Since we do not have knowledge of any facilities using other
control approaches to control VOHAP emissions, we have not included any
other on control options in this proposed rule. We are specifically
requesting comments on this part of the proposed rule if our
assumptions about the need for an additional compliance option are in
error.
    Option 1: Compliance via Paint VOHAP Content Limit. In this option,
the facility determines the VOHAP content of their paints and the
volume fraction of paint solids in the paints to compare to the limit
of 3.0 pounds VOHAP per gallon paint solids (0.36 kg/liter) on an
annual (12-month) rolling average basis.
    Facilities may rely on manufacturer's formulation data for
determining the VOHAP content of their paints and the volume fraction
of paint solids; tests or analysis of the materials would not be
required if formulation data are available. Alternatively, results from
the following test methods may be used.
    For determining the VOHAP content of paints, Method 311 of 40 CFR
part 63, appendix A may be used. Nonaqueous volatile matter, excluding
water (i.e., VOC) may also be used as a surrogate for VOHAP, since VOC
includes all VOHAP as well as any additional organic compounds present
in the paint. To determine VOC content of the paints, facilities may
use manufacturer's formulation data or Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A. For determining the average density of volatile matter in
the paint, facilities may use American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Method D1475-98, ``Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid
Coatings, Inks, and Related Products'' (incorporated by reference, see
Sec.  63.14 of subpart A of this part). 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 of these
standards from ASTM at  http://www.astm.org or ASTM International, 100
Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959
U.S.A. You may inspect a copy at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    For determining the volume fraction of paint solids, facilities may
use: (1) ASTM Method D2697-03, ``Standard Test Method for Volume
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings;'' or (2) ASTM Method
D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), ``Standard Test Method for Percent Volume
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas
Pycnometer'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14 of subpart A
of this part). 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 of these standards from ASTM at http://
www.astm.org or ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 U.S.A. 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.
    Option 2: Compliance via a Weighted-Average Paint VOHAP Content
Limit. This option would allow a demonstration of compliance based on
the VOHAP contained in the mix of paints used. This option offers
facilities the flexibility to use some individual paints that do not by
themselves meet the paint VOHAP limit, if they also use low-HAP or non-
HAP paints such that overall weighted average VOHAP content of all
paints used over a 12-month period meets the VOHAP limit. Facilities
would likely need to use this option if they use HAP-containing
thinners and/or other additives in addition to paints, since these
additives usually have high VOHAP contents. Equations are provided in
this proposed rule to demonstrate how to perform the calculations to
demonstrate compliance.
    Facilities would track the mass of VOHAP in each paint and the
amount of paint used in affected sources each month of the compliance
period. This information would then be used to determine the total mass
of VOHAP in all paints along with the total volume of paint solids used
during the compliance period by adding together all the monthly values
for mass of VOHAP and the monthly values for volume of paint solids
used, for the 12 months of the initial compliance period. Facilities
may subtract from the total mass of VOHAP the amount contained in waste
materials sent to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facility regulated under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266, ``Hazardous
Waste.''
    Facilities would be required to calculate their overall weighted-
average VOHAP paint content (in pound or kilogram VOHAP emitted per
gallon or liter paint solids used) and show that this rate meets the
VOHAP limit. Facilities may use readily available purchase records and
manufacturer formulation data to determine the amount of each paint
used and the VOHAP in each material.
    In summary, if a facility chooses to demonstrate compliance using
Option 2, Compliance via a Weighted Average

Paint VOHAP Content Limit, they would be required to determine all the
parameters listed below for their paints. Either manufacturer's
formulation data or analysis of the materials by approved test methods
would be allowable options for determining these values.
     Quantity of each paint, thinner and/or other additive
used, from records.
     Mass of VOHAP in each paint, thinner, and other additives,
from manufacturer's data or tests.
     Volume fraction of paint solids for each paint, from
manufacturer's data or tests.
     Total mass of VOHAP in all materials and total volume of
paint solids used each month, by calculation.
     Total mass of VOHAP emissions and total volume of paint
solids used for the initial compliance period, by calculation.
     Ratio of the total mass of VOHAP emitted to the total
volume of paint solids used for the initial compliance period, by
calculation.
    With this option, facilities would need to record these
calculations and results, and include them in the Notification of
Compliance Status. EPA notes that the VOHAP composition of coatings
subject to this proposed rule is ``emissions data'' under section 114
of the CAA, and EPA's regulatory definition of such term in 40 CFR part
2, because the information is necessary to determine compliance with
applicable limits. As such, this information must be available to the
public regardless of whether EPA obtains the information through a
reporting requirement or through a specific request to the regulated
entity. Therefore, such information is not eligible for treatment as
``confidential business information.''
4. Tests for Spray Painting for MFHAP Control To Determine Continuous
Compliance
    Affected new and existing facilities that perform spray painting
would need to 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 tightly closed when
not in use.
    In addition, for spray painting objects less than 15 feet in any
dimension, owners or operators of affected processes would also need to
ensure and certify that surface preparation stations or spray booths
are fitted with fiberglass or polyester fiber filters or other
comparable filter technology that can be demonstrated to achieve at
least 98 percent control efficiency of the MFHAP in the paint.
5. Visual Emissions Testing for Welding To Determine Continuous
Compliance
    For new and existing affected sources with welding operations, this
proposed rule would require 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 management practices or add-on controls intended to
control PM emissions, as a surrogate for MFHAP. This testing has a
three-tier compliance structure.
    Tier 1. The first tier for welding compliance would require visual
determinations of fugitive emissions using EPA Method 22, and allows
the same graduated testing schedule described above in section (F)(2)
for dry abrasive blasting, dry grinding and dry polishing with
machines, and machining, 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 would be required.
    If visible emissions are present during any Method 22 test,
immediate corrective action would be required that includes inspection
of all fume sources and control methods in operation, and documentation
of the visual emissions test results. The graduated schedule also would
require the affected source to resume visible emissions testing in the
previous, more frequent schedule, i.e., weekly visible emissions
testing is increased to daily, and monthly testing is increased to
weekly.
    Tier 2. The second tier for welding compliance would be implemented
if visible emissions are detected for the second time in any
consecutive twelve-month period. The second tier would require
corrective action and documentation of the detection of visible
emissions and the corrective action taken. Corrective action would be
required to take place immediately after the failed Method 22 test. In
addition, the second tier for welding compliance would require a
facility to perform a visual determination of emissions opacity using
EPA Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) 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 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 would be required with a graduated schedule of
reduced frequency like that used for the Method 22 tests, described
above in section (F)(2), from daily to weekly to monthly for
consecutive successful tests. If opacity continues to be less than 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.
    If the average of the 6-minute opacities is determined to be more
than 20 percent in the Method 9 tests in the second tier, the third
tier of welding compliance requirements would be required, as described
below.
    Tier 3. The third tier for welding compliance would include 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 would be required to be kept at the
facility in a readily accessed location for inspector review. Also, the
facility would be required to report any exceedence of the 20 percent
opacity annually along with their annual 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 less than 20 percent opacity by EPA Method 9. Application of
the SWMP may involve implementation of additional management and
pollution prevention practices, as described above under Welding
Controls, beyond those already in place at the facility or the use of
capture equipment and add-on control devices. During the development of
the SWMP, daily Method 9 tests would be required to continue to be
performed, according to the graduated schedule. The SWMP would be
required to be updated after any failures to meet 20 percent or less
opacity as determined by Method 9. If opacity continues to be less than
20 percent and Method 9 testing of the welding processes at the
facility falls to once a month, according to the graduated testing
schedule, the facility would have a choice of changing to monthly
Method 22 tests or remaining

with monthly Method 9, as above. The SWMP would be updated annually and
would include revisions to reflect any changes in welding operations or
controls at the facility.
    The SWMP is estimated to require up to 16 hours to prepare
initially. We are proposing that the SWMP would 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 would be required to comply
with some requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A), which are identified in Table 3 of this proposed rule. Each
facility would be required to submit an Initial Notification and a
Notification of Compliance Status according to the requirements in 40
CFR 63.9 in the General Provisions. The affected source would be
required to prepare an annual compliance status report and keep this
report in a readily available location for inspector review. If there
are any exceedences during the year, the facility would submit this
annual compliance report with any exceedence reports prepared during
the year. The exceedence reports would describe the circumstance of the
exceedence and the corrective action taken. We specifically request
comment on this proposed requirement for annual compliance report
preparation and exceedence report submission.
    Facilities also would be required to maintain all records that
demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with this proposed rule,
including records of all required notifications and reports, with
supporting documentation; records showing compliance with management
and pollution prevention practices. Owners and operators would 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.

IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule

A. How did we select the source category?

    The nine metal fabrication and finishing source categories were
listed as area source categories on November 22, 2002 (67 FR 70427).
The inclusion of these source categories on the area source category
list was based on data from the CAA section 112(k) inventory, which
represents 1990 urban air information. Those data indicated that metal
fabrication and finishing plants were contributors to MFHAP emissions
in urban areas.
    For these source categories, we performed site visits and written
facility surveys, reviewed published literature, reviewed information
from Web sites of vendors of air pollution control devices, and held
discussions with trade organizations and industry experts. From this
research we found that the nine source categories perform the same HAP-
emitting processes, and, if the process was present, the emissions were
controlled in the same way. Consequently, we decided to issue
regulations for these nine metal fabrication and finishing area source
categories in one rulemaking action.

B. How did we select the affected sources?

    We found in on our research described above in section IV(A) that
potential sources of HAP emissions from the nine metal fabrication and
finishing source categories include the following five general metal
fabrication and finishing operations: (1) Dry abrasive blasting; (2)
machining; (3) dry grinding and dry polishing with machines; (4) spray
painting; and (5) welding. We found that MFHAP are used in and have the
potential to be emitted from these operations. Therefore, we selected
the facilities with these processes in the source categories as the
affected sources for this proposed rule. Because the MFHAP may be
emitted as fugitives, we have elected to define the affected sources as
the collection of all equipment and activities necessary to perform dry
abrasive blasting, machining, dry grinding and dry polishing with
machines, spray painting, and welding.
    Four of the metal fabrication and finishing source categories were
also listed for emissions of the organic HAP TCE.\4\ Chlorinated
solvents such as TCE are used as degreasers in these metal fabrication
and finishing source categories. We subsequently discovered that the
1990 emissions data for TCE was for metal fabrication and finishing
facilities that used TCE in degreasing operations, which are not part
of this source category. Rather, these emission units at both major and
area sources are subject to standards for halogenated solvent cleaning
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart T. Consequently, we are not proposing
standards for TCE from metal fabrication and finishing facilities. The
four metal fabrication and finishing source categories listed for TCE
emissions remain listed source categories pursuant to section 112(c)(3)
of this part, and this proposed rule establishes standards for
emissions of MFHAP and VOHAP. Therefore, we are clarifying that we do
not need these four source categories to meet the section 112(c)(3) 90
percent requirement regarding area source emissions of TCE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ These four source categories were Electrical and Electronic
Equipment Finishing Operations; Fabricated Metal Products; Primary
Metal Products Manufacturing; and Valves and Pipe Fittings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also found that some metal fabrication and finishing facilities
also perform plating. All chromium electroplating tanks are already
subject to the Chromium Electroplating NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart
N), while other plating operations at area sources are subject to the
Plating and Polishing Area Source Rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart
WWWWWW). Therefore, these sources would not be affected sources under
this proposed rule for metal fabrication and finishing area sources.

C. How did we determine the regulated processes?

    We found in our research for this proposed rule that there are five
general production operations common to the nine metal fabrication and
finishing source categories that can emit MFHAP: (1) Dry abrasive
blasting; (2) dry grinding and dry polishing with machines; (3)
machining; (4) spray painting; and (5) welding. As part of our
analyses, we considered whether there were differences in the
operations, the products fabricated or finished, or other factors
affecting emissions that would warrant different control strategies.
Under section 112(d)(1) of the CAA, EPA ``may distinguish among
classes, types, and sizes within a source category or subcategory in
establishing such standards * * *''
    We observed significant differences in processes for two of the
five metal fabrication and finishing operations: Dry abrasive blasting
and painting. Considering these differences in the processes, we
identified nine distinct metal fabrication and finishing processes for
the purposes of this proposed rule. A discussion of how we

identified these nine processes follows below.
1. Dry Abrasive Blasting Regulated Processes
    Some dry abrasive blasting operations for small parts with low-
throughput are performed in completely enclosed units commonly called
``glove boxes,'' which have no air outlet or ventilation and, hence, no
emissions when designed and operated properly. These sources are
distinctly different from larger operations which are not completely
enclosed because of the limitations of their size.
    Most dry abrasive blasting of larger objects and/or large
throughput operations performed at metal fabrication and finishing area
sources is performed in enclosed spaces, which are typically equipped
with cartridge filters or other control devices on the air exhaust.
However, it is not always practical to completely enclose dry abrasive
blasting of very large objects (e.g., oil derricks) because of the size
and subsequent cost of the enclosure and also difficulty maneuvering
the object into the enclosure. The impracticality of this effort is
particularly evident when the operation is only performed
intermittently. Consequently, dry abrasive blasting of very large
objects is sometimes performed outdoors or in 2- or 3-sided buildings
that are open on one or more sides to allow the large articles to be
easily moved into the blasting zone by heavy equipment or cranes.
    We found State regulations that allow outdoor dry abrasive blasting
operations for objects over 8 feet in any one dimension. We also found
through our industry surveys that these very large objects were blasted
outdoors. We also learned that facilities are motivated to enclose dry
abrasive blasting operations whenever possible because of the potential
cost savings from recovering the blast material which lowers blast
material usage and also costs, so that outside blasting is only
performed when necessary because of the size of the parts or products.
    Consequently, we determined for the purposes of this proposed rule
that there were two distinct sizes of products being blasted that
affected the manner in which the process was performed: Products more
than 8 feet in any dimension, and products less than or equal to 8
feet. For products less than or equal to 8 feet, we also observed that
some of these products were blasted in completely enclosed chambers
that did not allow any air or emissions to escape. Therefore, we
developed three distinct dry abrasive blasting processes: (1) Dry
abrasive blasting of objects greater than 8 feet in any dimension; (2)
dry abrasive blasting of objects less than or equal to 8 feet in any
dimension, performed in completely enclosed and unvented blast
chambers; and (3) dry abrasive blasting of objects less than or equal
to 8 feet in any dimension, performed in vented enclosures.
2. Spray Painting Regulated Processes
    Most spray painting performed at metal fabrication and finishing
area sources is performed in enclosed spray paint booths, which are
typically equipped with filters for PM control, where PM is a surrogate
for MFHAP. Because of the impracticality of enclosing large objects in
booths, similar to the discussion above for dry abrasive blasting, we
found that it is common practice in the industry for these sources to
spray paint large objects outside or in 2- or 3-sided buildings. We
found that the size of objects typically spray painted outside are
approximately 15 feet in any one dimension.
    Therefore, we determined that there were two distinct sizes of
products being painted that affected the manner in which the process
was performed: (1) Products more than 15 feet in any dimension; and (2)
products equal to or less than 15 feet in any dimension. Therefore, we
developed two distinct spray painting processes for MFHAP control: (1)
Spray painting of objects less than or equal to 15 feet in any
dimension; and (2) spray painting of objects greater than 15 feet in
any dimension.
    It should be noted that the object size cut-off for the spray
painting processes is more stringent than the one selected for dry
abrasive blasting in that objects between 8 and 15 feet in dimension
are enclosed for spray painting but not for blasting. This difference
occurs because the MFHAP overspray from uncontrolled spray painting is
higher, more hazardous, and more of a nuisance (i.e., more odor, clean-
up, etc.) than the inert PM and low level of MFHAP emitted from dry
abrasive blasting. Therefore, painting spray booths need to be sealed
better, whereas in dry abrasive blasting the structures can be
partially enclosed.
    We also determined that there was the potential for significant
VOHAP emissions from painting that are not controlled by the PM capture
and control equipment described above. We also observed that for the
purposes of controlling VOHAP, it was not necessary to distinguish
between sizes of the objects painted. Therefore, we are proposing one
standard for control of VOHAP emissions from spray painting that would
apply to all spray painting operations. Since this standard is a
pollution prevention technique that restricts the types of coatings
used in spray painting, it does not differentiate the size of the
product being painted.
3. Other Regulated Processes
    For dry grinding and dry polishing with machines; machining; and
welding we did not observe any distinct differences that would warrant
differentiating the operations into separate processes. Therefore,
these three operations are included as individual regulated processes
in this proposed rule.
4. The Nine Regulated Processes in the Metal Fabrication and Finishing
Source Categories
    In the above section IV(C)(1), we discussed how we divided dry
abrasive blasting operations into three processes for the purposes of
this proposed rule. In the above section IV(C)(2), we discussed how we
divided painting operations into three processes for regulation. The
remaining three operations were not further divided, as discussed above
in section (C)(3). The result of these analyses is that we have
identified the following nine metal fabrication and finishing processes
for this proposed rule:
    (1) Dry abrasive blasting objects less than or equal to 8 feet in
any dimension, performed in completely enclosed and unvented blast
chambers;
    (2) Dry abrasive blasting of objects less than or equal to 8 feet
in any dimension, performed in vented enclosures;
    (3) Dry abrasive blasting of objects greater than 8 feet in any
dimension;
    (4) Dry grinding and dry polishing with machines;
    (5) Machining;
    (6) Control of VOHAP from spray painting;
    (7) Control of MFHAP in spray painting of objects less than or
equal to 15 feet in any dimension;
    (8) Control of MFHAP in spray painting of objects greater than 15
feet in any dimension; and
    (9) Welding.

D. How was GACT determined?

    We are proposing nine standards representing GACT for the metal
fabrication and finishing source categories, as provided in CAA section
112(d)(5). The information used to determine the proposed GACT is
derived from site visits and written facility surveys, published
literature, information from websites of vendors of air pollution
control devices, and

discussions with trade organizations and industry experts. We found
that the MFHAP emissions from the nine metal fabrication and finishing
source categories are already well controlled by the industry, where
MFHAP is controlled as PM, a surrogate for MFHAP. The facilities were
motivated to control these MFHAP emissions to improve health and safety
of the worker's environment and to save raw material use.
    We evaluated the control technologies and management practices that
are current industry practice for the nine metal fabrication and
finishing area source categories. See Section II(C)(3) above, ``Metal
Fabrication and Finishing HAP Emission Controls,'' for a discussion of
the controls used in the metal fabrication and finishing source
categories. We also evaluated the control technologies used in similar
industries. We did not identify any major sources of MFHAP in these
nine source categories.
    We also considered costs and economic impacts in determining GACT.
We believe the consideration of costs and economic impacts is
especially important for metal fabrication and finishing sources
because requiring additional controls would result in only marginal
reductions in emissions at very high costs for a modest incremental
improvement in MFHAP control, and because more than 90 percent of metal
fabrication and finishing facilities are small businesses.
    Since we have concluded that the industry was already well-
controlled, we have developed GACT requirements to insure that these
gains in emission control from the 1990 levels are continued. We
explain below in detail our proposed GACT determinations.
1. GACT for Dry Abrasive Blasting
    Dry abrasive blasting generates much PM and to a lesser degree
MFHAP from substrate material, and any dirt and paint if the substrate
was previously used. We found that it is standard industry practice to
control indoor blasting by either a total enclosure with no exhaust or
a total enclosure exhausted to PM filtration devices where PM is
controlled as a surrogate for MFHAP. Facilities in the industry have
enclosed these processes due to the significant cost savings that
results from the ability to recycle the used blast material.
    We also found that it is standard industry practice to perform
blasting of large objects outdoors since they cannot fit easily inside
enclosures. Many State laws allow dry abrasive blasting outdoors for
objects over 8 feet in any one dimension. Therefore, we concluded that
this is a separate process different from the indoor blasting which was
described above.
    Consequently, we developed three distinct processes for dry
abrasive blasting operations the purposes of this proposed rule, as
follows: (1) Dry abrasive blasting objects less than or equal to 8 feet
in any dimension, performed in completely enclosed and unvented blast
chambers; (2) dry abrasive blasting of objects less than or equal to 8
feet in any dimension, performed in vented enclosures; and (3) dry
abrasive blasting of objects greater than 8 feet in any dimension. The
following is a discussion of how we developed GACT for these three
processes.
    a. Dry Abrasive Blasting Objects Less Than or Equal to 8 Feet in
Any Dimension, Performed in Completely Enclosed and Unvented Chambers.
We found that it is standard industry practice to use total enclosures
with no exhaust for some dry abrasive blasting operations of objects
less than or equal to 8 feet. Therefore, we are proposing that GACT for
this dry abrasive blasting process is management practices because
controls in the form of total enclosures are already a part of the
process equipment and do not allow PM, as a surrogate for MFHAP, to be
emitted during blasting. These two management practices are as follows:
(1) Minimize dust generation during emptying of the enclosure; and (2)
operate all equipment used in the blasting operation according to
manufacturer's instructions. These management practices are standard
industry practice for ``good housekeeping'' in and around dusty
processes, and are applicable when the chambers are opened for cleaning
after blasting is competed.
    b. Dry Abrasive Blasting of Objects Less than or Equal to 8 Feet in
any Dimension, Performed in Vented Enclosures. We found that it is
standard industry practice to control some indoor blasting operations
of objects less than or equal to 8 feet by using an enclosure exhausted
to PM filtration devices, where PM is controlled as a surrogate for
MFHAP. Since these dry abrasive blasting operations are enclosed,
capturing and filtering the exhaust enables recycling of the blast
material, which is a cost savings to the facility and standard industry
practice. We learned from the facilities in the industry that the
indoor workplace would not be tolerable without the blasting controls
that we are proposing as GACT. Therefore, we propose that GACT for this
process is an equipment standard of enclosures and filtration that
captures and collects the PM emitted, as a surrogate for MFHAP. We are
also proposing management practices as GACT that are standard industry
practice or ``good housekeeping'' for in and around dusty processes, as
follows: (1) Keep work areas free of excess dust by regular sweeping or
vacuuming to control the accumulation of dust and other particles;
regular sweeping or vacuuming is defined to be sweeping or vacuuming
conducted once per day, once per shift, or once per operation as
needed, depending on the severity of dust generation; (2) enclose dusty
material storage areas and holding bins, seal chutes and conveyors; and
(3) operate all equipment according to manufacturer's instructions.
    c. Dry Abrasive Blasting of Objects Greater Than 8 Feet in any
Dimension. We found that it is standard industry practice to perform
outdoor blasting of large objects that cannot fit easily inside an
enclosure. We also found that many State laws allow dry abrasive
blasting outdoors if performed on objects larger than 8 feet in any one
dimension. It is not standard practice in metal fabrication and
finishing facilities to enclose these processes and would be a
significant cost to the facility to do so because of the large size of
the objects, at approximately $110 million per ton of MFHAP removed.
    Because of the burden an enclosure requirement would entail for
facilities that perform abrasive blasting of large objects, we propose
the GACT requirement for objects greater than 8 feet in any dimension,
where the blasting is performed outdoors, to be management practices
that minimize MFHAP emissions, as follows: (1) Do not perform blasting
outside when wind velocity is greater than 25 mph; (2) switch from high
PM-emitting blast media (e.g., sand) to low PM-emitting blast media
(e.g., steel shot, aluminum oxide), whenever practicable; (3) do not
blast substrates having coatings containing lead (>0.1 percent lead),
unless enclosures, barriers, or other PM control methods are used to
collect the lead particles; (4) 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
dry abrasive material conforms to its original size and makeup; (5)
keep work areas free of excess dust by regular sweeping or vacuuming to
control the accumulation of dust and other particles; regular sweeping
or vacuuming is defined to be sweeping or

vacuuming conducted once per day, once per shift, or once per operation
as needed, depending on the severity of dust generation; (6) enclose
dusty material storage areas and holding bins, seal chutes and
conveyors; and (7) operate all equipment according to manufacturer's
instructions.
2. GACT for Dry Grinding and Dry Polishing With Machines
    We found that it is standard industry practice to capture PM
emissions, as a surrogate for MFHAP, from dry grinding and dry
polishing with machines, by the use of local exhaust, hoods, or other
vacuum devices; and to collect the PM with filtration devices, such as
cartridge filters. Facilities have reported that the indoor workplace
would not be tolerable without these types of controls on dry grinding
and dry polishing with machines.
    Therefore, we propose that GACT for dry grinding and dry polishing
with machines would be the equipment standard of capture and control
with filtration devices. We also propose management practices that are
standard industry procedures and common ``good housekeeping'' practices
in and around dusty processes, as follows: (1) Keep work areas free of
excess dust by regular sweeping or vacuuming to control the
accumulation of dust and other particles; regular sweeping or vacuuming
is defined to be sweeping or vacuuming conducted once per day, once per
shift, or once per operation as needed, depending on the severity of
dust generation; and (2) operate all equipment used in dry grinding and
dry polishing with machines according to manufacturer's instructions.
3. GACT for Machining
    The majority of the PM released by machining processes 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. We found that it is general industry practice to
totally enclose the machining process and/or use lubricants or liquid
coolants that do not allow small particles to escape. Therefore, we are
proposing that GACT for machining is the following two management and
pollution prevention practices: (1) Keep work areas free of excess dust
by regular sweeping or vacuuming to control the accumulation of dust
and other particles; regular sweeping or vacuuming is defined to be
sweeping or vacuuming conducted once per day, once per shift, or once
per operation as needed, depending on the severity of dust generation;
and (2) operate all equipment used in machining operations according to
manufacturer's instructions.
4. GACT for Spray Painting To Control MFHAP
    Emissions from spray painting include MFHAP from the paint
pigments. Spray painting performed indoors at metal fabrication and
finishing area sources is required by OSHA regulations to be performed
in an enclosed spray paint booth. We found that these booths are
typically equipped with filters for PM control, where PM is a surrogate
for MFHAP. Because of the impracticality of enclosing very large
objects in booths, we also found that it is common practice in the
industry to spray paint large objects outside or in 2- or 3-sided
structures. We found that the size of objects typically spray painted
outside are approximately 15 feet in any one dimension. Therefore, we
determined that there were two distinct sizes of products being painted
that affected the manner in which the process was performed: (1)
Products greater than 15 feet in any dimension, and (2) products less
than or equal to 15 feet in any dimension. Accordingly, we developed
GACT requirements for each of these two processes. The following
describes our proposed GACT and the rationale for selecting the GACT
requirements for these two processes.
a. GACT Requirements for Control of MFHAP in Spray Painting Objects
Greater Than 15 Feet in Any Dimension
    The GACT requirements in this proposed rule would require owners or
operators of affected new and existing spray painting operations to
comply with one equipment standard: (1) Use of low-emitting and
pollution preventing spray gun technology. The proposed rule also would
require two management practices: (1) Spray painter training; and (2)
spray gun cleaning.
    Spray Gun Technology Requirements--We are proposing that GACT for
this proposed rule would require all affected new and existing
facilities using spray-applied paints to use HVLP spray guns,
electrostatic application, or airless spray techniques. Alternatively,
an equivalent technology can be used if it is demonstrated to achieve
transfer efficiency comparable to one of the spray gun technologies
listed above for a comparable operation, and for which written approval
has been obtained from the Administrator or delegated authority.
    Spray Painting Training Requirements--We are proposing that GACT
for this proposed rule would require all workers that perform spray
painting at affected new and existing facilities to be trained, with
certification made available that this training has occurred. For the
purposes of the proposed 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 would not be required to provide the initial training
required for these painters. The training would need to address the
following topics to reduce paint overspray, which has a direct effect
on emissions reductions: Spray gun equipment selection, set up, and
operation; spray technique for different types of paints to improve
transfer efficiency and minimize paint usage and overspray; and routine
spray booth and filter maintenance, including filter selection and
installation. Spray painters have 180 days to complete training after
hiring or transferring into a surface painting job from another job in
the facility. The training and certification for this proposed rule
would be valid for a period not to exceed 5 years after the date the
training is completed.
    Spray Gun Cleaning Requirements--We are proposing that GACT for
this proposed rule would require all paint spray gun cleaning
operations at affected new and existing facilities to use an atomized
mist or spray such that the gun cleaning solvent and paint residue is
not created outside of the container that collects the used gun
cleaning solvent. These gun cleaning methods include hand cleaning of
parts, use of a fully enclosed spray gun washer, or a combination of
these non-atomizing methods. Hand cleaning is considered equivalent to
gun washers as long as the painters do not atomize cleaning solvent
from the gun and the spent solvent is collected in a container that is
closed when not in use.
b. Rationale for GACT To Control MFHAP in Spray Painting Objects
Greater Than 15 Feet in Any Dimension
    Some facilities paint large objects (greater than 15 feet) in open
air or 2-sided buildings so that the objects can be moved in and out
with cranes and other heavy equipment. It is not standard practice in
metal fabrication and finishing facilities to enclose these operations
in booths and would be a significant cost to the facility to do so
because of the large size of the objects, at approximately $20 million
per ton of MFHAP removed for large spray booths.

However, in order to minimize paint waste and exposure of the worker to
paint overspray, it is standard industry practice for facilities that
spray paint large objects to use HVLP equivalent high transfer
efficiency spray techniques even though they are not enclosing the
paint operation and filtering the exhaust air.
    These HVLP spray painting technologies produce a 40 percent
decrease in paint consumption and resultant emissions compared to
conventional spray guns. Conventional high-pressure air-atomized spray
guns have a typical transfer efficiency of about 30 percent while HVLP
and other types of high-efficiency spraying use lower air pressures and
achieve a transfer efficiency of about 50 percent, or greater, with
appropriate operator training. The HVLP spray method we are proposing
as GACT is a pollution prevention technology that is standard industry
practice and reduces the amount of paint sprayed. The HVLP spray method
reduces paint costs to the facility, reduces worker exposure to paint
overspray, reduces clean-up requirements, and also reduces MFHAP
emissions.
    Because of the burden an enclosure requirement would entail for
facilities that paint large objects, we propose the equipment standard
for GACT for these sources to be a requirement for HVLP spray gun use.
We chose the size requirement for indoor spray painting at 15 feet
based on industry information. We specifically request comment on our
size cut-off on affected sources of this requirement. In addition, we
are proposing management practices as GACT to ensure that workers are
trained properly in the high efficiency spray painting techniques and
that the spry equipment is washed in a way that minimizes atomization
of the paint, which can cause MFHAP emissions to occur. The HVLP
training and equipment cleaning procedures are common practice in this
industry as well as other similar industries. To minimize the impact on
small business, the facility owner or operator may perform this
training during ``in-house'' training programs. Also, facilities can
show that a painter's work experience and/or training have resulted in
equivalent training and, therefore, would not be required to provide
training at an external location for these painters.
    This proposed rule would require all paint spray gun cleaning
operations at affected new and existing facilities to be performed such
that the gun cleaning solvent and paint residue is not created outside
of the container that collects the used gun cleaning solvent. These gun
cleaning methods include hand cleaning of parts, use of a fully
enclosed spray gun washer, or a combination of these non-atomizing
methods. Hand cleaning is considered equivalent to gun washers as long
as the painters do not atomize cleaning solvent from the gun and the
spent solvent is collected in a container that is closed when not in
use. Since facilities that do not currently have an automated gun
washer can still comply with the proposed standards by cleaning guns by
hand, we do not expect that sources would have any annualized capital
costs or operating costs for spray gun cleaning.
c. GACT Requirements for Control of MFHAP in Spray Painting Objects
Equal To or Less Than 15 Feet in Any Dimension
    This proposed rule would require affected new and existing
facilities that are spray painting objects less than or equal to 15
feet in any dimension to comply with two equipment standards: (1) Use
of low-emitting and pollution preventing spray gun technology, and (2)
use of spray booth PM filters. This proposed rule also would require
two management practices: (1) Spray painter training, and (2) spray gun
cleaning.
    Spray Booth PM Control Requirement--We are proposing that GACT for
this proposed rule would require the surface preparation stations or
spray booths of affected new and existing facilities to be fitted with
fiberglass or polyester fiber filters or other comparable filter
technology that can be demonstrated to achieve at least 98 percent
control efficiency of paint overspray (also referred to as
``arrestance''). As an alternative compliance option, spray booths may
be equipped with a water curtain that achieves at least 98 percent
control of MFHAP. The waterspray booths would be required to be
operated and maintained according to the manufacturer's specifications.
    Spray Gun Technology Requirements--We are proposing that GACT for
this proposed rule would require all affected new and existing
facilities using spray-applied paints to use HVLP spray guns,
electrostatic application, or airless spray techniques. Alternatively,
an equivalent technology can be used if it is demonstrated to achieve
transfer efficiency comparable to one of the spray gun technologies
listed above for a comparable operation, and for which written approval
has been obtained from the Administrator or delegated authority.
    Spray Painting Training Requirements--We are proposing that GACT
for this proposed rule would require 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
training would need to address the following topics to reduce paint
overspray, which has a direct effect on emissions reductions: Spray gun
equipment selection, set up, and operation; spray technique for
different types of paints to improve transfer efficiency and minimize
paint usage and overspray; and routine spray booth and filter
maintenance, including filter selection and installation. Spray
painters have 180 days to complete training after hiring or
transferring into a surface painting job from another job in the
facility. For the purposes of the proposed 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 would not be required to
provide the initial training required for their painters. The training
and certification for this proposed rule would be valid for a period
not to exceed 5 years after the date the training is completed.
    Spray Gun Cleaning Requirements--We are proposing that GACT for
this proposed rule would require all paint spray gun cleaning
operations at affected new and existing facilities to use an atomized
mist or spray such that the gun cleaning solvent and paint residue is
not created outside of the container that collects the used gun
cleaning solvent. These gun cleaning methods include hand cleaning of
parts, use of a fully enclosed spray gun washer, or a combination of
these non-atomizing methods. Hand cleaning is considered equivalent to
gun washers as long as the painters do not atomize cleaning solvent
from the gun and the spent solvent is collected in a container that is
closed when not in use.
d. Rationale for GACT To Control MFHAP in Spray Painting Objects Equal
To or Less Than 15 Feet in Any Dimension
    We are proposing that GACT for this process includes management
practices and equipment standards. Our proposed GACT for this process
includes the use of the pollution prevention spray painting
technologies such as HVLP spray guns or their equivalent. These spray
painting technologies produce a 40 percent decrease in paint
consumption and resultant emissions

compared to conventional spray guns. Conventional high-pressure air-
atomized spray guns have a typical transfer efficiency of about 30
percent while HVLP and other types of high-efficiency spraying use
lower air pressures and achieve a transfer efficiency of about 50
percent, or greater, with appropriate operator training.
    The HVLP spray method we are proposing as GACT is a pollution
prevention technology that is standard industry practice in this
industry as well as other similar industries, and reduces the amount of
paint sprayed. The HVLP spray method reduces paint costs to the
facility, reduces worker exposure to paint overspray, reduces clean-up
requirements, and also reduces MFHAP emissions.
    In addition, we are proposing management practices as GACT to
ensure that workers are trained properly in the high efficiency spray
painting techniques and that the spray equipment is washed in a way
that minimizes atomization of the paint, which can cause MFHAP
emissions to occur. The HVLP training and equipment cleaning procedures
are common practice in this industry as well as other similar
industries. To minimize the impact on small business, the facility
owner or operator may perform this training during ``in-house''
training programs. Also, facilities can show that a painter's work
experience and/or training have resulted in equivalent training and,
therefore, would not be required to provide training at an external
location for their painters.
    We also propose that GACT for spray painting objects less than or
equal to 15 feet is the use of a spray booth equipped with a high
efficiency PM filter that removes MFHAP. OSHA already requires that all
indoor spray painting be performed in an enclosed booth or room, with
the exhaust vented through a filter. Therefore, upgrade of a spray
booth to include a PM filter to control MFHAP is only a small change to
the current process. The PM filters that remove MFHAP also are
available at no significant additional cost. Based on our research, we
estimate that only 20 percent of the current facilities that do spray
painting are expected to require a change in their filter type to be
able to control MFHAP and meet the proposed GACT. The costs of the
MFHAP filters as well as the costs of high efficiency spray equipment
and training are estimated to be offset by the reduced paint costs
attributed to the use of high efficiency spray equipment, for those
facilities where HVLP is not already in use. In addition, the use of
high efficiency spray paint techniques reduces the amount of time the
worker spends in painting, allowing the facility to use the worker for
other operations or training, and thereby reducing labor costs.
    This proposed rule would require all paint spray gun cleaning
operations at affected new and existing facilities to be performed such
that the gun cleaning solvent and paint residue is not created outside
of the container that collects the used gun cleaning solvent. These gun
cleaning methods include hand cleaning of parts, use of a fully
enclosed spray gun washer, or a combination of these non-atomizing
methods. Hand cleaning is considered equivalent to gun washers as long
as the painters do not atomize cleaning solvent from the gun and the
spent solvent is collected in a container that is closed when not in
use. Since facilities that do not currently have an automated gun
washer can still comply with the proposed standards by cleaning guns by
hand, we do not expect that sources would have any annualized capital
costs or operating costs for spray gun cleaning.
5. GACT for Control of VOHAP Emissions From Spray Painting
    We are proposing to set GACT for VOHAP emissions from spray
painting because the CAA, in Sec.  112(k)(3)(C), provides us with the
discretion to regulate these HAP in order to reduce the public health
risk posed by the release of any HAP. 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
NEI and were over 30 times the MFHAP level. 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 have historically been at
lower levels. In this regard, we believe that in the time since data
were collected for the 2002 NEI, most facilities have begun to use low-
VOC and low-VOHAP paints that were developed as a result of a shift in
market demand due to the recent paint and coating rules for other
sources.
    Therefore, we are proposing a spray painting VOHAP content limit of
3.0 pound VOHAP per gallon painting solids as GACT, based on
information received from the industry in the 2006 EPA survey and data
acquired in previously promulgated EPA rules for other similar
industries. A VOHAP limit will also ensure that any new sources will
use paints that meet the same VOHAP level as the current industry
practice. We specifically request comment on the appropriateness of
this part of GACT for metal fabrication and finishing sources.
    The proposed GACT would require owners or operators of spray
painting operations from affected sources that have the potential to
emit VOHAP to use paints containing no more than 3.0 pounds VOHAP per
gallon paint solids (0.36 kg/liter) on an annual (12-month) rolling
average basis. We are proposing two methods of complying with this GACT
standard. One option would require that all paints are demonstrated as
meeting the VOHAP limit. The second option would require facilities to
meet the VOHAP limit using a 12-month rolling weighted average. In this
second option, some paints can be above the VOHAP limit as long as
their use is balanced by other paints that are below the limit, such
that the overall weighted average of all paints and their VOHAP content
is calculated to be at or below the VOHAP limit that would be required
by this proposed rule.
    The proposed GACT would also require owners or operators of new and
existing spray painting operations that have the potential to emit
VOHAP to comply with the following two management and pollution
prevention practices: (1) Minimize VOHAP emissions during mixing,
storage, and transfer of paints; and (2) keep paint and solvent lids
tightly closed when not in use.
6. GACT for Welding
    Welding generates a small particle size metal fume (<5 [mu]m) that
is visible to the human eye at high enough concentrations and which
contains MFHAP. Because of recent OSHA rulings to reduce the worker
exposure to hexavalent chromium, a common component of most welding
fumes, facilities may consider ventilating their welding processes
areas beyond the previous levels so that the welding exhaust goes
quickly and directly into the environment. Previous to the 2006 OSHA
rule and at a lower ventilation rate, a large portion of the welding
fumes would have collided with equipment and interior walls and would
not have been exhausted outside.
    The amount of MFHAP emissions from welding is dependent on a
variety of factors including welding techniques, amount of welding
performed, and type of metal in the product being welded. In our
research we found that welding operations at any one facility vary from
day to day, and from product to product. We also found that a change

from one type of welding process to another is not always technically
possible for this industry as well as other similar industries. This is
demonstrated by the fact that even at an individual facility, different
types of welding and fume control strategies are in use. Thus, there is
no one single method that is generally used to reduce welding fumes in
this industry or other similar industries.
    Because heat is needed to melt the welding rod and form the welded
joint during the welding process, moving and/or cooling high velocity
air in the vicinity of the weld can be detrimental to its success.
Therefore, small enclosures or vacuum systems with high exhaust rates
close to the welding cannot be used to capture welding fumes. Another
difficulty with local exhaust is the need to position and sometimes re-
position the capture equipment to be most effective during the welding
process without causing more fume to enter the breathing zone of the
worker. We studied the practices of metal fabrication and finishing
industry as well as other industries that use welding, and determined
that control devices are usually used only as a last resort when
process variables and/or products dictate a high fume-forming welding
technique.
    In addition to the technical difficulty of using add-on controls
for welding fumes, the control devices are not cost-effective for
control of MFHAP and would impose a significant burden on the
facilities in the metal fabrication and finishing industry. The
estimated costs for use of add-on control equipment for welding is
greater than $7 million per ton of MFHAP. Therefore, based on the above
technical and cost issues, we are not proposing that GACT is the use of
add-on control equipment.
    Most facilities have begun to use management and pollution
prevention techniques to reduce welding fumes, since these practices
are the most efficient and cost-effective way to protect their workers
and meet the OSHA standards. Because of the difficulties with using
control equipment for welding, we propose as GACT a set of management
practices that minimize fume generation for welding, as practicable to
the type of welding used or needed and the type of product being
welded. We also propose that control systems with add-on control
devices that achieve at least 85 percent control can be used as a
compliance option instead of the management practices, since these
control systems provide an equivalent control of MFHAP.
    The following are the management practices we are proposing as GACT
for welding processes in the metal fabrication and finishing
industries:
    (a) Use low fume welding processes whenever practicable. These
welding processes include but are not limited to: GMAW--also called
MIG; GTAW--also called TIG; PAW; SAW; and all welding processes that do
not use a consumable electrode.
    (b) Use shielding gases, as practicable;
    (c) Use an inert carrier gas, such as argon, as practicable to the
type of welding used;
    (d) Use low or no-HAP welding materials and substrates as much as
practicable;
    (e) Operate with a welding angle close to 90[deg], as practicable
to the type of welding used and physical characteristics of the
substrate;
    (f) Optimize electrode diameter, as practicable;
    (g) Operate with lower voltage and current, as practicable;
    (h) Use low fume wires, as practicable;
    (i) Optimize shield gas flow rate, as practicable;
    (j) Use low or optimized torch speed, as practicable; and
    (k) Use pulsed-current power supplies, as practicable.

E. How did we select the compliance requirements?

    We are proposing notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements to ensure compliance with this proposed rule. We are
requiring an Initial Notification and Notification of Compliance
Status. These requirements are consistent with Section 63.9(h) of the
General Provisions of this part. For demonstrating initial compliance,
this proposed rule would require affected facilities to certify that
the required management practices have been implemented and that all
equipment associated with the processes is being properly operated and
maintained. For demonstrating continuous compliance, the proposed
requirements include annual certifications that the management
practices are being followed and all equipment associated with the
processes is being properly operated and maintained. This proposed rule
specifies recordkeeping requirements in accordance with Section 63.10
of the General Provisions. These records are needed for EPA to
determine compliance with specific rule requirements.
    Because MFHAP emissions from the metal fabrication and finishing
sources are visible emissions, we are requiring visual emissions or
opacity testing performed in a graduated schedule, from daily to weekly
to monthly, to determine whether or not the process is in compliance
for five of the nine standards described above: Two of the three
process types of dry abrasive blasting (not to include dry abrasive
blasting of objects less than or equal to 8 feet in completely enclosed
chambers), machining, and dry grinding and dry polishing with machines,
and welding.
    We believe that compliance with GACT using the graduated testing
schedule for visual emissions and opacity will enable facilities with a
low level of emissions to quickly reach a low frequency of testing
thereby minimizing the impact of this proposed rule on lower emitting
sources. On the other hand, facilities with higher levels of emissions
may be required to prepare a SWMP and give careful thought to the
pollution prevention management practices that can reduce emissions at
their facility. The use of visual emissions or opacity testing, as
opposed to emission testing, is a lower cost method to determine
compliance that accommodates the different levels of activity that can
occur from facility to facility, and from product to product and day to
day within the same facility, so that there is not a large cost impact
on small businesses.
    Under this proposed rule, each facility would prepare an annual
compliance certification and keep it on site in a readily-accessible
location. Facilities would be required to submit this annual compliance
report only if there are any exceedences or deviations from the
equipment and management practice requirements during the year, and
would include these exceedence reports with their compliance report. We
recognize that many of these facilities are small businesses; therefore
we are requiring the submission of this annual compliance certification
only if exceedences occur during the year so that there is not an undue
economic burden on small businesses.
    We are proposing a 2-year period for existing facilities to achieve
compliance. We believe the 2-year period provides sufficient time for
facilities to identify their applicability to the rule and make any
necessary changes to comply with the standards. All new area sources
would be required to comply with this proposed rule on the date of
publication of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later.

F. How did we decide to exempt this area source category from title V
permitting requirements?

    We are proposing exemption from title V permitting requirements for
affected facilities in the metal fabrication and finishing area source
categories for the reasons described below.
    Section 502(a) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may
exempt an area source category from title V if he determines that
compliance with title V requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or
unnecessarily burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section
502(a). In December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the
term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and developed a
four-factor balancing test for determining whether title V is
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category, such
that an exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320,
December 19, 2005 (``Exemption Rule'').
    The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for
determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' on a
particular area source category include: (1) Whether title V would
result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements,
including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting that are proposed
for an area source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V
permitting would impose significant burdens on the area source category
and whether the burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the
sources may have in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70
FR 75324); (3) whether the costs of title V permitting for the area
source category would be justified, taking into consideration any
potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR
75325); and (4) whether there are implementation and enforcement
programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the
proposed NESHAP for the area source category, without relying on title
V permits (70 FR 75326).
    In discussing these factors in the Exemption Rule, we further
explained that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to
which one or more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for
a given source category, and then we assessed whether considered
together those factors demonstrated that compliance with title V
requirements would be `unnecessarily burdensome' on the category,
consistent with section 502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, in
the Exemption Rule, we explained that not all of the four factors must
weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to determine that title V is
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category.
Instead, the factors are to be considered in combination, and EPA
determines whether the factors, taken together, support an exemption
from title V for a particular source category.
    In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome
on an area source category, we considered, consistent with the guidance
provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether
exempting the area source category would adversely affect public
health, welfare or the environment. See 70 FR 15254-15255, March 25,
2005. We have determined that the proposed exemptions from title V
would not adversely affect public health, welfare and the environment.
Our rationale for this decision follows here.
    In considering the proposed exemption from title V requirements for
sources in the category affected by this proposed rule, we first
compared the title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements (factor one) to the requirements in this proposed NESHAP
for the metal fabrication and finishing area source categories. EPA
determined that the management practices currently used by metal
fabrication and finishing facilities is GACT, and this proposed rule
would require recordkeeping, which serves as monitoring and deviation
reporting, to assure compliance with this NESHAP. The monitoring
component of the first factor favors title V exemption because this
proposed standard would provide for monitoring in the form of visible
emissions and opacity testing and recordkeeping that would assure
compliance with the requirements of this proposed rule. This proposed
NESHAP would also require the preparation of annual compliance
certification reports and submission of this report if there are any
deviations during the year, which should call attention to those
facilities in need of supervision to the State agency in the same way
as a title V permit. Records would be required to ensure that the
management practices are followed, including such records as results of
the visual emissions and opacity tests, and spray painting training of
the employees.
    As part of the first factor, we have considered the extent to which
title V could potentially enhance compliance for area sources covered
by this proposed rule through recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
We have considered the various title V recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, including requirements for a 6-month monitoring report,
deviation reports, and an annual certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6.
For any affected metal fabrication and finishing facility, this
proposed NESHAP would require an initial notification and a
notification of compliance status. This proposed Metal Fabrication and
Finishing NESHAP also would require affected facilities to maintain
records showing compliance with the required equipment standard and
management practices. The information that would be required in the
notifications and records is similar to the information that would be
provided in the deviation reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and
40 CFR 71.6(a)(3). We acknowledge that title V might impose additional
compliance requirements on this category, but we have determined that
the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this
proposed NESHAP for the metal fabrication and finishing source
categories would be sufficient to assure compliance with the provisions
of this NESHAP, and title V would not significantly improve those
compliance requirements.
    For the second factor, we determine whether title V permitting
would impose a significant burden on the area sources in the category
and whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the
source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency.
Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and
costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. EPA estimated
that the average cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit
was $38,500 per source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. See
Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit
Regulations, January 2000, EPA ICR Number 1587.05. EPA does not have
specific estimates for the burdens and costs of permitting the metal
fabrication and finishing area sources; however, there are certain
activities associated with the part 70 and 71 rules. These activities
are mandatory and impose burdens on the facility. They include reading
and understanding permit program guidance and regulations; obtaining
and understanding permit application forms; answering follow-up
questions from permitting authorities after the application is
submitted; reviewing and

understanding the permit; collecting records; preparing and submitting
monitoring reports on a 6-month or more frequent basis; preparing and
submitting prompt deviation reports, as defined by the State, which may
include a combination of written, verbal, and other communications
methods; collecting information, preparing, and submitting the annual
compliance certification; preparing applications for permit revisions
every 5 years; and, as needed, preparing and submitting applications
for permit revisions. In addition, although not required by the permit
rules, many sources obtain the contractual services of consultants to
help them understand and meet the permitting program's requirements.
The ICR for part 70 provides additional information on the overall
burdens and costs, as well as the relative burdens of each activity.
Also, for a more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70
sources (hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR
70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
    In assessing the second factor for metal fabrication and finishing
facilities, we found that over 90 percent of the approximately 5,800
metal fabrication and finishing facilities affected by this proposed
rule are small businesses. These small sources lack the technical
resources that would be needed to comply with permitting requirements
and the financial resources that would be needed to hire the necessary
staff or outside consultants. As discussed above, title V permitting
would impose significant costs on these area sources, and, accordingly,
we propose that title V would be a significant burden for sources in
this category. More than 90 percent of the facilities that would be
subject to this proposed rule are small businesses with limited
resources, and under title V they would be subject to numerous
mandatory activities with which they would have difficulty complying,
whether they were issued a standard or a general permit. Furthermore,
given the number of sources in the category and the relatively small
size of many of those sources, it would likely be difficult for them to
obtain assistance from the permitting authority. Thus, we believe that
the second factor strongly supports the proposed title V exemption for
metal fabrication and finishing facilities.
    The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance
likely to occur for such sources. We explained for the second factor
that the costs of compliance with title V would impose a significant
burden on nearly all of the approximately 5,800 metal fabrication and
finishing facilities affected by this proposed rule. We also believe in
considering the first factor that, while title V might impose
additional requirements, the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in the proposed NESHAP would assure compliance with the
equipment standards and management practices imposed in the NESHAP. In
addition, in our consideration of the fourth factor, we find that there
are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place to assure
compliance with the NESHAP. Because the costs, both economic and non-
economic, of compliance with title V are so high, and the potential for
gains in compliance is low, we propose that title V permitting is not
justified for this source category. Accordingly, the third factor
supports the proposed title V exemptions for metal fabrication and
finishing area sources.
    The fourth factor we considered in determining if title V is
unnecessarily burdensome is whether there are implementation and
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance
with the NESHAP without relying on title V permits. There are State
programs in place to enforce this area source NESHAP, and we believe
that the State programs will be sufficient to assure compliance with
this NESHAP. We also note that EPA retains authority to enforce this
NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. We further note
that small business assistance programs required by CAA section 507 may
be used to assist area sources that have been exempted from title V
permitting. Also, States and EPA often conduct voluntary compliance
assistance, outreach, and education programs (compliance assistance
programs), which are not required by statute. These additional programs
would supplement and enhance the success of compliance with this area
source NESHAP. We believe that the statutory requirements for
implementation and enforcement of this NESHAP by the delegated States
and EPA, combined with the additional assistance programs would be
sufficient to assure compliance with this area source NESHAP without
relying on title V permitting.
    In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only
enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted,
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to assure
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the
NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. In proposing this rule, we do not have
similar data available on the specific enforcement as in the Exemption
rule, but we have no reason to think that States will be less diligent
in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have
adequate programs to enforce the section 112 regulations and provide
assurances that they will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate
the program. See 40 CFR part 63, General Provisions, subpart E.
    In light of all the information presented here, we believe that
there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are
sufficient to assure compliance with the Metal Fabrication and
Finishing NESHAP without relying on title V permitting. Balancing the
four factors for this area source category strongly supports the
proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome. While title
V might add additional compliance requirements if imposed, we believe
that there would not be significant improvements to the compliance
requirements in the NESHAP because the requirements in this proposed
rule are specifically designed to assure compliance with the standards
and management practices imposed on this area source category.
    We further maintain that the economic and non-economic costs of
compliance with title V, in conjunction with the likely difficulty this
number of small sources would have obtaining assistance from the
permitting authority, would impose a significant burden on the sources.
In addition, the high relative costs would not be justified given that
there is likely to be little or no potential gain in compliance if
title V were required. And, finally, there are adequate implementation
and enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP.
Thus, we propose that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' for the metal fabrication and finishing area source
categories.
    In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' EPA also considered,
consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section
502(a), whether exempting the metal fabrication and finishing area
source categories from title V requirements would adversely affect
public health, welfare, or the environment. Exemption of the metal

fabrication and finishing area source categories from title V
requirements would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment because the level of control would remain the same if a
permit were required. The title V permit program does not impose new
substantive air quality control requirements on sources, but instead
requires that certain procedural measures be followed, particularly
with respect to determining compliance with applicable requirements. As
stated in our consideration of factor one for this category, title V
would not lead to significant improvements in the compliance
requirements applicable to existing or new area sources.
    Furthermore, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting
program is to clarify, in a single document, the various and sometimes
complex regulations that apply to sources in order to improve
understanding of these requirements and to help sources achieve
compliance with the requirements. In this case, however, we do not
believe that a title V permit is necessary to understand the
requirements applicable to these area sources. We also have no reason
to think that new sources would be substantially different from the
existing sources. In addition, we explained in the Exemption Rule that
requiring permits for the large number of area sources could, at least
in the first few years of implementation, potentially adversely affect
public health, welfare, or the environment by shifting State agency
resources away from assuring compliance for major sources with existing
permits to issuing new permits for these area sources, potentially
reducing overall air program effectiveness. Based on this analysis, we
believe that title V exemptions for metal fabrication and finishing
area sources would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment for all of the reasons previously explained.
    For the reasons stated here, we are proposing to exempt the metal
fabrication and finishing area source categories from title V
permitting requirements.

V. Impacts of the Proposed Standards

A. What are the air impacts?

    Since 1990, the metal fabrication and finishing industry has
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 proposed rule, we believe that this proposed 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 and PM that has 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 proposed standard. Therefore, no additional air
pollution control devices or systems would be required. No capital
costs are associated with this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule is estimated at approximately $735 per facility per
year after the first year with an additional $385 per facility for one-
time costs in the first year. While most of these facilities are small,
the costs are expected to be approximately 0.01 percent of revenues.
    The annual estimate includes 2 hours per facility per year for
preparing annual compliance reports. The annual estimate also includes
an industry-wide average of 13 hours a year per facility for visible
emissions monitoring of two buildings or sources. Although it is
possible that some facilities would initially be required by this
proposed rule to perform daily visual emissions or opacity testing, the
graduated compliance test schedule of this proposed rule allows for
decrease in frequency to once a month if visible emissions are not
found. This monitoring schedule is reflected in our estimate.
    In the above estimated annual costs, we have included approximately
11,600 labor-hours among the 5,800 sources for exceedence reports and
preparation of a SWMP. This estimate assumes that 80 percent of the
facilities (4,640 facilities) will have no exceedences; 15 percent (870
facilities) will have one exceedence per year; 4 percent (232
facilities) will have two exceedences per year; and 1 percent (58
facilities) will have three exceedences per year and need to prepare an
initial SWMP. The labor hours estimated for each exceedence report is 2
hours, 16 hours are estimated for preparation of the SWMP, and 0.25
hours for recording a test result. For subsequent years, facilities
with a SWMP will only need to update their SWMP.
    The above analysis shows that we expect that the maximum number of
exceedences per year for any facility would be three exceedences.
According to the monitoring requirements for welding sources, which are
the only metal fabrication and finishing sources that are not required
to use add-on control devices, the second exceedence in any one year
requires the facility to perform an EPA Method 9 opacity test to
determine whether the exhaust from the process or building is less than
or greater than 20 percent opacity. If the EPA Method 9 test shows an
opacity greater than 20 percent, the facility would be required to
prepare a SWMP to address the emission control strategy that the
facility is planning for the future to minimize PM emissions from the
process. We expect that the requirement to prepare a SWMP will cause
the facility to initiate changes in the facility's management practices
or use of add-on control equipment such that the facility will
subsequently be able to meet the opacity or visible emission
requirements in this proposed rule. Therefore, we expect no further
exceedences by the facilities after being required to prepare a SWMP.
We specifically invite comment on these assumptions for the proposed
rule.
    The total number of labor hours included in this annual cost
estimate includes 2 hours for preparation of the Initial Notification
in the first year; 4 hours for preparation of the Notification of
Compliance Status in the first year, and 2 hours for preparing the
Annual Compliance Certification at the end of the year, for an
industry-wide average estimate of 24 hours per facility in the first
year, which include the 13 hours per facility for monitoring. In the
second year, the estimated industry-wide average labor hours per
facility falls to 18 hours, of which 13 hours are due to monitoring.
    We estimate that the proposed standards for spray painting VOHAP
content will have no net annual cost to spray painting operations. The
cost of lower VOHAP content paints has been reduced since the market
for these paints has increased due to other paint and coating rules
promulgated by EPA. Therefore, there is no additional cost

estimated for lower VOHAP content paints required by this proposed
rule.
    We estimate that the proposed standards for spray painting will
have no net annual cost to spray painting operations. The initial cost
of complying with these proposed standards would be off-set and
recovered over time by cost savings as a result of more efficient use
of labor and materials by surface coating operations. The initial costs
for surface coating operations may include purchase of improved spray
booth filters, automated enclosed gun washers, HVLP spray guns, and
painter training, if needed to comply with the proposed standards.
However, spray painting processes are already required by OSHA
standards to perform spray painting in a spray booth or similar
enclosure, so theses costs would not be attributed to these proposed
standards. Therefore, we have not estimated costs required to install
spray booths to comply with the proposed standards. We specifically
request comment on the appropriateness of this assumption for the metal
fabrication and finishing industries.
    The proposed standards specify that certain types of filters have
to be used on the spray booth exhaust to minimize MFHAP emissions, and
these filters are not addressed by OSHA standards. Some spray painting
facilities may need to replace their current filters for ones with
higher control efficiency, but the higher efficiency filters are
readily available and will not result in any additional cost.
    This proposed rule also would require all affected new and existing
facilities to perform their paint spray gun cleaning operations such
that gun cleaning solvent and paint residue is not created outside of
the container and used gun cleaning solvent is collected. These gun
cleaning methods include hand cleaning of parts, use of a fully
enclosed spray gun washer, or a combination of these non-atomizing
methods. Hand cleaning is considered equivalent to gun washers as long
as the painters do not atomize cleaning solvent from the gun and the
spent solvent is collected in a container that is closed when not in
use. Since facilities that do not currently have an automated gun
washer can still comply with the proposed standards by cleaning guns by
hand, we do not expect that sources would have any annualized capital
costs or operating costs for spray gun cleaning. We specifically
request comment on this assumption.
    If spray gun washers are used, the annual costs for these washers
would be offset by the reduced labor to clean spray guns and reduced
costs for cleaning solvent purchase and disposal. Spray gun washers are
automated so that after loading the spray gun in the washer, the
painters can perform other tasks while the spray guns are being
cleaned. Automated spray gun washers are also capable of re-using
solvent for gun cleaning to minimize solvent consumption and waste
disposal.
    This proposed rule also requires that facilities certify that their
painters have knowledge of the proper use of HVLP or equivalent
equipment. However, facilities can show that a painter's work
experience and/or training have resulted in equivalent training and,
therefore, would not be necessarily required to provide training at an
external location for these painters. In addition, this proposed rule
permits facilities to perform hands-on or in-house training to meet the
training requirements. Therefore, we believe that painter training
costs would have a low impact on the affected facilities. The following
discussion summarizes and further illustrates this point.
    First, many facilities already send their painters to training
sponsored by paint companies and trade organizations. Paint companies
sponsor painter training so that the paint company can reduce warranty
claims on their paint products. These training courses already cover
much of the same material required by this proposed rule. Therefore,
this proposed rule would not impose new training costs on these
facilities that already participate in training. Second, facilities may
perform training ``in-house'' or show that a painter's work experience
and/or training have resulted in equivalent training and, therefore,
would not be required to provide training at an external location for
these painters. Third, the estimated training cost could be offset by
reduced coating costs if the training results in reduced coating
consumption. Data from the STAR[supreg] program indicate that painters
who complete this training can decrease the amount of coating sprayed
by about 20 percent per job. We estimate that if a typical facility
reduced their coating consumption and costs by about 4 percent per
year, the cost savings would equalize the increased cost of training
after 1 year, and there would be no net cost in training. To recover
the cost of training over 5 years, a typical facility would need to
reduce their coating consumption by slightly less than 1 percent.
Fourth, all painting in the metal fabrication and finishing industries
is not done by spraying. Many metal fabrication and finishing
facilities perform painting by dip painting or other coating techniques
that are not subject to the spray painting standards of this proposed
rule. Therefore, spray painting training impacts would be lower than
that estimated based on typical assumptions of the number of spray
painters per facility. In summary, EPA estimates that the proposed
requirements for surface coating operations would not result in any net
increase in annual or capital costs from the control requirements for
surface coating operations. We specifically request comment on this
aspect of this proposed rule.
    Information on our cost impact estimates on the sources is
available in the docket for this proposed rule. (See Docket Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2006-0306).

C. What are the economic impacts?

    The only measurable costs attributable to these proposed standards
are associated with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. These proposed 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
proposed 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
proposed rule generates a wastewater stream. The installation of spray
booths 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.

VI. 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 proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2298.01.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this proposed 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.
    This proposed NESHAP would require metal fabrication and finishing
area sources 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 would be required to
demonstrate compliance with operation and maintenance of capture and
control devices, VOHAP content of paints, 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
compliance certifications and annual exceedence reports would 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 35,268
labor hours per year at a cost of $1.1 million or approximately $580
per facility. The average annual reporting burden is six hours per
response, with approximately three responses per facility for 1,933
respondents. The only costs attributable to these proposed 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 proposed rule.
    Although it is possible that some facilities would initially be
required by this proposed rule to record the results of daily visual
emissions or opacity testing, the graduated compliance test schedule of
this proposed rule allows for decrease in frequency to once a month if
emissions are not found. Also, the requirement for preparation of a
SWMP is expected to result in a maximum of three exceedences from 1
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.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this action, which
includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0306. Submit
any comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB.
See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to
submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after April 3, 2008, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by May 5, 2008.
The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The 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 proposed 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 proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed 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 proposed rule
contains requirements for new area sources, we are not aware of any new
area sources being constructed now or planned in the next three years,
and consequently, we did not estimate any impacts for new sources.
    Although this proposed 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 proposed 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.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed action on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impacts.

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 the 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.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. This proposed rule is not expected to
impact State, local, or tribal governments. Thus, this proposed rule is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This proposed rule contains no requirements that apply to
such governments, and impose no obligations upon them. Therefore, this
proposed 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 proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule does not
impose any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    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 proposed rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This
proposed rule imposes no requirements on tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.

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 (Energy Effects)

    This 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 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 proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore,
the Agency conducted a search to identify potentially applicable VCS.
However, we identified no such standards, and none were brought to our
attention in comments. Therefore, EPA has decided to use EPA Methods 24
and 311 in this proposed rule. In addition, we are proposing to use
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 proposed rule.
    We are also proposing to use 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
proposed rule.
    We also cite in this proposed rule three ASTM methods: ASTM Method
D2697-03, ``Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear
or Pigmented Coatings,'' and ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003),
``Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear
or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer,'' for determining
the volume fraction of paint solids; and ASTM D1475-98, ``Standard Test
Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products,''
for determining the average density of volatile matter in the spray
paints and coatings.
    In addition to the VCS already cited in this proposed rule, EPA
Method 24 and 311 already incorporate VCS. The EPA Method 311 is a
compilation of five VCS: ASTM D1979-91, ASTM D3432-89, ASTM D4747-87,
ASTM D4827-93, and ASTM PS 9-94. The EPA Method 24 incorporates six
VCS: ASTM D1475-90, ASTM D2369-95, ASTM D3792-91, ASTM D4017-96a, ASTM
D4457-85 (Reapproved 1991), and ASTM D5403-93.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.
    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 proposed 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. The nationwide standards would reduce HAP emissions
and thus decrease the amount of emissions to which all affected
populations are exposed.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporations by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: March 20, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(25) and
(26), (d)(7) and (8), and (l)(1); and adding new paragraph (b)(66) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (25) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), Standard Test Method for
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.3161(f)(1),
63.3521(b)(1), 63.3941(b)(1), 63.4141(b)(1), 63.4741(b)(1),
63.4941(b)(1), 63.5160(c), and 63.11516(e)(3)(ii)(A).
    (26) ASTM D1475-98, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid
Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
63.3151(b), 63.3941(b)(4), 63.3941(c), 63.3951(c), 63.4141(b)(3),
63.4141(c), 63.4551(c), 63.11516(e)(3)(iii), 63.11516(e)(3)(iv),
63.11516(e)(4)(iii), and 63.11516(e)(4)(iv).
* * * * *
    (66) ASTM D2697-03, Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile
Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved for Sec.
63.11516(e)(3)(ii)(A).
* * * * *
    (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)(3) and Sec.
63.11516(d)(2) of subpart XXXXXX of this part.
    (8) California South Coast Air Quality Management District's
``Guidelines for Demonstrating Equivalency with District Approved
Transfer Efficient Spray Guns, September 26, 2002,'' IBR approved for
Sec. Sec.  63.11173(e) and 63.11516(d)(2).
* * * * *
    (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)(2)(i) and 63.11516(d)(1)(ii).
* * * * *
    3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart XXXXXX consisting of
Sec. Sec.  63.11514 through 63.11523 and tables 1 through 4 to read as
follows:
Subpart XXXXXX--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants Area Source Standards for 9 Metal Fabrication and Finishing
Source Categories Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec.
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 sections apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart XXXXXX

Table 1 to Subpart XXXXXX of Part 63--Description of Source
Categories Affected by This Subpart
Table 2 to Subpart XXXXXX of Part 63--Default Organic HAP Mass
Fraction for Solvents and Solvent Blends

Table 3 to Subpart XXXXXX of Part 63--Default Organic HAP Mass
Fraction for Petroleum Solvent Groups
Table 4 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 9 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 of metal fabrication or finishing metal HAP (MFHAP), defined to
be the compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel, or
a source of volatile organic HAP (VOHAP) from spray painting
operations, which performs metal fabrication or finishing operations in
one of the following 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.
    (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 at all times.
    (1) A dry abrasive blasting metal fabrication or finishing affected
source is the collection of all equipment and activities necessary to
perform dry abrasive blasting operations, which use MFHAP or perform
metal fabrication or finishing operations that have the potential to
emit MFHAP.
    (2) A machining metal fabrication or finishing affected source is
the collection of all equipment and activities necessary to perform
machining metal fabrication or finishing operations which use MFHAP or
perform metal fabrication or finishing operations that have the
potential to emit MFHAP.
    (3) A dry grinding and dry polishing with machines metal
fabrication or finishing affected source is the collection of all
equipment and activities necessary to perform dry grinding and dry
polishing with machines metal fabrication or finishing operations which
use MFHAP or perform metal fabrication or finishing operations that
have the potential to emit MFHAP.
    (4) A spray painting metal fabrication or finishing affected source
is the collection of all equipment and activities necessary to perform
spray-applied painting operations on metal substrates using paints
which contain VOHAP or MFHAP. A spray painting metal fabrication or
finishing 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). If you are
subject to the provisions of this subpart, you are not subject to the
provisions of subpart HHHHHH of this part, National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface
Coating Operations at Area Sources, for affected source(s) subject to
the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (5) A welding metal fabrication or finishing affected source is the
collection of all equipment and activities necessary to perform welding
operations which use MFHAP, or perform metal fabrication or finishing
operations that 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, or facility maintenance as defined in Sec.  63.11522,
``Definitions.''
    (g) 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
within two years of the date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register, except for spray painter training required by Sec.
63.11516(d)(8), ``Standards for control of MFHAP in spray painting.''
    (b) If you start up a new affected source after the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, you must achieve
compliance with the provisions in this subpart upon startup of your
affected source.

Standards and Compliance Requirements

Sec.  63. 11516  What are my standards and management practices?

    (a) Dry abrasive blasting metal fabrication or finishing standards.
If you own or operate a new or existing dry abrasive blasting metal
fabrication or finishing affected source you must comply with the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, as
applicable.
    (1) Standards for dry abrasive blasting of objects less than or
equal to 8 feet in any one dimension, performed in totally enclosed and
unvented blast chambers. If you own or operate a new or existing dry
abrasive blasting metal fabrication or finishing affected source which
consists of an abrasive blasting chamber that is totally enclosed and
unvented, as defined in Sec.  63.11522, ``Definitions,'' you must
implement management practices to minimize emissions of MFHAP. These
management practices are the practices specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i)
of this section. You must demonstrate that management practices are
being implemented by complying with the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(1)(ii) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Management practices for totally enclosed and unvented abrasive
blasting chamber affected sources are to:
    (A) Minimize dust generation during emptying of abrasive blasting
enclosures; and
    (B) Operate all equipment associated with dry abrasive blasting
operations according to the manufacturer's instructions.
    (ii) You must perform visual determinations of fugitive emissions
as specified in Sec.  63.11517(b), ``Monitoring Requirements,'' in
close proximity to the total enclosed and unvented dry abrasive
blasting chamber.

    (iii) You must keep a record of all visual determinations of
fugitive emissions along with any corrective actions taken in
accordance with the requirements in Sec.  63.11519(c)(2),
``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.''
    (iv) If visible fugitive emissions are detected, you must comply
with the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1)(iv)(A) and (B) of this
section.
    (A) Perform corrective actions as needed until the visible
emissions are eliminated, at which time you must perform a follow-up
inspection for visible emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.11517(a),
``Monitoring Requirements.'' Corrective actions include, but are not
limited to, inspection and repositioning of the blasting chamber,
adjusting the blasting mechanism, and repairing leaks.
    (B) Report all instances when visible emissions are detected, along
with the corrective actions taken and the results of subsequent follow-
up determinations for visible emissions, along with your annual
compliance report, as required by Sec.  63.11519(b)(5), ``Notification,
recordkeeping, reporting requirements.''
    (2) Standards for dry abrasive blasting of objects less than or
equal to 8 feet in any one dimension, performed in vented enclosures.
If you own or operate a new or existing dry abrasive blasting metal
fabrication or finishing 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) through (v) of this section. As an alternative, dry abrasive
blasting operations for which the items to be blasted exceed 8 feet
(2.4 meters) in any dimension, may be performed outdoors, 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 demonstrate compliance with this requirement
by maintaining a record of the manufacturer's specifications for the
capture and control devices, as specified by the requirements in Sec.
63.11519(c)(4), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.'' If you control emissions with a device other than a
filtration device, you must establish that the alternate control device
is at least equivalent, according to Sec.  63.6(g) of the ``General
Provisions'' to part 63.
    (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 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; and
    (B) You must enclose dusty material storage areas and holding bins,
seal chutes and conveyors; and
    (C) You must operate all equipment associated with dry abrasive
blasting operations according to manufacturer's instructions.
    (iii) To demonstrate that management practices are being
implemented, you must perform visual determinations of fugitive
emissions as specified in Sec.  63.11517(b), ``Monitoring
Requirements,'' at the outlet of the vent or stack to which the dry
abrasive blasting operation and any control system are vented.
    (iv) 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.''
    (v) If visible fugitive emissions are detected, perform corrective
actions as needed until the visible fugitive emissions are eliminated,
at which time you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(2)(v)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) Perform a follow-up inspection for visible fugitive emissions
in accordance with Sec.  63.11517(a), ``Monitoring Requirements.''
Corrective actions include, but are not limited to, inspecting and
replacing filters; and inspecting, repairing, and/or correcting
enclosure and exhaust air flow, so that the enclosure air is directed
into the filtration device.
    (B) 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, along with your annual