility maintenance, the language
regarding stationary structures or appurtenances was already in the
proposed rule. We did clarify that facility maintenance includes work
on process and control equipment.
Finally, we did not add an exclusion for training centers as the
commenter suggested, nor did we add ``training center'' into the
definition of research and development activities. While the commenter
is correct that the requirements of this rule will result in increased
training needs, the examples that they provided (trade schools,
academic centers of learning, industrial training facilities) would not
be subject to this rule as they are not in one of the nine area source
categories covered, since their primary business is not in the
fabrication or finishing of metal products.
Comment: Two commenters recommended the addition of language that
EPA has included in several other rules to prevent surface coating
operations on military installations from being subject to multiple
rules.
Response: While the operations covered by the rule may be performed
at military installations, the applicability of the rule is specific to
the nine metal fabrication area source categories, as specified in
Sec. 63.11514, ``Am I subject to this subpart?''. In order to make
this clear with regard to military operations, paragraphs have been
added to Sec. 63.11514 that specify that this subpart does not apply
to military operations or the production of military munitions. In
addition, consistent with subpart HHHHHH, we have also clarified that
these provisions do not apply to NASA and National Nuclear Security
facilities.
Comment: Two commenters requested clarification that although their
facilities may perform some metal fabrication and finishing operations,
since their facilities are not primarily engaged in any of the nine
source categories identified in the rule, they are not subject to the
provisions of the rule.
Response: The commenter is correct. If the primary activities of
their facilities do not place them in one of the identified source
categories, they are not subject to the rule. To clarify this issue, we
have added a definition to the rule for ``primarily engaged'', as
follows: ``Primarily engaged means the manufacturing, fabricating, or
forging of one or more products listed in one of the nine metal
fabrication and finishing source categories described in Table 1,
``Description of Source Categories Affected by this Subpart,''
represents at least 50 percent of the production at a facility, where
production quantities are established by the volume, linear foot,
square foot, or other value suited to the specific industry.'' This
definition is consistent with the descriptions provided above in
section I.A, ``Does this action apply to me?''. It is also consistent
with the basis of the listing of the source categories in the 1990 air
toxics inventory.
Comment: Several commenters opposed the requirements in the
proposed rule because they felt these requirements were not justified
by the environmental benefits. One commenter questioned the
justification for the rule, stating that the imposition of significant
costs for additional control, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
obligations, with no corresponding environmental benefit is unwarranted
and unduly burdensome. Similarly, another commenter stated that the
proposed NESHAP creates an unjustifiable administrative burden for many
manufacturers, disproportionately burdening smaller operations that
would have de minimis emissions. According to the commenters, small
businesses which have never before been subject to a NESHAP would be
required to submit notifications, reports, and keep records needed to
demonstrate compliance with the rule. These commenters believe that EPA
should not require small businesses to comply with such administrative
requirements because of the negligible risk they believe are posed by
these small businesses with marginal emissions. Still another commenter
opposed the proposed rule because they believed it would further
undermine the climate of business certainty necessary for manufacturers
to comply with rational federal regulations that balance economic
growth and environmental protection. The commenter said that EPA seeks
to impose a real compliance burden that will achieve no clear
environmental objective.
Several commenters recommended that EPA consider de minimis
exemptions or thresholds for small operations or operations emitting
very small amounts of MFHAP which would be heavily impacted by the
rule, but result in only small emissions reductions. Two commenters
specifically requested exclusions of machining and grinding operations,
and operations which are already controlled.
Response: These nine metal fabrication and finishing area source
categories are area source categories that are needed to meet the CAA
section 112(c)(3) requirement that we subject to regulation the area
source categories representing 90 percent of the emissions of cadmium,
chromium, lead, manganese and nickel. See section 112(c)(3). We
recognize that these nine metal fabrication and finishing area source
categories are comprised of a large number of relatively small
facilities. Although area sources individually may be considered low-
emitting sources, collectively, they are not. The commenters'
suggestions do not take into account our requirement under section
112(c)(3). As discussed above, we previously determined that we need
these nine area source categories to fulfill EPA's obligation under
this requirement, which provides that EPA regulate area sources
accounting for 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP.
However, in developing this final rule, we attempted to further
reduce the burden, especially on small facilities, while ensuring that
this final rule includes sufficient requirements for ensuring
compliance. We have incorporated the following changes in this final
rule to reduce the burden: Reducing the number of operations that are
required to do monitoring from five to two operations (if present);
further reducing the requirement for monitoring by excluding from the
monitoring requirement any facility with welding operations that use
less than 2,000 pounds per year of welding rod containing MFHAP;
reducing the frequency of monitoring to quarterly for affected
operations that do not have visible emissions or opacity exceedences;
specifying that this final rule does not apply to material that
contains MFHAP in quantities less than
[[Page 42989]]
0.1 percent for carcinogens (which includes cadmium, chromium, nickel,
and lead), or less than 1.0 percent for carcinogens (which includes
manganese). In addition, we are planning various outreach activities
specifically for this industry to help affected facilities comply with
this final rule to further reduce the overall burden.
Comment: The criteria in Sec. 63.11514, ``Am I subject to this
subpart?'', specifically paragraph Sec. 63.11514(a), states that you
are subject to this subpart ``if you own or operate an area source of
MFHAP.'' The commenter indicated that this implies that facilities
within the scope of the proposed rule could have emissions other than
MFHAP. Since there is no limitation on the size of sources subject to
the proposed rule, the proposed language leaves open the possibility
that a major source of HAP, but not of MFHAP, could be subject to the
rule if the MFHAP emissions do not exceed the major source threshold.
Response: We acknowledge the awkward wording referred to by the
commenter and have made changes to make it clear that the regulation
applies to sources that are area sources for HAP.
Comment: One commenter suggested that in determining the
applicability of the proposed rule, a source should only be considered
to be engaged in metal fabrication or finishing operations if it
manufactures a finished and assembled product. They suggested that
rather than simply referencing applicable source categories and
included NAICS codes, ``metal fabrication or finishing source
categories'' should be unambiguously defined as ``operations described
in Table 1 to this subpart that are assembly operations that purchase
cast metal parts (no casting on site), perform various finishing
operations, and then assemble their products, with the exception of
iron and steel forging.''
Response: While we appreciate the commenter's attempt to further
clarify the applicability provisions of the rule, we do not believe
that this language captures the basis of the listing of the source
categories in the 1990 inventory as do the descriptions in Table 1 of
the proposed and final rules. Therefore, we have declined to
incorporate the commenter's suggested language in our definitions.
While some of the activities described in Table 1 do produce a finished
and assembled product, some of them do not. However, as a result of
other comments, we have revised the description of affected sources to
only include facilities that are ``primarily engaged'' in the indicated
activities, as discussed above. We believe that this change should
sufficiently clarify the applicability of this final rule.
Comment: One commenter stated that his organization, which
represents a subset of the Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing
source category, namely, ``Structural Steel Fabricators in Non-urban,
Non-stainless, Non-galvanizing Fully-enclosed Shop (NAICS 332312),''
should be excluded from this rule because their products are covered by
permit under the Architectural Surface Coating rule under the CAA.
Also, the spray paint booths or spray rooms required by this final rule
are infeasible and cost-prohibitive, and the VOHAP calculations are
inapplicable and unmanageable compared to previous EPA approaches to
calculating VOHAP content of paints. In addition, the commenter stated
that this subset of the source category is not like the other
categories, because facilities in NAICS 332312 only do some of the
operations regulated in the proposed rule and some operations do not
use or emit the MFHAP. Therefore, this source category should be
separately regulated and not included with the other eight source
categories in this rule.
Response: In regard to the conflict of this rule alleged by the
commenter with EPA's National VOC Emission Standards for Architectural
Coatings (40 CFR part 59, subpart D), we clarify for the commenter that
subpart D controls VOC emissions, as per CAA section 183(e), and only
affects manufacturers, distributors, and importers of architectural
coatings; users of the architectural coating products, therefore, are
not regulated entities under CAA section 183(e). Subpart D also covers
coatings intended for field application rather than coatings intended
for shop or factory application. Therefore, the commenter is incorrect
that this rule is in conflict with subpart D. Since this final rule
removes the standards for VOHAP from spray painting operations, the
issues raised with regard to VOHAP calculations are no longer relevant.
To address this and other commenters' concerns regarding the burden
of compliance, we have revised this final rule so that if facilities do
not emit or use materials containing MFHAP above specified levels,
i.e., greater than or equal to 0.1 percent cadmium, chromium, lead, or
nickel by weight (of the metal), or 1 percent manganese by weight (of
the metal), then the requirements of this final rule do not apply. We
have also reduced the monitoring requirement in this final rule so that
only two types of operations will need to do monitoring, as compared to
the previous five operations in the proposed rule: (1) Abrasive
blasting with MFHAP performed on objects greater than 8 feet, and (2)
welding operations performed with annual use of welding rod with MFHAP
greater than or equal to 2,000 pounds. Under this final rule, affected
facilities with annual use of welding rod with MFHAP less than 2,000
pounds are not subject to the visible emissions monitoring
requirements.
In addition, we found through other comments we received that there
is a unique feature of the facilities in the Fabricated Structural
Metal Manufacturing source category (NAICS 332312), as the commenter
has also noted, in regard to spray painting small objects less than or
equal to 15 feet along with large objects greater than 15 feet in open
areas and not enclosed in spray booths or spray rooms, as discussed
below (under section V.E.4, Management Practices for MFHAP Control for
Painting). Therefore, we have revised this rule to accommodate this
process difference and removed the spray booth requirement.
Finally, based on our research for this rule that included site
visits, surveys, and contacts with industry representatives, we believe
that the operations in all the nine metal fabrication and finishing
source categories are sufficiently similar to justify including all
nine source categories in one rule, if the above-cited exception that
accommodates the one significant difference is included.
B. Compliance Dates
Comment: Four commenters disagreed with the two-year compliance
timeframe. They suggested that because of the large number of sources
that state or local permitting agencies will need to identify and
contact (many of whom are small businesses), and the potential need for
sources to train painters and install necessary equipment, that three
years is more typical and more appropriate.
Response: We agree with the commenters' reasoning, and have
adjusted the compliance date accordingly.
Comment: One commenter from a regulatory assistance organization
noted that the scheduling of the promulgation and compliance dates of
this rule will make it difficult for them to provide outreach while
commenting on the other EPA area source rules proposed or in
development. They recommended adjusting the notification dates and
other dates in this rule to avoid this conflict.
Response: While we appreciate the difficulty the commenter has in
[[Page 42990]]
managing these various activities, we have little latitude in shifting
the promulgation date of this final rule since it is mandated by a
court order. The notification and other dates in this rule are guided
by the part 63 General Provisions. We have extended the compliance
period to three years in this final rule to provide sufficient
opportunity for facilities and organizations to prepare for compliance.
We expect that this additional time will provide some relief to the
commenter in their needs as well.
Comment: One commenter suggested that because of the necessity of
arranging training, it will be very difficult for small facilities with
painting operations to meet the compliance deadlines.
Response: The proposed rule would have required that, for existing
sources, training would be completed by September 3, 2008. Upon
reconsideration, we believe that having this training completed in
advance of the compliance date is not necessary. Therefore, this final
rule requires that training be complete by the compliance date. This
will give facilities three full years to schedule and complete the
training.
Comment: One commenter stated that new affected sources should be
allowed 180 days after startup to demonstrate compliance, rather than
120 days, as proposed, to be consistent with other major and area
source rules.
Response: The commenter is correct in that the notification of
compliance status report is sometimes required by some 40 CFR part 63
major and area source rules to be submitted 180 days after the startup
of new affected sources. However, there are also examples where these
rules require this compliance notification 120 days after startup.
Since there are no source tests that are required for this rule, we do
not feel that an additional 60 days is necessary.
Comment: One commenter stated that there was no compliance deadline
included in the proposed rule for a new affected source that starts up
prior to the publication of this final rule.
Response: The commenter is incorrect. The proposed compliance dates
at Sec. 63.11515 ``What are my compliance dates?'', states: ``[i]f you
start up a new affected source after the date of publication of this
final rule in the Federal Register, you must achieve compliance with
the provisions in this subpart upon startup of your affected source.''
However, this text was incomplete and should have required new sources
to comply with the requirements of this final rule by the date of
publication of this final rule in the Federal Register, or upon start-
up, whichever is later. This language has been corrected in this final
rule.
C. Scope of Rule
Comment: Several comments were received expressing concern about
how the proposed rule applied to the use of MFHAP. First, one commenter
pointed out that the definition of MFHAP in the proposed rule is not
consistent with definition in the proposal preamble. The preamble
referred to MFHAP compounds, while the definition of MFHAP in the rule
only lists the elements. The comments suggested adding ``compounds of''
to the definition.
Two commenters requested clarification that, for spray painting
affected sources, EPA only intended to require the use of a spray booth
and other work practices when the paint being sprayed contains MFHAP.
If a fabricator uses paints containing MFHAP even once, the language of
the regulation might require it to apply the management practices even
when spraying non-MFHAP paints.
Two commenters recommended establishing threshold amounts for MFHAP
in the same manner that the proposed rule did for VOHAP in paints.
Specifically, they stated, for paints, the proposed rule required that
you count each VOHAP that is measured to be present at 0.1 percent by
mass or more for OSHA-defined carcinogens, as specified in 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4), and 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds.
Response: With regard to the definition of MFHAP, it was our intent
that the rule apply to compounds containing these five metals, as noted
by the commenter. Therefore, we have revised the definition of MFHAP in
this final rule to include ``any compound of the following metals:
cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, or nickel, or any of these metals
in the elemental form, with the exception of lead,'' consistent with
the HAP definitions in the CAA (section 112 (b)).
The proposed rule, in Sec. 63.11514(a), ``Am I subject to this
subpart?'', states that ``(y)ou are subject to this subpart if you own
or operate an area source that emits metal fabrication or finishing
metal HAP (MFHAP), defined to be the compounds of cadmium, chromium,
lead, manganese, and nickel, or an area source that emits VOHAP from
spray painting operations, which performs metal fabrication or
finishing operations in one of the nine source categories listed in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (9) of this section.'' As discussed above, we
have removed the requirements related to VOHAP. Therefore, the affected
sources are equipment and activities necessary to perform the
designated operations (abrasive blasting, machining, dry grinding and
polishing, spray painting, and welding) which use or have the potential
to emit MFHAP. It is our intent that any of these operations that ever
use materials containing MFHAP, or that have the potential to ever emit
MFHAP, are affected sources.
However, we have made a modification to the affected source
definition in Sec. 63.11514(b), ``Am I subject to this subpart?'', to
add the concept of the use of ``materials containing MFHAP'', as
opposed to just ``MFHAP.'' We agree with the recommendation that OSHA-
based thresholds are appropriate for defining whether a material
``contains'' MFHAP, since we believe that materials that contain MFHAP
below these thresholds contain such very small amounts of HAP that they
were not included in the 1990 inventory. For example, Sec.
63.11514(b)(2) of this final rule states: ``A machining affected source
is the collection of all equipment and activities necessary to perform
machining operations that uses materials containing MFHAP* * *,'' where
``material containing MFHAP'' is defined in Sec. 63.11522, ``What
definitions apply to this subpart?'', to be: ``material that contains
cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel in amounts greater than or equal to
0.1 percent by weight (as the metal), or contains manganese in amounts
greater than or equal to 1.0 percent by weight (as the metal), as shown
in formulation data provided by the manufacturer or supplier, such as
the Material Safety Data Sheet for the material.''
In addition, when operations are occurring at an affected source
that does not use any materials containing MFHAP, we do not believe
that the management practices to minimize MFHAP emissions need to be
followed. While the commenter only raised this issue with respect to
painting, we believe that it should be universally applicable to all
types of affected sources. Therefore, we have made changes in Sec.
63.11516, ``What are my standards and management practices,'' of this
final rule to make it clear that these requirements apply only when
materials containing MFHAP are being used. For example, Sec.
63.11516(a) of this final rule states the following: ``Dry abrasive
blasting standards. If you own or operate a new or existing dry
abrasive blasting affected source you must comply with the requirements
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, as applicable, for
each dry
[[Page 42991]]
abrasive blasting operation that uses materials that contain MFHAP or
have the potential to emit MFHAP. These requirements do not apply when
abrasive blasting operations are being performed that do not use any
materials containing MFHAP and do not have the potential to emit
MFHAP.''
Comment: One commenter recommended that EPA specify hexavalent
chromium instead of using the general term ``chromium.'' The general
term ``chromium'' includes trivalent chromium, which is an important
material used in small quantities for achieving certain metallic and
pearlescent finishes; it has a relatively benign nature as compared to
hexavalent chromium. Also, EPA used hexavalent chromium in their Urban
HAP analysis in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy instead of
total chromium.
Response: The CAA specifically lists ``chromium compounds'' as a
hazardous air pollutant. In our original listing for the Urban Air
Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38706, July 19, 1999), we listed ``chromium
compounds'' as one of the Urban HAP targeted for the Integrated Urban
Air Toxics Strategy. CAA section 112(c)(3) requires us to list source
categories accounting for 90 percent of the emissions of each of the
listed urban HAP, including chromium compounds. As explained above, we
need the nine source categories at issue here to reach the 90 percent
requirement in CAA section 112(c)(3) for chromium compounds.
The commenter is correct that trivalent chromium is relatively
benign as compared to hexavalent chromium. The reason why we used
hexavalent chromium in the Urban HAP analysis in the Integrated Urban
Air Toxics Strategy was to prioritize and rank the sources of Urban HAP
area source categories for regulation, for the exact reason that the
commenter states. However, we always intended to use chromium compounds
as the regulated pollutant since the listing of the categories was
based on emissions of chromium compounds, not hexavalent chromium. Many
of our control strategies for chromium and other metal HAP involve the
use of PM as a surrogate for chromium and other metal HAP. These PM
control strategies control all chromium compounds along with PM and
other metal HAP, therefore the form of chromium would not change the
type of PM control strategy we choose. The coating control strategies
in this rule either control PM and other metal HAP along with chromium
(for the case of PM paint booth filters required for spray painting) or
reduce the total amount of coating used (and therefore the amount of PM
and other metal HAP), through the use of HVLP spray technology,
training, and management practices.
In summary, although we recognize the differences in the health
effects of hexavalent and trivalent chromium, we are required to
regulate chromium compounds from the nine source categories at issue in
this rule.
Comment: Two commenters questioned whether the HAP reduction
warrants the regulation. One commenter stated that MFHAP are present
only in small amounts at the facilities it represents. Little PM leaves
the building perimeters, and an even smaller percentage is MFHAP.
Response: As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule and
reiterated above, section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to
identify at least 30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area
sources, pose the greatest threat to public health in urban areas.
Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or
subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing
90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to
regulation. We determined that these nine metal fabrication and
finishing area source categories are among the area source categories
that we need to meet the section 112(c)(3) requirement to regulate area
source categories representing 90 percent of the emissions of cadmium,
chromium, lead, manganese and nickel. See section 112(c)(3).
We recognize that these metal fabrication area source categories
are comprised of a large number of relatively small facilities.
Although area sources individually may be considered low-emitting
sources, collectively, they are not; therefore, we are issuing
regulations for these source categories. However, as discussed above,
we have attempted to minimize the burden on the affected facilities,
especially small businesses, and have revised the requirements further
in this final rule to further reduce the burden to small facilities.
We disagree with the commenter's statement that this rule will
result in no environmental benefit. This final rule will help to ensure
that future emissions will be limited to the same levels currently
achieved. If the source categories were not regulated, as suggested by
the commenter, there would be no such limit of future emissions from
new facilities in the nine metal fabrication and finishing area source
categories.
Comment: One commenter noted that in Sec. 63.11514(b)(4), ``Am I
subject to this subpart?'', the paragraph defining a spray painting
operation includes those using paints containing VOHAP or MFHAP. The
commenter stated that the standards outlined in Sec. 63.11516(d) and
(e), ``What are my standards and management practices?'', apply to all
spray painting affected sources and thus do not specifically apply to
sources that only emit MFHAP or VOHAP. The commenter recommended that
the standards be rephrased so that paragraph (d) specifically states
that it applies to sources of MFHAP and paragraph (e) to sources of
VOHAP. Another commenter noted an error wherein Sec. 63.11516(d)
states: ``If you own or operate a new or existing spray painting
affected source as defined in Sec. 63.11522, ``What definitions apply
to this subpart?''. However, the definition of ``spray painting
affected source'' is in Sec. 63.11514(b)(4), ``Am I subject to this
subpart?'', not in the ``Definitions'' section (Sec. 63.11522).
Response: The commenters are correct, in that the provisions in
Sec. 63.11516(d) and (e), ``What are my standards and management
practices?'', are intended to apply only to operations using paints
containing MFHAP. The rule text has been revised to reflect this. The
standards for VOHAP from spray painting operations have been removed
from this final rule.
D. Impacts of Rule
Comment: Two commenters suggested that the proposed rule will
potentially affect many more small facilities than estimated by EPA.
One commenter noted that ``InfoUSA'' (http://www.infousa.com) reports
over 37,000 facilities with fewer than 100 employees and over 17,000
with fewer than 10 employees in the SIC codes corresponding to the Nine
Metal Fabrication and Finishing Area Source Categories, versus the
5,800 facilities estimated in the proposal preamble. Another commenter
stated that there are over 4,000 metal fabrication sources in Texas
alone.
Response: Our estimate of the total number of affected facilities,
and the number of small businesses, was based on the most recently
available U.S. Economic Census (2002). We were able to obtain similar
facility numbers using the cited web site, but have no explanation for
the discrepancy between these two respected sources of information.
However, we stand by the Census, which has the sole purpose of
providing U.S. economic information, to obtain an estimate of the
number of facilities in these source categories.
Comment: One commenter notes that the preamble states that 5,800
sources
[[Page 42992]]
will be regulated by this rule, of which 90 percent are small
businesses. They say this is inequitable and places a considerable
burden on small businesses.
Response: As explained above, we need to regulate these nine metal
fabrication and finishing area source categories to meet the 90 percent
requirement in section 112(c)(3) for emissions of cadmium, chromium,
lead, manganese, and nickel. In developing the proposed rule, we
attempted to minimize the burden on small businesses, while ensuring
that the rule includes sufficient requirements for ensuring compliance.
This final rule imposes no testing requirements, and we have eliminated
the requirement to conduct visual emissions monitoring for some types
of sources from that which was required in the proposed rule. With
respect to recordkeeping, our understanding is that the required
records are already maintained at most facilities as part of routine
procedures. Therefore, the recordkeeping requirements do not represent
any significant burden on these facilities.
Comment: Seven commenters stated that the estimated costs of the
proposed rule are underestimated, and that $1,120 initially and $735
annually is not reflective of the actual cost to small businesses. They
argue that the total number of labor hours is also not reflective of
the time needed by small businesses to comply. According to the
commenters, the number of hours needed to comply with the paperwork,
training, monitoring and installation of upgraded equipment will exceed
80 hours the first year. They stated their belief that cost estimates
using EPA's initial cost and hours pro-rated, will be over $3,700 per
facility. According to the commenters, this does not include any
capital costs needed to comply with the NESHAP and no consideration has
been given to non-fiscal resources. The commenters argued that most
companies will require outside consulting assistance to meet
compliance, training, and record-keeping requirements. One commenter
specifically mentioned the costs of obtaining Method 9 certification
(and annual re-certification) for employees.
Response: We based those reporting and recordkeeping estimates of
the burden on past experience with similar rules, and believe that they
are reasonable. As noted in response to other comments, we have made
several changes to this final rule to decrease the burden on all
affected facilities. For example, we have eliminated the requirement to
conduct visual emission observations from all sources except large
welding operations and uncontrolled blasting operations on objects
greater than 8 feet in any dimension. No capital costs are incurred as
a result of this rule since all facilities are currently using the
MFHAP control methods that the rule requires. Also, Method 9 is only
required if an exceedence of Method 22 occurs twice and we do not
expect this to occur for most facilities.
E. Management Practices
1. General
Comment: The management practices in the proposed rule for abrasive
blasting, machining, and dry grinding and polishing included the
requirement that affected sources ``must keep work areas free of excess
MFHAP material by sweeping or vacuuming dust once per day, once per
shift, or once per operation, as needed depending on the severity of
dust generation.'' Several commenters disagreed with these
requirements. One commenter suggested that leaving dust on the floor
may produce less airborne dust than frequent sweeping, which renders
the dust airborne again. They also suggested that there may be worker
safety issues related to sweeping in unsafe areas. Another commenter
stated that the proposed rule would overlap with existing Federal and
state programs and with jurisdiction of OSHA. They stated that by
proposing to mandate that manufacturers ``keep work areas free of
excess dust by regular sweeping or vacuuming to control the
accumulation of dust and other particles,'' and further giving a
regulatory definition for what constitutes ``regular vacuuming,'' EPA
complicates manufacturers' efforts to comply with various federal and
state worker safety regulations, but also mandates practices that most
business owners either already undertake pursuant to existing law, and/
or to maximize the health of their works. They stated their belief that
this increases or duplicates regulatory burdens and best practices and
hampers operational efficiency within manufacturing facilities.
Further, this commenter said that mandating the frequency with which
metal operations must sweep the floor of their factories will not help
EPA fulfill its mandate to protect environmental and public health,
since manufacturers already comply with these practices.
While these comments are related to the sweeping requirements for
all sources, other commenters had more specific criticisms of these
requirements as applied to outdoor blasting. These commenters noted
that the requirements for sweeping and enclosure of storage areas and
conveyors for outdoor abrasive blasting seem inappropriate for outdoor
operations which are not themselves enclosed, and where the abrasive
falls to the ground under the work pieces. They stated that making
outdoor blasting operations ``clear and enclose as you go'' would be
cost prohibitive.
These commenters provided a variety of suggestions. Some commenters
requested removal of these requirements. Another commenter suggested
that the term ``if possible'' be added to the management practice of
sweeping outdoor areas, as they pointed out that an affected source may
not be able to sweep or vacuum over unpaved surfaces or rock. One
commenter said that EPA should reexamine the proposal and attempt to
pinpoint real, potential gaps that may exist under existing regulatory
programs rather than issue regulations that will cause overlaps and
potential confusion, thereby undermining environmental compliance and
industrial productivity. Finally, a commenter suggested a requirement
for sweeping on a frequency determined by facility managers considering
safety and emissions.
Response: The primary purpose of the management practices described
by the commenters is to minimize the potential for fugitive emissions
that occur due to the ``stirring up'' of MFHAP dust in the work area.
We recognize that these practices would likely have a larger beneficial
effect on the ambient air inside the facility than for outside the
plant boundaries. We also recognize that these practices are commonly
employed at these facilities to reduce worker exposure to these dusts,
hence the inclusion of these practices as ``generally available control
technology.'' Our intention was to have these requirements work in
concert with established plant practices and OSHA requirements.
However, we understand how conflicts could result from the very
prescriptive proposed requirements. We also recognize there could be
situations where a requirement to sweep at least once per day could be
more detrimental than beneficial. We do, however, continue to believe
that it is important that owners and operators of these operations
perform routine practices to reduce the possibility of fugitive MFHAP
emissions due to accumulated dust in these work areas. Therefore, we
did not take the one commenter's suggestion to completely eliminate
these requirements. Rather, we have incorporated the recommendation of
another commenter to make these sweeping/vacuuming requirements at
[[Page 42993]]
the discretion of the owner or operator of the affected source.
Specifically, this final rule requires that affected sources ``must
take measures necessary to minimize excess dust to reduce emissions.''
This general requirement also applies to blasting that is conducted
outdoors or indoors.
2. Abrasive Blasting
Comment: One commenter suggested that EPA revise Sec. 63.11516(a),
``What are my standards and management practices?'', to take into
account all possible abrasive blasting activities. They indicated that
the proposed paragraph Sec. 63.11516(a)(1) applied to dry blasting
objects less than or equal to 8 feet in totally enclosed and unvented
blast chambers, paragraph Sec. 63.11516(a)(2) applied to dry blasting
objects less than or equal to 8 feet in vented enclosures, and
paragraph Sec. 63.11516(a)(3) applied to dry blasting objects greater
than 8 feet. They concluded that it appeared that EPA meant to draft
this section so that paragraph (a)(3) applied to any size objects dry
blasted outdoors. Also, they pointed out that there were no regulations
that applied to dry blasting objects greater than 8 feet indoors. In
this regard, the commenter stated that there appeared to be a
typographical error in the second sentence of paragraph (a)(2). They
indicated that it should be re-written to the following: ``As an
alternative, dry abrasive blasting operations for which the items to be
blasted are equal to or less than 8 feet (2.4 meters) in any dimension,
may be performed outdoors, subject to the requirements in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section.''
Response: Paragraph Sec. 63.11516(a)(1), ``What are my standards
and management practices?'', is specific to dry blasting of objects in
totally enclosed and unvented blast chambers. While we would not expect
that large objects would ever be blasted in a totally enclosed and
unvented blast chamber, these provisions are applicable to any
situation where an object is blasted in such a blast chamber.
Therefore, we have corrected the title of the section in this final
rule to state: ``Standards for dry abrasive blasting performed in
enclosed and unvented blast chambers.''
The proposed standard in Sec. 63.11516(a)(2), ``What are my
standards and management practices?'', applied to blasting operations
which have vents allowing any air or blast material to escape. This
provision of the proposed rule was intended to encompass all blasting
performed in vented blasting chambers, regardless of the size of the
object being blasted. Therefore, the size of the material blasted has
been removed from the title of the provision in this final rule so that
the rule applies to objects of any size, as long as the objects are
blasted in chambers vented to a filtration control device.
The only blasting operations (excluding those in enclosed unvented
chambers) that may not be subject to the revised provisions of Sec.
63.11516(a)(2), ``What are my standards and management practices?'' in
this final rule, are operations where objects greater than 8 feet are
being blasted. These operations may be performed indoors or outdoors,
without a filtration control device. These operations are subject to
the management practices in paragraph Sec. 63.11516(a)(3). They are
also subject to visual emissions testing requirements. In other words,
we consider that the differences in the type of the process where large
(i.e., greater than 8 feet) objects are being blasted to warrant
separate requirements for situations where blast chambers, vented or
unvented, cannot be used.
Therefore, in this final rule, the title of paragraph Sec.
63.11516(a)(1), ``What are my standards and management practices?'',
has been changed to ``Standards for dry abrasive blasting performed in
totally enclosed and unvented blast chambers.'' Also, the title of
paragraph Sec. 63.11516(a)(2) has been changed to ``Standards for dry
abrasive blasting performed in vented enclosures''. Paragraph Sec.
63.11516(a)(3), ``Standards for dry abrasive blasting of objects
greater than 8 feet in any one dimension'' has been amended to address
blasting of objects greater than 8 feet in any one dimension, either
indoors or outdoors, with operations performed in both blasting
locations required to perform management practices and visible
emissions monitoring.
Comment: One commenter questioned the mention of silica sand in the
rule as an acceptable abrasive, noting OSHA regulations related to
worker exposure to silicon dioxide (SiO2) and dangers of
silicosis.
Response: The commenter is mistaken that we recommend the use of
sand or silica. The intent of this portion of the proposed rule was
explicitly to limit emission of MFHAP by minimizing the use of high-PM
generating blast media, such as sand. In this final rule, in Sec.
63.11516 (a)(3)(i)(E), ``What are my standards and management
practices?'', we say in this regard: ``Whenever practicable, you must
switch from high PM-emitting blast media (e.g., sand) to low PM-
emitting blast media (e.g., crushed glass, specular hematite, steel
shot, aluminum oxide), where PM is a surrogate for MFHAP.''
Comment: One commenter asked that the proposed rule text be
clarified to specify that the requirement in Sec.
63.11516(a)(2)(ii)(B), ``What are my standards and management
practices?'', for enclosure of conveyors only applies to conveyors used
to transport blast media and debris, not those carrying the material to
be blasted. Other commenters noted that the requirements for enclosure
of storage areas and conveyors for outdoor abrasive blasting seemed
inappropriate for outdoor operations which are not themselves enclosed,
and they requested removal of these requirements.
Response: We agree with these comments and have revised the
requirements in this final rule accordingly.
Comment: One commenter noted that Sec. 63.11516(a)(3)(i)(E),
``What are my standards and management practices?'', states that no dry
abrasive blasting shall be performed on substrates having paints
containing greater than 0.1 percent lead. However, no test method is
specified in the rule. Another commenter asked whether the prohibition
of blasting of lead bearing paints only applies to outdoor activities
or if it applies to indoor blasting as well.
Response: We have removed this requirement. We agree with the
commenter that testing for lead in all painted substrates would impose
an impractical burden. We believe that the required work practices will
address emissions of lead and other MFHAP through reduction of PM
emissions.
Comment: One commenter objected to the absolute prohibition of
outdoor dry blasting during a wind event. They have several facilities
in locations where these wind events are very common. If no visible
emissions are detected at the facility fence line or property border or
border, there should be no absolute prohibition of blasting during a
wind event.
Response: We agree with the commenter. This final rule retains the
provisions that require the determination of visible emissions at the
fence line or property border. Therefore, we believe that the owner or
operator of an abrasive blasting affected source can use their judgment
whether a windy event would impact the visible emissions at the fence
line or property border. Therefore, this prohibition of outdoor
blasting during a wind event has been removed.
[[Page 42994]]
3. Dry Grinding and Polishing With Machines
Comment: Two commenters requested clarification that the grinding
requirements do not apply to hand-held grinding equipment; one
commenter requested that bench-scale equipment also not be included in
the requirement since capture and control devices are not used in this
situation.
Response: As evidenced by the name of the affected source (i.e.,
dry grinding and dry polishing with machines), our intention was not to
cover hand-held grinding or polishing, or bench-scale equipment. To
make this clear, we have revised the definition of dry grinding and dry
polishing with machines as follows: ``Dry grinding and dry polishing
with machine means grinding or polishing without the use of lubricating
oils or fluids in fixed or stationary machines. Hand grinding and hand
polishing, and bench-scale grinding and polishing are not included
under this definition.''
4. Painting for MFHAP Control
Comment: Two commenters stated that the requirement for spray
booths or spray rooms for painting objects under 15 feet is excessively
burdensome for facilities in the Fabricated Structural Metal
Manufacturing source category (SIC 3441 and NAICS 332312). They
indicated that custom paint work performed in this source category
differs greatly from other industries, which they claim use assembly
lines to manufacture and paint standard products with a minimum of
variation. The commenters reported that these shops deal with large and
small pieces, and the specifications often change with each job. They
cited numerous significant logistical difficulties with implementation
of paint booths or spray rooms, including issues associated with
material movement, drying/curing time, shop size, and costs (production
and equipment costs). Specifically, they noted: (1) Regardless of their
size, the structural metal objects being painted are very heavy and
typically must be moved with cranes; (2) there is a two to eight hour
curing time for the paint to dry, during which the objects must be
turned over to paint the other side; (3) moving the work pieces into
and out of paint booths might add 25 percent to the cost; (4) the use
of paint booths for some objects (regardless of the exact size cut-off)
would require adding an entirely new process line incorporating the
booths, which would take up large amounts of scarce space on the
factory floor. One of the commenters also offered several reasons that
the enclosure requirement is unlikely to have a significant positive
impact on emissions from facilities in this SIC/NAICS code: (1) The
paints used by facilities in the Fabricated Structural Metal
Manufacturing source category do not contain high levels of metal HAP;
(2) the facilities will be using spray guns meeting the standards of
the proposed regulation; and (3) only a small percentage of the work
pieces are under 15 feet. The commenter states that the minor emission
reductions do not justify the high cost of creating an alternate paint
process to comply, if such an alternate is feasible at all. In
conclusion, these commenters recommended that the paint booth
requirement for objects less than 15 feet be removed in its entirety.
Another commenter stated that the proposed requirement to conduct
painting of parts less than or equal to 15 feet in any dimension within
enclosed, filtered spray booths or spray rooms was incompatible with
the requirements of aerospace manufacturing, and is not required by
existing EPA or OSHA regulations. One of their points was that in its
recent hexavalent chromium standard, OSHA recognized that some
aerospace parts are so large that they must be painted in ``oversized
workspaces.''
Response: We did not accept the recommendation to delete the paint
booth requirements entirely, as was suggested by the commenter. We
determined that the use of spray booth equipped with filters was
generally available for most painting operations present at the source
categories addressed by this rulemaking. However, we did recognize that
there were circumstances where booths or spray rooms were not feasible.
Based on our information gathering efforts prior to proposal (which
included site visits and other information gathering for the Fabricated
Structural Metal Manufacturing source category), we believed that these
situations could be adequately characterized based on object size, and
we selected 15 feet as the cutoff that represented these situations.
However, based on the information provided by these commenters, we now
recognize the uniqueness of this industry with regard to the type of
process and their ability to install and operate paint booths or spray
rooms with filters to reduce MFHAP emissions for spray painting
operations. Therefore, we have revised this final rule to remove that
requirement for spray painting affected sources in the Fabricated
Structural Metal Manufacturing source category, which is comprised
solely of facilities in NAICS 332312, to comply with the requirements
for paint booths or spray rooms with filters to reduce MFHAP emissions
as set out in Sec. 63.11516(d)(1), ``What are my standards and
management practices?''. However, these affected sources will be
subject to the management practices in Sec. 63.11516(d)(2) through
(9).
With regard to the aerospace manufacturing comment, we would first
point out that aerospace manufacturing facilities are not among the
area source categories covered under this subpart (XXXXXX). As
discussed earlier, specific language has been added to the
applicability provisions to make this clear. However, we also reiterate
that we believe that the provisions in the proposed rule (which were
retained in this final rule) where objects greater than 15 feet need
not comply with the spray booth PM filter requirement is a valid
difference in the final rule requirements. We believe differentiation
is consistent with the ``oversized workspaces'' concept recognized by
OSHA.
Comment: One commenter suggested that surface coating operations
that do not utilize coatings containing HAP or at the minimum MFHAP
should be exempted from the regulation. Although the proposed rule
includes a pollution prevention regulation for these operations (3.0
pounds (lb) VOHAP per gallon (gal) paint solids), the commenter
believes that EPA should provide additional incentive by including an
exemption for coating operations that utilize non-HAP coatings.
Response: As described in more detail above (in section V.C., Scope
of Rule) the spray painting provisions only apply to spray painting
operations which use paints that contain MFHAP.
Comment: One commenter said that there is a new ASHRAE method
(52.2) procedure to demonstrate filter efficiency that was similar to
ASHRAE 52.1 that was required in the proposed rule. The commenter
stated that this new ASHRAE method has the additional benefit of
considering particle size and is also very similar to proposed EPA
Method 319 that was referenced in the NESHAP for Aerospace
Manufacturing and Rework Facilities (40 CFR, part 63 subpart GG).
Response: This final rules states that: ``* * * the procedure used
to demonstrate filter efficiency must be consistent with the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) Method 52.1, `Gravimetric and Dust-Spot Procedures for Testing
Air-Cleaning Devices Used in General Ventilation for Removing
Particulate
[[Page 42995]]
Matter, June 4, 1992' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14).''
Therefore, another method can be used if it is ``consistent'' with
ASHRAE 52.1. We believe that the new method, ASHRAE 52.2, is very
likely to be consistent with ASHRAE 52.1. Since EPA Method 319 is only
proposed at this time, it would be premature for EPA to include the new
method by ASHRAE that relies on the proposed EPA method. We do not
believe that requiring ASHRAE 52.1 in this final rule will be a
hardship for the commenter since we believe that the commenter will be
able to demonstrate, through the process described above, that the new
ASHRAE 52.2 is ``consistent'' with ASHRAE 52.1. Therefore, we have not
revised this final rule requirement to determine filter equivalency to
include this new ASHRAE method.
5. Painting--VOHAP
Comment: One commenter indicated that EPA has not satisfied the
statutory prerequisites to regulate VOHAP emissions from spray painting
operations in this rulemaking. According to the commenter, none of the
nine categories were listed for VOHAP, and none of the VOHAP are on
EPA's list of 30 urban air toxics. The commenter stated that EPA cited
CAA section 112(k)(3)(C) as providing the discretion to regulate these
HAP in order to reduce the public health risk posed by the release of
any HAP, but the commenter says that this passage is plainly not an
independent grant of authority to EPA. The commenter further stated
that this CAA section is only a directive to EPA as to the level of
cancer risk reduction to be achieved by EPA and the states through the
applicable rulemaking provision in the CAA. The commenter further noted
that even if CAA section 112(k)(3)(C) could be interpreted as a general
grant of discretionary regulatory authority, it cannot be interpreted
to override the specific provisions of CAA section 112(k) regarding
area sources, including CAA sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B), and
112(f)(1) and (2). The commenter argued that specific terms must be
controlling over general terms. The commenter requested that all
references to VOHAP be eliminated, and that the spray paint provisions
apply only when coatings containing MFHAP are being spray applied.
Response: We proposed to set GACT for VOHAP emissions from spray
painting because we found that VOHAP emissions from painting were over
60 percent of the total HAP emissions from the metal fabrication and
finishing area source categories in the 2002 EPA National Emission
Inventory. We also found that some facilities currently have state
permits that allow them to emit high levels of VOHAP from their metal
fabrication and finishing painting processes, although their actual
emissions are currently lower. CAA section 112(c)(3) provides EPA with
the authority to regulate any of the section 112(b) listed HAP upon
certain findings being made.
Nonetheless, given the interest in this issue as expressed by the
commenter, we have decided not to regulate VOHAP as part of this final
rule. Accordingly, we have revised this final rule to remove the VOHAP
control requirements.
6. Welding
Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed welding
standard is vague with respect to the need to comply with some or all
of the management practices. They emphasized the relationship between
emissions and other weld procedure inputs such as quality and safety in
the selection of process variables. They suggest that the rule be
revised to make it more explicit that weld quality need not be
compromised in an attempt to reduce fume. The commenters emphasized
that for many welding applications weld quality can be an issue of
public safety.
One commenter also suggested that the proposed rule could be
interpreted to require that each of the individual welding management
practices in Sec. 63.11516(f)(2), ``What are my standards and
management practices?'', be implemented. Another objected to the use of
the language ``whenever possible.'' Several commenters questioned the
use of the word ``practicable'' in the proposed welding rule text,
saying that it invites differing interpretations of what is
practicable, in particular the importance of considering welding codes
and standards. Finally, a commenter noted that the requirement to
``minimize'' emissions of MFHAP is impractical, and that the word
``reduce'' would be more proper. They pointed out that changes
implemented solely to minimize fume generation rates may have
unintended consequences on product quality.
Response: We understand the commenter's concerns and did not intend
for the welding provisions to adversely impact product quality, or that
the facility be required to implement all of the management practices.
The inclusion of the phrase ``as practicable'' was intended to convey
this. However, to avoid any potential confusion, we have amended the
language as follows: ``implement one or more of the management
practices... to minimize emissions of MFHAP as practicable, while
concurrently maintaining the required welding quality through the
application of sound welding engineering judgment.'' Finally, we
believe that the use of the word ``minimize'' is appropriate. We
believe that replacement of ``minimize'' with ``reduce'' would imply
that affected facilities that are already implementing management
practices and pollution prevention techniques would be required to
implement additional measures to further ``reduce'' their MFHAP
emissions. Further, we believe that the combination of ``minimize'' and
``as practicable'' makes the balance between weld quality, sound
welding engineering principles, and emission reductions clear.
Comment: One commenter described several highly technical issues
with the specific welding management practices proposed, including use
of shielding gases, use of ``low fume welding processes'', inert
carrier gases, 90[deg] welding angles, and electrode diameter. They
summed up by stating that welding is a complex science with many
competing objectives, which may also be inconsistent. This commenter
provided alternative management practices that incorporate the emission
reduction concepts in the proposed rule in a more general manner. Their
proposed management practices included: (1) Utilization of welding
processes with reduced fume generation capabilities; (2) utilization of
welding process variations, if available, such as pulsed GMAW, which
can reduce fume generation rates; (3) utilization of welding filler
metals and shielding gases which are capable of reduced welding fume
generation; and (4) utilization of welding procedures (electrode
diameter, voltage, amperage, travel speed, etc.) that reduce the amount
of welding fume generated.
The commenter stated that their proposed alternative management
practices capture all the technically justified items from the proposed
list of eleven items, and present the items in a manner consistent with
how a manufacturing or welding engineer would approach such a task.
According to the commenter, the alternative method will more
effectively achieve the intended results. The commenter stated that
only by considering each individual welding situation can the
appropriate engineering controls be implemented. Finally, the commenter
noted that the format of their list highlights the importance that weld
quality not be compromised, reducing
[[Page 42996]]
the likelihood of the unintended negative consequences that could
result.
Response: While we do not necessarily agree with the commenter's
technical criticisms of the 11 proposed welding management practices,
we believe that their suggested approach improves the flexibility of
the rule without changing the requirement to identify and implement
emission minimization practices. We also believe that it will be
beneficial in the future, as it provides the necessary flexibility to
include emerging technologies that may not be necessarily included in
the more explicit practices in the proposed rule. Therefore, we have
revised this final rule accordingly.
Comment: Two commenters questioned whether the 85 percent capture
requirement for welding fume specified in the proposal is possible, and
requested that it be removed. One commenter suggested that it may be
more difficult to capture a high percentage of the fume with some
welding processes, but the amount of fume released with these welding
types could be less compared to other types of welding, even
considering a lower capture percentage. They also noted the possibility
of capture systems interfering with shielding gases.
One commenter noted that use of fume control systems, both area-
wide and localized, is not always possible for the types of operations
covered by the rule, for various logistical reasons. They added that
local systems have a limited range of coverage and may be too big to
reach smaller spaces.
Response: We understand the commenter's objection, and have removed
the requirement for a specific numeric efficiency for fume capture and
control systems. Our original determination was that such systems
represented one of the generally available measures available to reduce
MFHAP emissions from welding operations. Accordingly, we have revised
the welding provisions of this final rule to make the use of a fume
capture and control system one of the list of management practices that
may be used to minimize MFHAP emissions, as practicable, as long as the
capture and control devices are operated according to the
manufacturer's specifications and the specifications are kept on-site,
nearby the equipment and readily available for inspector review.
However, if the facility uses 2,000 pounds or more of MFHAP-containing
welding rod annually, on a rolling 12-month basis, they must also
conduct visible emissions tests. If the facility has a problem meeting
the requirement of no visible emissions and they are operating a
control device, the capture and/or control efficiency of the control
systems may need to be improved so that they can meet the visible
emissions requirement.
Comment: One commenter stated that it would be desirable to require
application of welding controls only after determination of HAP in the
fume, but as a compromise, they proposed application of controls only
after determination of visible fugitive emissions.
Response: We believe that the requirement to apply welding
management practices or controls to minimize emissions from welding
``as practicable'' allows significant flexibility to welding affected
sources. If measures are being implemented that do not result in any
visible emissions, we believe that sufficient welding management
practices or controls are already in effect.
Comment: One commenter noted that sometimes, although rarely,
facilities may perform a small amount of welding on a component after
its construction is finalized and has been moved outdoors. According to
the commenter, the large size of some components could make it
difficult, if not impossible, to move them back inside to perform the
welding. For this reason, the commenter proposed that EPA revise the
regulation to allow a limited amount of welding, 30 minutes per month,
to occur outdoors. Another commenter noted that at large facilities,
with complex manufacturing processes, spot welding may be performed
along an assembly line; they suggested that the rule should allow for
this.
Response: We believe that the flexibility provided by the language
described above (``as practicable, while maintaining required weld
quality and using sound welding engineering principles'') allows for
the operations the commenters describe. Note that the rule contains no
prohibition against outdoor welding or welding along an assembly line,
it just requires that you must implement management practices to
minimize emissions of MFHAP as practicable.
F. Monitoring
Comment: Several commenters objected to the requirements that
affected sources demonstrate that the applicable management practices
are being implemented through the visual determination of fugitive
emissions using Method 22 and, for some welding affected sources,
Method 9. These commenters' objections were based on the opinion that
these requirements would be overly burdensome and unnecessary,
especially if EPA is correct in its assumption that no additional
emissions reductions will take place. One commenter indicated that
facilities which have previously not been permitted will not have
capabilities to perform visible emissions determinations. They added
that if permitted sources are not required to use these methods, it is
unreasonable to require it of area sources. Another commenter indicated
that these daily monitoring requirements would be very burdensome,
particularly for welding, where Method 9 may also be required. They
indicated that the training required to perform these determinations
may be burdensome, particularly for small businesses. One commenter
suggested that these requirements be removed for all types of affected
sources. Another commenter was more specific to machining metal
fabrication and finishing affected sources, as they noted that EPA
indicated that HAP emissions from machining are minimal because of use
of enclosures and cutting liquids.
Response: The proposed rule required visual determinations of
fugitive emissions using Method 22 from all types of dry abrasive
blasting operations, all machining operations, all grinding and
polishing operations, and all welding operations. These determinations
were initially required to be performed daily, and then could be
reduced to less frequent intervals (weekly, monthly) if no visual
emissions were present. For welding sources, there were additional
requirements to conduct opacity measurements using Method 9 in
situations where visible emissions were identified using Method 22.
The purpose of these visual determination requirements was to
demonstrate that the specified management practices were being
implemented to minimize fugitive MFHAP emissions. These management
practices consist of three basic types: (1) Requirements to operate
equipment properly (e.g., in accordance with manufacturer's
specifications); (2) practices or operating procedures to minimize
emissions (e.g., keep work areas free of excess MFHAP material); and
(3) requirements to capture emissions and vent them to a filtration
control device. Upon consideration of these comments, we have
determined that it is not necessary to perform visual determinations of
fugitive emissions from operations that are required to capture
emissions and vent them to a filtration control device. This final rule
requires capture/filtration control for dry abrasive blasting performed
in
[[Page 42997]]
vented chambers and dry grinding and dry polishing with machines.
Therefore, we eliminated the visual determination of fugitive emissions
requirements for these operations. In addition, we agree with the
commenter that visual determinations for machining operations is not
necessary because the metal waste produced by the machining process is
composed of relatively large pieces which immediately fall to the
floor, and because the majority of machining operations are performed
under cutting oils or lubricants, which entrain any metal waste. We
have therefore removed these visual determination requirements for
those affected sources.
Fugitive emissions from abrasive blasting operations that are not
performed in vented chambers are not required to be captured and vented
to a filtration control device. We continue to believe that it is
important that visual determinations be conducted to ensure that
fugitive MFHAP emissions are minimized via the management practices.
Therefore, this final rule maintains the requirement to conduct visual
determinations of fugitive emissions using Method 22 for these sources.
Fugitive MFHAP emissions from welding operations are not subject to
the capture/filtration control requirements. Therefore, we believe it
is important that the proposed visual determinations be conducted to
ensure that fugitive MFHAP emissions are being minimized. However, due
to our concern with the impact that these requirements could have on
small businesses, we have removed the visual determination requirements
for smaller welding operations that emit less MFHAP. Specifically, this
final rule requires that welding operations that annually use 2,000
pounds or more of welding rod containing one or more MFHAP perform
visual determinations. Welding operations that use less than this
amount of welding rod are subject only to the GACT management
practices.
VI. Impacts of the Final Standards
A. What are the air impacts?
Since 1990, facilities in these nine metal fabrication and
finishing source categories have reduced their air impacts by voluntary
controls that were likely motivated by concerns for worker safety.
These controls would have reduced approximately 122 tons of the MFHAP
(cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel) attributed to this
industry in the 1990 urban HAP inventory. Although there are no
additional air emission reductions as a result of this final rule, we
believe that this final rule will assure that the emission reductions
made by the industry since 1990 will be maintained.
Along with the HAP described above, there is an undetermined amount
of VOHAP, VOC, PM, and other HAP that have been co-controlled in the
metal fabrication and finishing processes that contributed to criteria
pollutant emissions in 1990.
B. What are the cost impacts?
For all metal fabrication and finishing processes except painting,
all facilities are expected to be achieving the level of control
required by the final standard. Therefore, no additional air pollution
control devices or systems would be required. No capital costs are
associated with this final rule, and no operational and maintenance
costs are expected because facilities are already following the
manufacturer's instructions for operation and maintenance of pollution
control devices and systems. Many of the management practices required
by this final rule are pollution prevention and have the co-benefit to
provide a cost savings for facilities.
The annual cost of monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping for
this final rule is estimated at approximately $569 per facility per
year after the first year with an additional $384 per facility for one-
time costs in the first year. While most of these facilities are small,
the costs are expected to be less than 0.01 percent of revenues. This
cost estimate includes an estimate of 10 hours per year per facility,
on the average, for labor to perform the visible emissions or opacity
tests required by the rule for up to two affected operations. This
estimate includes performance of the visible emissions or opacity test
as well as documentation of the results. The labor estimate also
includes 16 hours for preparation of a Site-specific Welding Management
Plan (SWMP) by the approximately 60 facilities estimated to require the
SWMP in any one year of compliance.
C. What are the economic impacts?
The only measurable costs attributable to these final standards are
associated with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. These final standards are estimated to impact a total of
5,800 area source facilities. We estimate that over 5,300 of these
facilities are small entities. Our analysis indicates that this final
rule would not impose a significant adverse impact on any facilities,
large or small since these costs are approximately 0.01 percent of
revenues.
D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy impacts?
No detrimental secondary impacts are expected to occur from the
non-painting sources because all facilities are currently achieving the
GACT level of control. No facilities would be required to install and
operate new or additional control devices or systems, or install and
operate monitoring devices or systems. No additional solid waste would
be generated as a result of the PM emissions collected and there are no
additional energy impacts associated with operation of control devices
or monitoring systems for the non-painting sources.
We expect no increase in generation of wastewater or other water
quality impacts. None of the control measures considered for this final
rule generates a wastewater stream. The installation of spray booths or
spray rooms and enclosed gun washers, and increased worker training in
the proper use and handling of coating materials should reduce worker
exposure to harmful chemicals in the workplace. This should have a
positive benefit on worker health, but this benefit cannot be
quantified in the scope of this rulemaking.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this final rule are
based on the requirements in EPA's NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in
the General Provisions are mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the CAA
(42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than emissions data submitted
to EPA pursuant to the information collection requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to CAA
section 114(c) and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part
2, subpart B.
[[Page 42998]]
This final NESHAP will require area sources in the nine metal
fabrication and finishing source categories to submit an Initial
Notification and a Notification of Compliance Status according to the
requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the General Provisions (subpart A).
Records will be required to demonstrate compliance with operation and
maintenance of capture and control devices, and other management
practices. The owner or operator of a metal fabrication and finishing
facility also is subject to notification and recordkeeping requirements
in 40 CFR 63.9 and 63.10 of the General Provisions (subpart A). Annual
certification and compliance and annual exceedence reports will be
required instead of the semiannual excess emissions reports required by
the NESHAP General Provisions.
The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first three years of this ICR is estimated to be a total of 20,566
labor hours per year at a cost of $655,501 or approximately $339 per
facility. The average annual reporting burden is 11 hours per response,
with one response per facility for 1,933 respondents. The only costs
attributable to these final standards are associated with the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. There are no
capital, operating, maintenance, or purchase of services costs expected
as a result of this final rule.
Although it is possible that some facilities would initially be
required by this final rule to record the results of daily visual
emissions or opacity testing, the graduated compliance test schedule of
this final rule allows for decrease in frequency to quarterly if
emissions are not found. Also, the requirement for preparation of a
SWMP is expected to result in a maximum of three exceedences from one
percent (58) of the facilities because of the pollution prevention
focus of the SWMP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this
ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment
to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control
number for the approved information collection requirements contained
in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small
businesses, as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule is estimated to impact a total of 5,800 area source metal
fabrication and finishing facilities; over 5,300 of these facilities
are estimated to be small entities. We have determined that small
entity compliance costs, as assessed by the facilities' cost-to-sales
ratio, are expected to be less than 0.01 percent. The analysis also
shows that none of the small entities would incur economic impacts
exceeding three percent of its revenue. Although this final rule
contains requirements for new area sources, we are not aware of any new
area sources being constructed now or planned in the next 3 years, and
consequently, we did not estimate any impacts for new sources.
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this final rule on small entities. The
standards represent practices and controls that are common throughout
the sources engaged in metal fabrication and finishing. The standards
also require minimal amount of recordkeeping and reporting needed to
demonstrate and verify compliance. These standards were developed based
on information obtained from small businesses in our surveys,
consultation with small business representatives on the state and
national level, and industry representatives that are affiliated with
small businesses.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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, 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
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires 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 EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with this final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before 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.
This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or tribal
governments or of the private sector. This final rule is not expected
to impact state, local, or tribal governments. Thus, this final rule is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this final rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This final rule contains no requirements that apply to
such
[[Page 42999]]
governments, and impose no obligations upon them. Therefore, this final
rule is not subject to section 203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (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.''
This final 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. This final rule does not impose
any requirements on state and local governments. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this final rule. In the spirit of Executive
Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications
between EPA and state and local governments, EPA specifically solicited
comment on the proposed rule from state and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (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.'' This final rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This final rule
imposes no requirements on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on
technology performance.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action involves technical standards. The Agency conducted a
search to identify potentially applicable VCS. No VCS were identified.
Therefore, we are citing ASHRAE Method 52.1, ``Gravimetric and Dust-
Spot Procedures for Testing Air-Cleaning Devices Used in General
Ventilation for Removing Particulate Matter, June 4, 1992,'' to measure
paint booth filter efficiency and to measure the control efficiency of
paint overspray arrestors with spray-applied paintings. This method
will enable owner/operators to determine their facility's compliance
with the spray booth filter requirement of this rule.
We are also using two methods from the California South Coast Air
Quality Management District: ``Spray Equipment Transfer Efficiency Test
Procedure for Equipment User, May 24, 1989,'' and ``Guidelines for
Demonstrating Equivalency with District Approved Transfer Efficient
Spray Guns, September 26, 2002,'' as methods to demonstrate the
equivalency of spray gun transfer efficiency for spray guns that do not
meet the definition of HVLP, airless spray, or electrostatic spray.
These methods will enable owner/operators to determine their facility's
compliance with the HVLP requirement of this rule.
Under Sec. 63.7(f) and Sec. 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative
test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any
required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This final rule establishes national standards for
nine area source categories.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this final
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ''major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will be effective on July 23, 2008.
[[Page 43000]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporations by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: June 13, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the heading in paragraph (d) introductory text.
0
b. By revising paragraphs (d)(7) and (8).
0
c. By revising paragraph (l)(1)
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(7) California South Coast Air Quality Management District's
``Spray Equipment Transfer Efficiency Test Procedure for Equipment
User, May 24, 1989,'' IBR approved for Sec. 63.11173(e) and Sec.
63.11516(d).
(8) California South Coast Air Quality Management District's
``Guidelines for Demonstrating Equivalency with District Approved
Transfer Efficient Spray Guns, September 26, 2002,'' Revision 0, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 63.11173(e) and 63.11516(d).
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(1) American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air
Conditioning Engineers Method 52.1, ``Gravimetric and Dust-Spot
Procedures for Testing Air-Cleaning Devices Used in General Ventilation
for Removing Particulate Matter, June 4, 1992,'' IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 63.11173(e) and 63.11516(d).
* * * * *
0
3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart XXXXXX consisting of Sec. Sec.
63.11514 through 63.11523 and tables 1 through 2 to read as follows:
Subpart XXXXXX--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants Area Source Standards for Nine Metal Fabrication and
Finishing Source Categories
Applicability and Compliance Dates
63.11514 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11515 What are my compliance dates?
Standards and Compliance Requirements
63.11516 What are my standards and management practices?
63.11517 What are my monitoring requirements?
63.11518 [Reserved]
63.11519 What are my notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
63.11520 [Reserved]
Other Requirements and Information
63.11521 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.11522 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11523 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
Table 1 to Subpart XXXXXX of Part 63--Description of Source
Categories Affected by this Subpart
Table 2 to Subpart XXXXXX of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Metal Fabrication or Finishing Area Sources
Subpart XXXXXX--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants Area Source Standards for Nine Metal Fabrication and
Finishing Source Categories
Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec. 63.11514 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an area
source that is primarily engaged in the operations in one of the nine
source categories listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (9) of this
section. Descriptions of these source categories are shown in Table 1
of this subpart. ``Primarily engaged'' is defined in Sec. 63.11522,
``What definitions apply to this subpart?''
(1) Electrical and Electronic Equipment Finishing Operations;
(2) Fabricated Metal Products;
(3) Fabricated Plate Work (Boiler Shops);
(4) Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing;
(5) Heating Equipment, except Electric;
(6) Industrial Machinery and Equipment Finishing Operations;
(7) Iron and Steel Forging;
(8) Primary Metal Products Manufacturing; and
(9) Valves and Pipe Fittings.
(b) The provisions of this subpart apply to each new and existing
affected source listed and defined in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of
this section if you use materials that contain or have the potential to
emit metal fabrication or finishing metal HAP (MFHAP), defined to be
the compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel, or any
of these metals in the elemental form with the exception of lead.
Materials that contain MFHAP are defined to be materials that contain
greater than 0.1 percent for carcinogens, as defined by OSHA at 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4), and greater than 1.0 percent for noncarcinogens. For
the MFHAP, this corresponds to materials that contain cadmium,
chromium, lead, or nickel in amounts greater than or equal to 0.1
percent by weight (of the metal), and materials that contain manganese
in amounts greater than or equal to 1.0 percent by weight (of the
metal), as shown in formulation data provided by the manufacturer or
supplier, such as the Material Safety Data Sheet for the material.
(1) A dry abrasive blasting affected source is the collection of
all equipment and activities necessary to perform dry abrasive blasting
operations which use materials that contain MFHAP or that have the
potential to emit MFHAP.
(2) A machining affected source is the collection of all equipment
and activities necessary to perform machining operations which use
materials that contain MFHAP, as defined in Sec. 63.11522, ``What
definitions apply to this subpart?'', or that have the potential to
emit MFHAP.
(3) A dry grinding and dry polishing with machines affected source
is the collection of all equipment and activities necessary to perform
dry grinding and dry polishing with machines operations which use
materials that contain MFHAP, as defined in Sec. 63.11522, ``What
definitions apply to this subpart?'', or have the potential to emit
MFHAP.
(4) A spray painting affected source is the collection of all
equipment and activities necessary to perform spray-applied painting
operations using paints which contain MFHAP. A spray painting affected
source includes all equipment used to apply cleaning materials to a
substrate to prepare it for paint application (surface preparation) or
to remove dried paint; to apply a paint to a substrate (paint
application) and to dry or cure the paint after application; or to
clean paint operation equipment (equipment cleaning). Affected
source(s) subject to the requirements of this paragraph are not subject
to the miscellaneous surface coating provisions of subpart HHHHHH of
this part, ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area
Sources.''
(5) A welding affected source is the collection of all equipment
and activities necessary to perform welding operations which use
materials that
[[Page 43001]]
contain MFHAP, as defined in Sec. 63.11522, ``What definitions apply
to this subpart?'', or have the potential to emit MFHAP.
(c) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source, as defined in Sec. 63.2,
``General Provisions'' to part 63, before April 3, 2008.
(d) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source, as defined in Sec. 63.2,
``General Provisions'' to part 63, on or after April 3, 2008.
(e) This subpart does not apply to research or laboratory
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
(f) This subpart does not apply to tool or equipment repair
operations, facility maintenance, or quality control activities as
defined in Sec. 63.11522, ``What definitions apply to this subpart?''
(g) This subpart does not apply to operations performed on site at
installations owned or operated by the Armed Forces of the United
States (including the Coast Guard and the National Guard of any such
state), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or the
National Nuclear Security Administration.
(h) This subpart does not apply to operations that produce military
munitions, as defined in Sec. 63.11522, ``What definitions apply to
this subpart?'', manufactured by or for the Armed Forces of the United
States (including the Coast Guard and the National Guard of any such
state), or equipment directly and exclusively used for the purposes of
transporting military munitions.
(i) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required
by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a).
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with
the provisions of this subpart.
Sec. 63.11515 What are my compliance dates?
(a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart by
July 25, 2011.
(b) If you own or operate a new affected source, you must achieve
compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart by July 23,
2008, or upon startup of your affected source, whichever is later.
Standards and Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.11516 What are my standards and management practices?
(a) Dry abrasive blasting standards. If you own or operate a new or
existing dry abrasive blasting affected source, you must comply with
the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, as
applicable, for each dry abrasive blasting operation that uses
materials that contain MFHAP, as defined in Sec. 63.11522, ``What
definitions apply to this subpart?'', or has the potential to emit
MFHAP. These requirements do not apply when abrasive blasting
operations are being performed that do not use any materials containing
MFHAP or do not have the potential to emit MFHAP.
(1) Standards for dry abrasive blasting of objects performed in
totally enclosed and unvented blast chambers. If you own or operate a
new or existing dry abrasive blasting affected source which consists of
an abrasive blasting chamber that is totally enclosed and unvented, as
defined in Sec. 63.11522, ``What definitions apply to this subpart?'',
you must implement management practices to minimize emissions of MFHAP.
These management practices are the practices specified in paragraph
(a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) You must minimize dust generation during emptying of abrasive
blasting enclosures; and
(ii) You must operate all equipment associated with dry abrasive
blasting operations according to the manufacturer's instructions.
(2) Standards for dry abrasive blasting of objects performed in
vented enclosures. If you own or operate a new or existing dry abrasive
blasting affected source which consists of a dry abrasive blasting
operation which has a vent allowing any air or blast material to
escape, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)
and (ii) of this section. Dry abrasive blasting operations for which
the items to be blasted exceed 8 feet (2.4 meters) in any dimension,
may be performed subject to the requirements in paragraph (a)(3) of
this section.
(i) You must capture emissions and vent them to a filtration
control device. You must operate the filtration control device
according to manufacturer's instructions, and you must demonstrate
compliance with this requirement by maintaining a record of the
manufacturer's specifications for the filtration control devices, as
specified by the requirements in Sec. 63.11519(c)(4), ``What are my
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements?''
(ii) You must implement the management practices to minimize
emissions of MFHAP as specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) through (C)
of this section.
(A) You must take measures necessary to minimize excess dust in the
surrounding area to reduce MFHAP emissions, as practicable; and
(B) You must enclose dusty abrasive material storage areas and
holding bins, seal chutes and conveyors that transport abrasive
materials; and
(C) You must operate all equipment associated with dry abrasive
blasting operations according to manufacturer's instructions.
(3) Standards for dry abrasive blasting of objects greater than 8
feet (2.4 meters) in any one dimension. If you own or operate a new or
existing dry abrasive blasting affected source which consists of a dry
abrasive blasting operation which is performed on objects greater than
8 feet (2.4 meters) in any one dimension, you may implement management
practices to minimize emissions of MFHAP as specified in paragraph
(a)(3)(i) of this section instead of the practices required by
paragraph (a)(2) of this section. You must demonstrate that management
practices are being implemented by complying with the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Management practices for dry abrasive blasting of objects
greater than 8 feet (2.4 meters) in any one dimension are specified in
paragraphs (a)(3)(i)(A) through (E) of this section.
(A) You must take measures necessary to minimize excess dust in the
surrounding area to reduce MFHAP emissions, as practicable; and
(B) You must enclose abrasive material storage areas and holding
bins, seal chutes and conveyors that transport abrasive material; and
(C) You must operate all equipment associated with dry abrasive
blasting operations according to manufacturer's instructions; and
(D) You must not re-use dry abrasive blasting media unless
contaminants (i.e., any material other than the base metal, such as
paint residue) have been removed by filtration or screening, and the
abrasive material conforms to its original size; and
(E) Whenever practicable, you must switch from high particulate
matter (PM)-emitting blast media (e.g., sand) to low PM-emitting blast
media (e.g., crushed glass, specular hematite, steel shot, aluminum
oxide), where PM is a surrogate for MFHAP.
[[Page 43002]]
(ii) You must perform visual determinations of fugitive emissions,
as specified in Sec. 63.11517(b), ``What are my monitoring
requirements?'', according to paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A) or (B) of this
section, as applicable.
(A) For abrasive blasting of objects greater than 8 feet (2.4
meters) in any one dimension that is performed outdoors, you must
perform visual determinations of fugitive emissions at the fenceline or
property border nearest to the outdoor dry abrasive blasting operation.
(B) For abrasive blasting of objects greater than 8 feet (2.4
meters) in any one dimension that is performed indoors, you must
perform visual determinations of fugitive emissions at the primary
vent, stack, exit, or opening from the building containing the abrasive
blasting operations.
(iii) You must keep a record of all visual determinations of
fugitive emissions along with any corrective action taken in accordance
with the requirements in Sec. 63.11519(c)(2), ``What are my
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements?''
(iv) If visible fugitive emissions are detected, you must perform
corrective actions until the visible fugitive emissions are eliminated,
at which time you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(3)(iv)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) You must perform a follow-up inspection for visible fugitive
emissions in accordance with Sec. 63.11517(a), ``Monitoring
Requirements.''
(B) You must report all instances where visible emissions are
detected, along with any corrective action taken and the results of
subsequent follow-up inspections for visible emissions, with your
annual certification and compliance report as required by Sec.
63.11519(b)(5), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.''
(b) Standards for machining. If you own or operate a new or
existing machining affected source, you must implement management
practices to minimize emissions of MFHAP as specified in paragraph
(b)(1) and (2) of this section for each machining operation that uses
materials that contain MFHAP, as defined in Sec. 63.11522, ``What
definitions apply to this subpart?'', or has the potential to emit
MFHAP. These requirements do not apply when machining operations are
being performed that do not use any materials containing MFHAP and do
not have the potential to emit MFHAP.
(1) You must take measures necessary to minimize excess dust in the
surrounding area to reduce MFHAP emissions, as practicable; and
(2) You must operate all equipment associated with machining
according to manufacturer's instructions.
(c) Standards for dry grinding and dry polishing with machines. If
you own or operate a new or existing dry grinding and dry polishing
with machines affected source, you must comply with the requirements of
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section for each dry grinding and dry
polishing with machines operation that uses materials that contain
MFHAP, as defined in Sec. 63.11522, ``What definitions apply to this
subpart?'', or has the potential to emit MFHAP. These requirements do
not apply when dry grinding and dry polishing operations are being
performed that do not use any materials containing MFHAP and do not
have the potential to emit MFHAP.
(1) You must capture emissions and vent them to a filtration
control device. You must demonstrate compliance with this requirement
by maintaining a record of the manufacturer's specifications for the
filtration control devices, as specified by the requirements in Sec.
63.11519(c)(4), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
Requirements.''
(2) You must implement management practices to minimize emissions
of MFHAP as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) You must take measures necessary to minimize excess dust in the
surrounding area to reduce MFHAP emissions, as practicable;
(ii) You must operate all equipment associated with the operation
of dry grinding and dry polishing with machines, including the
filtration control device, according to manufacturer's instructions.
(d) Standards for control of MFHAP in spray painting. If you own or
operate a new or existing spray painting affected source, as defined in
Sec. 63.11514 (b)(4), ``Am I subject to this subpart?,'' you must
implement the management practices in paragraphs (d)(1) through (9) of
this section when a spray-applied paint that contains MFHAP is being
applied. These requirements do not apply when spray-applied paints that
do not contain MFHAP are being applied.
(1) Standards for spray painting for MFHAP control. All spray-
applied painting of objects must meet the requirements of paragraphs
(d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. These requirements do not
apply to affected sources located at Fabricated Structural Metal
Manufacturing facilities, as described in Table 1, ``Description of
Source Categories Affected by this Subpart,'' or affected sources that
spray paint objects greater than 15 feet (4.57 meters), that are not
spray painted in spray booths or spray rooms.
(i) Spray booths or spray rooms must have a full roof, at least two
complete walls, and one or two complete side curtains or other barrier
material so that all four sides are covered. The spray booths or spray
rooms must be ventilated so that air is drawn into the booth and leaves
only though the filter. The roof may contain narrow slots for
connecting fabricated products to overhead cranes, and/or for cords or
cables.
(ii) All spray booths or spray rooms must be fitted with a type of
filter technology that is demonstrated to achieve at least 98 percent
capture of MFHAP. The procedure used to demonstrate filter efficiency
must be consistent with the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating,
and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Method 52.1, ``Gravimetric and
Dust-Spot Procedures for Testing Air-Cleaning Devices Used in General
Ventilation for Removing Particulate Matter, June 4, 1992''
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14). The test coating for
measuring filter efficiency shall be a high-solids bake enamel
delivered at a rate of at least 135 grams per minute from a
conventional (non-High Volume Low Pressure) air-atomized spray gun
operating at 40 psi air pressure; the air flow rate across the filter
shall be 150 feet per minute. Owners and operators may use published
filter efficiency data provided by filter vendors to demonstrate
compliance with this requirement and are not required to perform this
measurement.
(iii) You must perform regular inspection and replacement of the
filters in all spray booths or spray rooms according to manufacturer's
instructions, and maintain documentation of these activities, as
detailed in Sec. 63.11519(c)(5), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements.''
(iv) As an alternative compliance requirement, spray booths or
spray rooms equipped with a water curtain, called ``waterwash'' or
``waterspray'' booths or spray rooms that are operated and maintained
according to the manufacturer's specifications and that achieve at
least 98 percent control of MFHAP, may be used in lieu of the spray
booths or spray rooms requirements of paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(2) Standards for spray painting application equipment of all
objects painted for MFHAP control. All paints applied via spray-applied
painting must
[[Page 43003]]
be applied with a high-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray gun,
electrostatic application, airless spray gun, air-assisted airless
spray gun, or an equivalent technology that is demonstrated to achieve
transfer efficiency comparable to one of these spray gun technologies
for a comparable operation, and for which written approval has been
obtained from the Administrator. The procedure used to demonstrate that
spray gun transfer efficiency is equivalent to that of an HVLP spray
gun must be equivalent to the California South Coast Air Quality
Management District's ``Spray Equipment Transfer Efficiency Test
Procedure for Equipment User, May 24, 1989'' and ``Guidelines for
Demonstrating Equivalency with District Approved Transfer Efficient
Spray Guns, September 26, 2002'', Revision 0 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14).
(3) Spray system recordkeeping. You must maintain documentation of
the HVLP or other high transfer efficiency spray paint delivery
methods, as detailed in Sec. 63.11519(c)(7), ``Notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.''
(4) Spray gun cleaning. All cleaning of paint spray guns must be
done with either non-HAP gun cleaning solvents, or in such a manner
that an atomized mist of spray of gun cleaning solvent and paint
residue is not created outside of a container that collects the used
gun cleaning solvent. Spray gun cleaning may be done with, for example,
by hand cleaning of parts of the disassembled gun in a container of
solvent, by flushing solvent through the gun without atomizing the
solvent and paint residue, or by using a fully enclosed spray gun
washer. A combination of these non-atomizing methods may also be used.
(5) Spray painting worker certification. All workers performing
painting must be certified that they have completed training in the
proper spray application of paints and the proper setup and maintenance
of spray equipment. The minimum requirements for training and
certification are described in paragraph (d)(6) of this section. The
spray application of paint is prohibited by persons who are not
certified as having completed the training described in paragraph
(d)(6) of this section. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply
to the students of an accredited painting training program who are
under the direct supervision of an instructor who meets the
requirements of this paragraph. The requirements of this paragraph do
not apply to operators of robotic or automated painting operations.
(6) Spray painting training program content. Each owner or operator
of an affected spray painting affected source must ensure and certify
that all new and existing personnel, including contract personnel, who
spray apply paints are trained in the proper application of paints as
required by paragraph (d)(5) of this section. The training program must
include, at a minimum, the items listed in paragraphs (d)(6)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) A list of all current personnel by name and job description who
are required to be trained;
(ii) Hands-on, or in-house or external classroom instruction that
addresses, at a minimum, initial and refresher training in the topics
listed in paragraphs (d)(6)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) Spray gun equipment selection, set up, and operation, including
measuring paint viscosity, selecting the proper fluid tip or nozzle,
and achieving the proper spray pattern, air pressure and volume, and
fluid delivery rate.
(B) Spray technique for different types of paints to improve
transfer efficiency and minimize paint usage and overspray, including
maintaining the correct spray gun distance and angle to the part, using
proper banding and overlap, and reducing lead and lag spraying at the
beginning and end of each stroke.
(C) Routine spray booth and filter maintenance, including filter
selection and installation.
(D) Environmental compliance with the requirements of this subpart.
(iii) A description of the methods to be used at the completion of
initial or refresher training to demonstrate, document, and provide
certification of successful completion of the required training.
Alternatively, owners and operators who can show by documentation or
certification that a painter's work experience and/or training has
resulted in training equivalent to the training required in paragraph
(d)(6)(ii) of this section are not required to provide the initial
training required by that paragraph to these painters.
(7) Records of spray painting training. You must maintain records
of employee training certification for use of HVLP or other high
transfer efficiency spray paint delivery methods as detailed in Sec.
63.11519(c)(8), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.''
(8) Spray painting training dates. As required by paragraph (d)(5)
of this section, all new and existing personnel at an affected spray
painting affected source, including contract personnel, who spray apply
paints must be trained by the dates specified in paragraphs (d)(8)(i)
and (ii) of this section.
(i) If your source is a new source, all personnel must be trained
and certified no later than January 20, 2009, 180 days after startup,
or 180 days after hiring, whichever is later. Training that was
completed within 5 years prior to the date training is required, and
that meets the requirements specified in paragraph (d)(6)(ii) of this
section satisfies this requirement and is valid for a period not to
exceed 5 years after the date the training is completed.
(ii) If your source is an existing source, all personnel must be
trained and certified no later than July 25, 2011, or 180 days after
hiring, whichever is later. Worker training that was completed within 5
years prior to the date training is required, and that meets the
requirements specified in paragraph (d)(6)(ii) of this section,
satisfies this requirement and is valid for a period not to exceed 5
years after the date the training is completed.
(9) Duration of training validity. Training and certification will
be valid for a period not to exceed 5 years after the date the training
is completed. All personnel must receive refresher training that meets
the requirements of this section and be re-certified every 5 years.
(e) [Reserved]
(f) Standards for welding. If you own or operate a new or existing
welding affected source, you must comply with the requirements in
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section for each welding operation
that uses materials that contain MFHAP, as defined in Sec. 63.11522,
``What definitions apply to this subpart?'', or has the potential to
emit MFHAP. If your welding affected source uses 2,000 pounds or more
per year of welding rod containing one or more MFHAP (calculated on a
rolling 12-month basis), you must demonstrate that management practices
or fume control measures are being implemented by complying with the
requirements in paragraphs (f)(3) through (8) of this section. The
requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (8) of this section do not
apply when welding operations are being performed that do not use any
materials containing MFHAP or do not have the potential to emit MFHAP.
(1) You must operate all equipment, capture, and control devices
associated with welding operations according to manufacturer's
instructions. You must demonstrate compliance with this requirement by
maintaining a record of the manufacturer's specifications for the
[[Page 43004]]
capture and control devices, as specified by the requirements in Sec.
63.11519(c)(4), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.''
(2) You must implement one or more of the management practices
specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (v) of this section to
minimize emissions of MFHAP, as practicable, while maintaining the
required welding quality through the application of sound engineering
judgment.
(i) Use welding processes with reduced fume generation capabilities
(e.g., gas metal arc welding (GMAW)--also called metal inert gas
welding (MIG));
(ii) Use welding process variations (e.g., pulsed current GMAW),
which can reduce fume generation rates;
(iii) Use welding filler metals, shielding gases, carrier gases, or
other process materials which are capable of reduced welding fume
generation;
(iv) Optimize welding process variables (e.g., electrode diameter,
voltage, amperage, welding angle, shield gas flow rate, travel speed)
to reduce the amount of welding fume generated; and
(v) Use a welding fume capture and control system, operated
according to the manufacturer's specifications.
(3) Tier 1 compliance requirements for welding. You must perform
visual determinations of welding fugitive emissions as specified in
Sec. 63.11517(b), ``Monitoring requirements,'' at the primary vent,
stack, exit, or opening from the building containing the welding
operations. You must keep a record of all visual determinations of
fugitive emissions along with any corrective action taken in accordance
with the requirements in Sec. 63.11519(c)(2), ``Notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.''
(4) Requirements upon initial detection of visible emissions from
welding. If visible fugitive emissions are detected during any visual
determination required in paragraph (f)(3) of this section, you must
comply with the requirements in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
(i) Perform corrective actions that include, but are not limited
to, inspection of welding fume sources, and evaluation of the proper
operation and effectiveness of the management practices or fume control
measures implemented in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of this
section. After completing such corrective actions, you must perform a
follow-up inspection for visible fugitive emissions in accordance with
Sec. 63.11517(a), ``Monitoring Requirements,'' at the primary vent,
stack, exit, or opening from the building containing the welding
operations.
(ii) Report all instances where visible emissions are detected,
along with any corrective action taken and the results of subsequent
follow-up inspections for visible emissions, and submit with your
annual certification and compliance report as required by Sec.
63.11519(b)(5), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.''
(5) Tier 2 requirements upon subsequent detection of visible
emissions. If visible fugitive emissions are detected more than once
during any consecutive 12 month period (notwithstanding the results of
any follow-up inspections), you must comply with paragraphs (f)(5)(i)
through (iv) of this section.
(i) Within 24 hours of the end of the visual determination of
fugitive emissions in which visible fugitive emissions were detected,
you must conduct a visual determination of emissions opacity, as
specified in Sec. 63.11517(c), ``Monitoring requirements,'' at the
primary vent, stack, exit, or opening from the building containing the
welding operations.
(ii) In lieu of the requirement of paragraph (f)(3) of this section
to perform visual determinations of fugitive emissions with EPA Method
22, you must perform visual determinations of emissions opacity in
accordance with Sec. 63.11517(d), ``Monitoring Requirements,'' using
EPA Method 9, at the primary vent, stack, exit, or opening from the
building containing the welding operations.
(iii) You must keep a record of each visual determination of
emissions opacity performed in accordance with paragraphs (f)(5)(i) or
(ii) of this section, along with any subsequent corrective action
taken, in accordance with the requirements in Sec. 63.11519(c)(3),
``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.''
(iv) You must report the results of all visual determinations of
emissions opacity performed in accordance with paragraphs (f)(5)(i) or
(ii) of this section, along with any subsequent corrective action
taken, and submit with your annual certification and compliance report
as required by Sec. 63.11519(b)(6), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements.''
(6) Requirements for opacities less than or equal to 20 percent but
greater than zero. For each visual determination of emissions opacity
performed in accordance with paragraph (f)(5) of this section for which
the average of the six-minute average opacities recorded is 20 percent
or less but greater than zero, you must perform corrective actions,
including inspection of all welding fume sources, and evaluation of the
proper operation and effectiveness of the management practices or fume
control measures implemented in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of
this section.
(7) Tier 3 requirements for opacities exceeding 20 percent. For
each visual determination of emissions opacity performed in accordance
with paragraph (f)(5) of this section for which the average of the six-
minute average opacities recorded exceeds 20 percent, you must comply
with the requirements in paragraphs (f)(7)(i) through (v) of this
section.
(i) You must submit a report of exceedence of 20 percent opacity,
along with your annual certification and compliance report, as
specified in Sec. 63.11519(b)(8), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements,'' and according to the requirements of Sec.
63.11519(b)(1), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.''
(ii) Within 30 days of the opacity exceedence, you must prepare and
implement a Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management Plan, as
specified in paragraph (f)(8) of this section. If you have already
prepared a Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management Plan in
accordance with this paragraph, you must prepare and implement a
revised Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management Plan within 30 days.
(iii) During the preparation (or revision) of the Site-Specific
Welding Emissions Management Plan, you must continue to perform visual
determinations of emissions opacity, beginning on a daily schedule as
specified in Sec. 63.11517(d), ``Monitoring Requirements,'' using EPA
Method 9, at the primary vent, stack, exit, or opening from the
building containing the welding operations.
(iv) You must maintain records of daily visual determinations of
emissions opacity performed in accordance with paragraph (f)(7)(iii) of
this section, during preparation of the Site-Specific Welding Emissions
Management Plan, in accordance with the requirements in Sec.
63.11519(b)(9), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.''
(v) You must include these records in your annual certification and
compliance report, according to the requirements of Sec.
63.11519(b)(1), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.''
(8) Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management Plan. The Site-
Specific Welding Emissions Management Plan
[[Page 43005]]
must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (f)(8)(i) through (iii)
of this section.
(i) Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management Plan must contain
the information in paragraphs (f)(8)(i)(A) through (F) of this section.
(A) Company name and address;
(B) A list and description of all welding operations which
currently comprise the welding affected source;
(C) A description of all management practices and/or fume control
methods in place at the time of the opacity exceedence;
(D) A list and description of all management practices and/or fume
control methods currently employed for the welding affected source;
(E) A description of additional management practices and/or fume
control methods to be implemented pursuant to paragraph (f)(7)(ii) of
this section, and the projected date of implementation; and
(F) Any revisions to a Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management
Plan must contain copies of all previous plan entries, pursuant to
paragraphs (f)(8)(i)(D) and (E) of this section.
(ii) The Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management Plan must be
updated annually to contain current information, as required by
paragraphs (f)(8)(i)(A) through (C) of this section, and submitted with
your annual certification and compliance report, according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.11519(b)(1), ``Notification, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements.''
(iii) You must maintain a copy of the current Site-Specific Welding
Emissions Management Plan in your records in a readily-accessible
location for inspector review, in accordance with the requirements in
Sec. 63.11519(c)(12), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.''
Sec. 63.11517 What are my monitoring requirements?
(a) Visual determination of fugitive emissions, general. Visual
determination of fugitive emissions must be performed according to the
procedures of EPA Method 22, of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-7. You must
conduct the EPA Method 22 test while the affected source is operating
under normal conditions. The duration of each EPA Method 22 test must
be at least 15 minutes, and visible emissions will be considered to be
present if they are detected for more than six minutes of the fifteen
minute period.
(b) Visual determination of fugitive emissions, graduated schedule.
Visual determinations of fugitive emissions must be performed in
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section and according to the
schedule in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Daily Method 22 Testing. Perform visual determination of
fugitive emissions once per day, on each day the process is in
operation, during operation of the process.
(2) Weekly Method 22 Testing. If no visible fugitive emissions are
detected in consecutive daily EPA Method 22 tests, performed in
accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section for 10 days of work
day operation of the process, you may decrease the frequency of EPA
Method 22 testing to once every five days of operation of the process
(one calendar week). If visible fugitive emissions are detected during
these tests, you must resume EPA Method 22 testing of that operation
once per day during each day that the process is in operation, in
accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) Monthly Method 22 Testing. If no visible fugitive emissions are
detected in four consecutive weekly EPA Method 22 tests performed in
accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, you may decrease the
frequency of EPA Method 22 testing to once per 21 days of operation of
the process (one calendar month). If visible fugitive emissions are
detected during these tests, you must resume weekly EPA Method 22 in
accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(4) Quarterly Method 22 Testing. If no visible fugitive emissions
are detected in three consecutive monthly EPA Method 22 tests performed
in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section, you may decrease
the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing to once per 60 days of operation
of the process (3 calendar months). If visible fugitive emissions are
detected during these tests, you must resume monthly EPA Method 22 in
accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(c) Visual determination of emissions opacity for welding Tier 2 or
3, general. Visual determination of emissions opacity must be performed
in accordance with the procedures of EPA Method 9, of 40 CFR part 60,
Appendix A-4, and while the affected source is operating under normal
conditions. The duration of the EPA Method 9 test shall be thirty
minutes.
(d) Visual determination of emissions opacity for welding Tier 2 or
3, graduated schedule. You must perform visual determination of
emissions opacity in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section and
according to the schedule in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) Daily Method 9 testing for welding, Tier 2 or 3. Perform visual
determination of emissions opacity once per day during each day that
the process is in operation.
(2) Weekly Method 9 testing for welding, Tier 2 or 3. If the
average of the six minute opacities recorded during any of the daily
consecutive EPA Method 9 tests performed in accordance with paragraph
(d)(1) of this section does not exceed 20 percent for 10 days of
operation of the process, you may decrease the frequency of EPA Method
9 testing to once per five days of consecutive work day operation. If
opacity greater than 20 percent is detected during any of these tests,
you must resume testing every day of operation of the process according
to the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(3) Monthly Method 9 testing for welding Tier 2 or 3. If the
average of the six minute opacities recorded during any of the
consecutive weekly EPA Method 9 tests performed in accordance with
paragraph (d)(2) of this section does not exceed 20 percent for four
consecutive weekly tests, you may decrease the frequency of EPA Method
9 testing to once per every 21 days of operation of the process. If
visible emissions opacity greater than 20 percent is detected during
any monthly test, you must resume testing every five days of operation
of the process according to the requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of
this section.
(4) Quarterly Method 9 testing for welding Tier 2 or 3. If the
average of the six minute opacities recorded during any of the
consecutive weekly EPA Method 9 tests performed in accordance with
paragraph (d)(3) of this section does not exceed 20 percent for three
consecutive monthly tests, you may decrease the frequency of EPA Method
9 testing to once per every 120 days of operation of the process. If
visible emissions opacity greater than 20 percent is detected during
any quarterly test, you must resume testing every 21 days (month) of
operation of the process according to the requirements of paragraph
(d)(3) of this section.
(5) Return to Method 22 testing for welding, Tier 2 or 3. If, after
two consecutive months of testing, the average of the six minute
opacities recorded during any of the monthly EPA Method 9 tests
performed in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this section does not
exceed 20 percent, you may resume EPA Method 22 testing as in
paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section. In lieu of this, you may
elect to continue performing EPA Method 9 tests in
[[Page 43006]]
accordance with paragraphs (d)(3)and (4) of this section.
Sec. 63.11518 [Reserved]
Sec. 63.11519 What are my notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
(a) What notifications must I submit?
(1) Initial Notification. If you are the owner or operator of an
area source in one of the nine metal fabrication and finishing source
categories, as defined in Sec. 63.11514 ``Am I subject to this
subpart?,'' you must submit the Initial Notification required by Sec.
63.9(b) ``General Provisions,'' for a new affected source no later than
120 days after initial startup or November 20, 2008, whichever is
later. For an existing affected source, you must submit the Initial
Notification no later than July 25, 2011. Your Initial Notification
must provide the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through
(iv) of this section.
(i) The name, address, phone number and e-mail address of the owner
and operator;
(ii) The address (physical location) of the affected source;
(iii) An identification of the relevant standard (i.e., this
subpart); and
(iv) A brief description of the type of operation. For example, a
brief characterization of the types of products (e.g., aerospace
components, sports equipment, etc.), the number and type of processes,
and the number of workers usually employed.
(2) Notification of compliance status. If you are the owner or
operator of an existing affected source, you must submit a notification
of compliance status on or before November 22, 2011. If you are the
owner or operator of a new affected source, you must submit a
notification of compliance status within 120 days after initial
startup, or by November 20, 2008, whichever is later. You are required
to submit the information specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through
(iv) of this section with your notification of compliance status:
(i) Your company's name and address;
(ii) A statement by a responsible official with that official's
name, title, phone number, e-mail address and signature, certifying the
truth, accuracy, and completeness of the notification and a statement
of whether the source has complied with all the relevant standards and
other requirements of this subpart;
(iii) If you operate any spray painting affected sources, the
information required by Sec. 63.11516(e)(3)(vi)(C), ``Compliance
demonstration,'' or Sec. 63.11516(e)(4)(ix)(C), ``Compliance
demonstration,'' as applicable; and
(iv) The date of the notification of compliance status.
(b) What reports must I prepare or submit?
(1) Annual certification and compliance reports. You must prepare
and submit annual certification and compliance reports for each
affected source according to the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)
through (7) of this section. The annual certification and compliance
reporting requirements may be satisfied by reports required under other
parts of the CAA, as specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(2) Dates. Unless the Administrator has approved or agreed to a
different schedule for submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a),
``General Provisions,'' you must prepare and submit each annual
certification and compliance report according to the dates specified in
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. Note that the
information reported for each of the months in the reporting period
will be based on the last 12 months of data prior to the date of each
monthly calculation.
(i) The first annual certification and compliance report must cover
the first annual reporting period which begins the day after the
compliance date and ends on December 31.
(ii) Each subsequent annual certification and compliance report
must cover the subsequent semiannual reporting period from January 1
through December 31.
(iii) Each annual certification and compliance report must be
prepared and submitted no later than January 31 and kept in a readily-
accessible location for inspector review. If an exceedence has occurred
during the year, each annual certification and compliance report must
be submitted along with the exceedence reports, and postmarked or
delivered no later than January 31.
(3) Alternate dates. For each affected source that is subject to
permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71,
``Title V.''
(i) If the permitting authority has established dates for
submitting annual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40
CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), ``Title V,'' you may prepare or submit, if
required, the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the
dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to
the date specified in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section.
(ii) If an affected source prepares or submits an annual
certification and compliance report pursuant to this section along
with, or as part of, the monitoring report required by 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), ``Title V,'' and the
compliance report includes all required information concerning
exceedences of any limitation in this subpart, its submission will be
deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same exceedences in the
annual monitoring report. However, submission of an annual
certification and compliance report shall not otherwise affect any
obligation the affected source may have to report deviations from
permit requirements to the permitting authority.
(4) General requirements. The annual certification and compliance
report must contain the information specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i)
through (iii) of this section, and the information specified in
paragraphs (b)(5) through (7) of this section that is applicable to
each affected source.
(i) Company name and address;
(ii) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report; and
(iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the
reporting period. The reporting period is the 12-month period ending on
December 31. Note that the information reported for the 12 months in
the reporting period will be based on the last 12 months of data prior
to the date of each monthly calculation.
(5) Visual determination of fugitive emissions requirements. The
annual certification and compliance report must contain the information
specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section for
each affected source which performs visual determination of fugitive
emissions in accordance with Sec. 63.11517(a), ``Monitoring
requirements.''
(i) The date of every visual determination of fugitive emissions
which resulted in detection of visible emissions;
(ii) A description of the corrective actions taken subsequent to
the test; and
(iii) The date and results of the follow-up visual determination of
fugitive emissions performed after the corrective actions.
(6) Visual determination of emissions opacity requirements. The
annual certification and compliance report must contain the information
specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section for
each affected source which performs visual determination of emissions
opacity in accordance with Sec. 63.11517(c), ``Monitoring
requirements.''
(i) The date of every visual determination of emissions opacity;
[[Page 43007]]
(ii) The average of the six-minute opacities measured by the test;
and
(iii) A description of any corrective action taken subsequent to
the test.
(7) [Reserved]
(8) Exceedences of 20 percent opacity for welding affected sources.
As required by Sec. 63.11516(f)(7)(i), ``Requirements for opacities
exceeding 20 percent,'' you must prepare an exceedence report whenever
the average of the six-minute average opacities recorded during a
visual determination of emissions opacity exceeds 20 percent. This
report must be submitted along with your annual certification and
compliance report according to the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section, and must contain the information in paragraphs
(b)(8)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) The date on which the exceedence occurred; and
(B) The average of the six-minute average opacities recorded during
the visual determination of emissions opacity.
(9) Site-specific Welding Emissions Management Plan reporting. You
must submit a copy of the records of daily visual determinations of
emissions recorded in accordance with Sec. 63.11516(f)(7)(iv), ``Tier
3 requirements for opacities exceeding 20 percent,'' and a copy of your
Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management Plan and any subsequent
revisions to the plan pursuant to Sec. 63.11516(f)(8), ``Site-specific
Welding Emission Management Plan,'' along with your annual
certification and compliance report, according to the requirements in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(c) What records must I keep?
You must collect and keep records of the data and information
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (13) of this section, according
to the requirements in paragraph (c)(14) of this section.
(1) General compliance and applicability records. Maintain
information specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (ii) of this
section for each affected source.
(i) Each notification and report that you submitted to comply with
this subpart, and the documentation supporting each notification and
report.
(ii) Records of the applicability determinations as in Sec.
63.11514(b)(1) through (5), ``Am I subject to this subpart,'' listing
equipment included in its affected source, as well as any changes to
that and on what date they occurred, must be maintained for 5 years and
be made available for inspector review at any time.
(2) Visual determination of fugitive emissions records. Maintain a
record of the information specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through
(iii) of this section for each affected source which performs visual
determination of fugitive emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.11517(a), ``Monitoring requirements.''
(i) The date and results of every visual determination of fugitive
emissions;
(ii) A description of any corrective action taken subsequent to the
test; and
(iii) The date and results of any follow-up visual determination of
fugitive emissions performed after the corrective actions.
(3) Visual determination of emissions opacity records. Maintain a
record of the information specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through
(iii) of this section for each affected source which performs visual
determination of emissions opacity in accordance with Sec.
63.11517(c), ``Monitoring requirements.''
(i) The date of every visual determination of emissions opacity;
and
(ii) The average of the six-minute opacities measured by the test;
and
(iii) A description of any corrective action taken subsequent to
the test.
(4) Maintain a record of the manufacturer's specifications for the
control devices used to comply with Sec. 63.11516, ``What are my
standards and management practices?''
(5) Spray paint booth filter records. Maintain a record of the
filter efficiency demonstrations and spray paint booth filter
maintenance activities, performed in accordance with Sec.
63.11516(d)(1)(ii) and (iii), ``Requirements for spray painting objects
in spray booths or spray rooms.''
(6) Waterspray booth or water curtain efficiency tests. Maintain a
record of the water curtain efficiency demonstrations performed in
accordance with Sec. 63.11516(d)(1)(ii), ``Requirements for spray
painting objects in spray booths or spray rooms.''
(7) HVLP or other high transfer efficiency spray delivery system
documentation records. Maintain documentation of HVLP or other high
transfer efficiency spray paint delivery systems, in compliance with
Sec. 63.11516(d)(3), ``Requirements for spray painting of all
objects.'' This documentation must include the manufacturer's
specifications for the equipment and any manufacturer's operation
instructions. If you have obtained written approval for an alternative
spray application system in accordance with Sec. 63.11516(d)(2),
``Spray painting of all objects,'' you must maintain a record of that
approval along with documentation of the demonstration of equivalency.
(8) HVLP or other high transfer efficiency spray delivery system
employee training documentation records. Maintain certification that
each worker performing spray painting operations has completed the
training specified in Sec. 63.11516(d)(6), ``Requirements for spray
painting of all objects,'' with the date the initial training and the
most recent refresher training was completed.
(9) [Reserved]
(10) [Reserved]
(11) Visual determination of emissions opacity performed during the
preparation (or revision) of the Site-Specific Welding Emissions
Management Plan. You must maintain a record of each visual
determination of emissions opacity performed during the preparation (or
revision) of a Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management Plan, in
accordance with Sec. 63.11516(f)(7)(iii), ``Requirements for opacities
exceeding 20 percent.''
(12) Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management Plan. If you have
been required to prepare a plan in accordance with Sec.
63.11516(f)(7)(iii), ``Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management
Plan,'' you must maintain a copy of your current Site-Specific Welding
Emissions Management Plan in your records and it must be readily
available for inspector review.
(13) Manufacturer's instructions. If you comply with this subpart
by operating any equipment according to manufacturer's instruction, you
must keep these instructions readily available for inspector review.
(14) Welding Rod usage. If you operate a new or existing welding
affected source which is not required to comply with the requirements
of Sec. 63.11516(f)(3) through (8) because it uses less than 2,000
pounds per year of welding rod (on a rolling 12-month basis), you must
maintain records demonstrating your welding rod usage on a rolling 12-
month basis.
(15) Your records must be maintained according to the requirements
in paragraphs (c)(14)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1), ``General
Provisions.'' Where appropriate, the records may be maintained as
electronic spreadsheets or as a database.
(ii) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), ``General Provisions,'' you
must keep each record for 5 years following the date of each
occurrence, measurement, corrective action, report, or record.
[[Page 43008]]
(iii) You must keep each record on-site for at least 2 years after
the date of each occurrence, measurement, corrective action, report, or
record according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1), ``General Provisions.'' You may
keep the records off-site for the remaining 3 years.
Sec. 63.11520 [Reserved]
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.11521 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by EPA or a
delegated authority such as your state, local, or tribal agency. If the
EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your state, local, or
tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to EPA, has the authority
to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA
Regional Office to find out if implementation and enforcement of this
subpart is delegated to your state, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a state, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section
are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the
state, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to state, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under
Sec. 63.6(g), of the General Provisions of this part.
(2) Approval of an alternative opacity emissions standard under
Sec. 63.6(h)(9), of the General Provisions of this part.
(3) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), of the General Provisions of this part. A
``major change to test method'' is defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f),
of the General Provisions of this part. A ``major change to
monitoring'' under is defined in Sec. 63.90.
(5) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f), of the General Provisions of this part. A ``major
change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.11522 What definitions apply to this subpart?
The terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA; and in this
section as follows:
Adequate emission capture methods are hoods, enclosures, or any
other duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums,
or fans designed to draw greater than 85 percent of the airborne dust
generated from the process into the control device.
Capture system means the collection of components used to capture
gases and fumes released from one or more emissions points and then
convey the captured gas stream to a control device or to the
atmosphere. A capture system may include, but is not limited to, the
following components as applicable to a given capture system design:
duct intake devices, hoods, enclosures, ductwork, dampers, manifolds,
plenums, and fans.
Cartridge collector means a type of control device that uses
perforated metal cartridges containing a pleated paper or non-woven
fibrous filter media to remove PM from a gas stream by sieving and
other mechanisms. Cartridge collectors can be designed with single use
cartridges, which are removed and disposed after reaching capacity, or
continuous use cartridges, which typically are cleaned by means of a
pulse-jet mechanism.
Confined abrasive blasting enclosure means an enclosure that
includes a roof and at least two complete walls, with side curtains and
ventilation as needed to insure that no air or PM exits the enclosure
while dry abrasive blasting is performed. Apertures or slots may be
present in the roof or walls to allow for mechanized transport of the
blasted objects with overhead cranes, or cable and cord entry into the
dry abrasive blasting chamber.
Control device means equipment installed on a process vent or
exhaust system that reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted
to the air.
Dry abrasive blasting means cleaning, polishing, conditioning,
removing or preparing a surface by propelling a stream of abrasive
material with compressed air against the surface. Hydroblasting, wet
abrasive blasting, or other abrasive blasting operations which employ
liquids to reduce emissions are not dry abrasive blasting.
Dry grinding and dry polishing with machines means grinding or
polishing without the use of lubricating oils or fluids in fixed or
stationary machines. Hand grinding, hand polishing, and bench top dry
grinding and dry polishing are not included under this definition.
Fabric filter means a type of control device used for collecting PM
by filtering a process exhaust stream through a filter or filter media;
a fabric filter is also known as a baghouse.
Facility maintenance means operations performed as part of the
routine repair or renovation of process equipment, machinery, control
equipment, and structures that comprise the infrastructure of the
affected facility and that are necessary for the facility to function
in its intended capacity. Facility maintenance also includes operations
associated with the installation of new equipment or structures, and
any processes as part of janitorial activities. Facility maintenance
includes operations on stationary structures or their appurtenances at
the site of installation, to portable buildings at the site of
installation, to pavements, or to curbs. Facility maintenance also
includes operations performed on mobile equipment, such as fork trucks,
that are used in a manufacturing facility and which are maintained in
that same facility. Facility maintenance does not include spray-applied
coating of motor vehicles, mobile equipment, or items that routinely
leave and return to the facility, such as delivery trucks, rental
equipment, or containers used to transport, deliver, distribute, or
dispense commercial products to customers, such as compressed gas
canisters.
Filtration control device means a control device that utilizes a
filter to reduce the emissions of MFHAP and other PM.
Grinding means a process performed on a workpiece to remove
undesirable material from the surface or to remove burrs or sharp
edges. Grinding is done using belts, disks, or wheels consisting of or
covered with various abrasives.
Machining means dry metal turning, milling, drilling, boring,
tapping, planing, broaching, sawing, cutting, shaving, shearing,
threading, reaming, shaping, slotting, hobbing, and chamfering with
machines. Shearing operations cut materials into a desired shape and
size, while forming operations bend or conform materials into specific
shapes. Cutting and shearing operations include punching, piercing,
blanking, cutoff, parting, shearing and trimming. Forming operations
include bending, forming, extruding, drawing, rolling, spinning,
coining, and forging the metal. Processes specifically excluded are
hand-held devices and any process employing fluids for lubrication or
cooling.
Material containing MFHAP means a material containing one or more
MFHAP. Any material that contains cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel in
amounts greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight (as the metal),
and contains manganese in amounts greater than or equal to 1.0 percent
by weight (as the metal), as shown in formulation data provided by the
manufacturer or
[[Page 43009]]
supplier, such as the Material Safety Data Sheet for the material, is
considered to be a material containing MFHAP.
Metal fabrication and finishing HAP (MFHAP) means any compound of
the following metals: Cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, or nickel, or
any of these metals in the elemental form, with the exception of lead.
Metal fabrication and finishing source categories are limited to
the nine metal fabrication and finishing source categories with the
activities described in Table 1, ``Description of Source Categories
Affected by this Subpart.'' Metal fabrication or finishing operations
means dry abrasive blasting, machining, spray painting, or welding in
any one of the nine metal fabrication and finishing area source
categories listed in Table 1, ``Description of Source Categories
Affected by this Subpart.''
Military munitions means all ammunition products and components
produced or used by or for the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) or for
the U.S. Armed Services for national defense and security, including
military munitions under the control of the DoD, the U.S. Coast Guard,
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE), and National Guard personnel. The term military munitions
includes: Confined gaseous, liquid, and solid propellants, explosives,
pyrotechnics, chemical and riot control agents, smokes, and
incendiaries used by DoD components, including bulk explosives and
chemical warfare agents, chemical munitions, biological weapons,
rockets, guided and ballistic missiles, bombs, warheads, small arms
ammunition, grenades, mines, torpedoes, depth charges, cluster
munitions and dispensers, demolition charges, nonnuclear components of
nuclear weapons, wholly inert ammunition products, and all devices and
components of any items listed in this definition.
Paint means a material applied to a substrate for decorative,
protective, or functional purposes. Such materials include, but are not
limited to, paints, coatings, sealants, liquid plastic coatings,
caulks, inks, adhesives, and maskants. Decorative, protective, or
functional materials that consist only of protective oils for metal,
acids, bases, or any combination of these substances, or paper film or
plastic film which may be pre-coated with an adhesive by the film
manufacturer, are not considered paints for the purposes of this
subpart.
Polishing with machines means an operation which removes fine
excess metal from a surface to prepare the surface for more refined
finishing procedures prior to plating or other processes. Polishing may
also be employed to remove burrs on castings or stampings. Polishing is
performed using hard-faced wheels constructed of muslin, canvas, felt
or leather, and typically employs natural or artificial abrasives.
Polishing performed by hand without machines or in bench top operations
are not considered polishing with machines for the purposes of this
subpart.
Primarily engaged means the manufacturing, fabricating, or forging
of one or more products listed in one of the nine metal fabrication and
finishing source category descriptions in Table 1, ``Description of
Source Categories Affected by this Subpart,'' where this production
represents at least 50 percent of the production at a facility, and
where production quantities are established by the volume, linear foot,
square foot, or other value suited to the specific industry. The period
used to determine production should be the previous continuous 12
months of operation. Facilities must document and retain their
rationale for the determination that their facility is not ``primarily
engaged'' pursuant to Sec. 63.10(b)(3) of the General Provisions.
Quality control activities means operations that meet all of the
following criteria:
(1) The activities are intended to detect and correct defects in
the final product by selecting a limited number of samples from the
operation, and comparing the samples against specific performance
criteria.
(2) The activities do not include the production of an intermediate
or final product for sale or exchange for commercial profit; for
example, parts that are not sold and do not leave the facility.
(3) The activities are not a normal part of the operation;
(4) The activities do not involve fabrication of tools, equipment,
machinery, and structures that comprise the infrastructure of the
facility and that are necessary for the facility to function in its
intended capacity; that is, the activities are not facility
maintenance.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2.
Spray-applied painting means application of paints using a hand-
held device that creates an atomized mist of paint and deposits the
paint on a substrate. For the purposes of this subpart, spray-applied
painting does not include the following materials or activities:
(1) Paints applied from a hand-held device with a paint cup
capacity that is less than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 cubic centimeters).
(2) Surface coating application using powder coating, hand-held,
non-refillable aerosol containers, or non-atomizing application
technology, including, but not limited to, paint brushes, rollers, hand
wiping, flow coating, dip coating, electrodeposition coating, web
coating, coil coating, touch-up markers, or marking pens.
(3) Painting operations that normally require the use of an
airbrush or an extension on the spray gun to properly reach limited
access spaces; the application of paints that contain fillers that
adversely affect atomization with HVLP spray guns, and the application
of paints that normally have a dried film thickness of less than 0.0013
centimeter (0.0005 in.).
(4) Thermal spray operations (also known as metallizing, flame
spray, plasma arc spray, and electric arc spray, among other names) in
which solid metallic or non-metallic material is heated to a molten or
semi-molten state and propelled to the work piece or substrate by
compressed air or other gas, where a bond is produced upon impact.
Spray booth or spray room means an enclosure with four sides and a
roof where spray paint is prevented from leaving the booth during
spraying by the enclosure. The roof of the spray booth or spray room
may contain narrow slots for connecting the parts and products to
overhead cranes, or for cord or cable entry into the spray booth or
spray room.
Tool or equipment repair means equipment and devices used to repair
or maintain process equipment or to prepare molds, dies, or other
changeable elements of process equipment.
Totally enclosed and unvented means enclosed so that no air enters
or leaves during operation.
Totally enclosed and unvented dry abrasive blasting chamber means a
dry abrasive blasting enclosure which has no vents to the atmosphere,
thus no emissions. A typical example of this sort of abrasive blasting
enclosure is a small ``glove box'' enclosure, where the worker places
their hands in openings or gloves that extend into the box and enable
the worker to hold the objects as they are being blasted without
allowing air and blast material to escape the box.
Vented dry abrasive blasting means dry abrasive blasting where the
blast material is moved by air flow from within the chamber to outside
the chamber into the atmosphere or into a control device.
[[Page 43010]]
Welding means a process which joins two metal parts by melting the
parts at the joint and filling the space with molten metal.
Welding rod containing MFHAP means a welding rod that contains
cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel in amounts greater than or equal to
0.1 percent by weight (as the metal), or that contains manganese in
amounts greater than or equal to 1.0 percent by weight (as the metal),
as shown in formulation data provided by the manufacturer or supplier,
such as the Material Safety Data Sheet for the welding rod.
Sec. 63.11523 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
The provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, applicable to sources
subject to Sec. 63.11514(a) are specified in Table 2 of this subpart.
Table 1 to Subpart XXXXXX of Part 63--Description of Source Categories
Affected by this Subpart
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal fabrication and
finishing source category Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electrical and Electronic Establishments primarily engaged in
Equipment Finishing manufacturing motors and generators; and
Operations. electrical machinery, equipment, and
supplies, not elsewhere classified. The
electrical machinery equipment and
supplies industry sector of this source
category includes establishments
primarily engaged in high energy
particle acceleration systems and
equipment, electronic simulators,
appliance and extension cords, bells and
chimes, insect traps, and other
electrical equipment and supplies not
elsewhere classified. The motors and
generators sector of this source
category includes establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing
electric motors (except engine starting
motors) and power generators; motor
generator sets; railway motors and
control equipment; and motors,
generators and control equipment for
gasoline, electric, and oil-electric
buses and trucks.
Fabricated Metal Products.... Establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing fabricated metal products,
such as fire or burglary resistive steel
safes and vaults and similar fire or
burglary resistive products; and
collapsible tubes of thin flexible
metal. Also, establishments primarily
engaged in manufacturing powder
metallurgy products, metal boxes; metal
ladders; metal household articles, such
as ice cream freezers and ironing
boards; and other fabricated metal
products not elsewhere classified.
Fabricated Plate Work (Boiler Establishments primarily engaged in
Shops). manufacturing power marine boilers,
pressure and nonpressure tanks,
processing and storage vessels, heat
exchangers, weldments and similar
products.
Fabricated Structural Metal Establishments primarily engaged in
Manufacturing. fabricating iron and steel or other
metal for structural purposes, such as
bridges, buildings, and sections for
ships, boats, and barges.
Heating Equipment, except Establishments primarily engaged in
Electric. manufacturing heating equipment, except
electric and warm air furnaces,
including gas, oil, and stoker coal
fired equipment for the automatic
utilization of gaseous, liquid, and
solid fuels. Products produced in this
source category include low-pressure
heating (steam or hot water) boilers,
fireplace inserts, domestic (steam or
hot water) furnaces, domestic gas
burners, gas room heaters, gas infrared
heating units, combination gas-oil
burners, oil or gas swimming pool
heaters, heating apparatus (except
electric or warm air), kerosene space
heaters, gas fireplace logs, domestic
and industrial oil burners, radiators
(except electric), galvanized iron
nonferrous metal range boilers, room
heaters (except electric), coke and gas
burning salamanders, liquid or gas solar
energy collectors, solar heaters, space
heaters (except electric), mechanical
(domestic and industrial) stokers, wood
and coal-burning stoves, domestic unit
heaters (except electric), and wall
heaters (except electric).
Industrial Machinery and Establishments primarily engaged in
Equipment Finishing construction machinery manufacturing;
Operations. oil and gas field machinery
manufacturing; and pumps and pumping
equipment manufacturing. The
construction machinery manufacturing
industry sector of this source category
includes establishments primarily
engaged in manufacturing heavy machinery
and equipment of types used primarily by
the construction industries, such as
bulldozers; concrete mixers; cranes,
except industrial plant overhead and
truck-type cranes; dredging machinery;
pavers; and power shovels. Also
establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing forestry equipment and
certain specialized equipment, not
elsewhere classified, similar to that
used by the construction industries,
such as elevating platforms, ship
cranes, and capstans, aerial work
platforms, and automobile wrecker
hoists. The oil and gas field machinery
manufacturing industry sector of this
source category includes establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing
machinery and equipment for use in oil
and gas fields or for drilling water
wells, including portable drilling rigs.
The pumps and pumping equipment
manufacturing sector of this source
category includes establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing pumps
and pumping equipment for general
industrial, commercial, or household
use, except fluid power pumps and
motors. This category includes
establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing domestic water and sump
pumps.
Iron and Steel Forging....... Establishments primarily engaged in the
forging manufacturing process, where
purchased iron and steel metal is
pressed, pounded or squeezed under great
pressure into high strength parts known
as forgings. The forging process is
different from the casting and foundry
processes, as metal used to make forged
parts is never melted and poured.
Primary Metals Products Establishments primarily engaged in
Manufacturing. manufacturing products such as
fabricated wire products (except
springs) made from purchased wire. These
facilities also manufacture steel balls;
nonferrous metal brads and nails;
nonferrous metal spikes, staples, and
tacks; and other primary metals products
not elsewhere classified.
Valves and Pipe Fittings..... Establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing metal valves and pipe
fittings; flanges; unions, with the
exception of purchased pipes; and other
valves and pipe fittings not elsewhere
classified.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 43011]]
Instructions for Table 2--As required in Sec. 63.11523, ``General
Provisions Requirements,'' you must meet each requirement in the
following table that applies to you.
Table 2--to Subpart XXXXXX of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Metal Fabrication or Finishing Area Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1\1\................................ Applicability.
63.2................................... Definitions.
63.3................................... Units and abbreviations.
63.4................................... Prohibited activities.
63.5................................... Construction/reconstruction.
63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5), (c)(1), (c)(2), Compliance with standards and
(c)(5), (g), (i), (j). maintenance requirements.
63.9(a)-(d)............................ Notification requirements.
63.10(a), (b) except for (b)(2), Recordkeeping and reporting.
(d)(1), (d)(4).
63.12.................................. State authority and
delegations.
63.13.................................. Addresses of State air
pollution control agencies and
EPA regional offices.
63.14.................................. Incorporation by reference.
63.15.................................. Availability of information and
confidentiality.
63.16.................................. Performance track provisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sec. 63.11514(g), ``Am I subject to this subpart?'' exempts
affected sources from the obligation to obtain title V operating
permits.
[FR Doc. E8-16263 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P