Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0010-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: National Emission Standards for Chromium Emissions From Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; Proposed Rule
Posted Date: 2005-11-26T05:00Z

Wednesday,

June
5,
2002
Part
IV
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40
CFR
Part
63
National
Emission
Standards
for
Chromium
Emissions
From
Hard
and
Decorative
Chromium
Electroplating
and
Chromium
Anodizing
Tanks;
Proposed
Rule
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
17:
50
Jun
04,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
05JNP3.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
05JNP3
38810
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
108
/
Wednesday,
June
5,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
63
[AD–
FRL–
7221–
7]

RIN
2060–
AH69
National
Emission
Standards
for
Chromium
Emissions
From
Hard
and
Decorative
Chromium
Electroplating
and
Chromium
Anodizing
Tanks
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA).

ACTION:
Proposed
rule;
amendments.

SUMMARY:
On
January
25,
1995,
the
EPA
issued
national
emission
standards
under
section
112
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(CAA)
for
Hard
and
Decorative
Chromium
Electroplating
and
Chromium
Anodizing
Tanks.
We
are
proposing
new
requirements
that
accommodate
the
use
of
fume
suppressants
for
controlling
chromium
emissions
from
hard
chromium
electroplating
tanks,
and
an
alternative
standard
to
the
existing
concentration
emission
limit
for
hard
chromium
electroplating
tanks
equipped
with
enclosing
hoods.
We
are
proposing
to
change
the
definition
of
chromium
electroplating
and
anodizing
tank
to
include
all
ancillary
equipment
necessary
to
accomplish
electroplating
or
anodizing
so
that
existing
electroplaters
and
anodizers
do
not
become
subject
to
new
source
standards
due
to
unintended
reconstruction
determinations.
We
are
proposing
to
amend
the
monitoring
requirements
for
composite
mesh
pads
by
expanding
the
acceptable
pressure
drop
range
and
proposing
revisions
to
several
definitions
to
improve
clarity
and
consistency.

DATES:
Comments.
Submit
comments
on
or
before
August
5,
2002.
Public
Hearing.
If
anyone
contacts
the
EPA
requesting
to
speak
at
a
public
hearing
by
June
25,
2002,
a
public
hearing
will
be
held
on
July
5,
2002.

ADDRESSES:
Comments.
By
U.
S.
Postal
Service,
send
comments
(in
duplicate
if
possible)
to:
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center
(6102),
Attention
Docket
Number
A–
88–
02,
U.
S.
EPA,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460.
In
person
or
by
courier,
deliver
comments
(in
duplicate
if
possible)
to:
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center
(6102),
Attention
Docket
Number
A–
88–
02,
Room
M–
1500,
U.
S.
EPA,
401
M
Street,
SW,
Washington,
DC
20460.
The
EPA
requests
a
separate
copy
also
be
sent
to
the
contact
person
listed
below
(see
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Public
Hearing.
If
a
public
hearing
is
held,
it
will
be
held
at
the
new
EPA
facility
complex
in
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
beginning
at
10
a.
m.
Docket.
Docket
No.
A–
88–
02
contains
supporting
information
used
in
developing
the
standards.
The
docket
is
located
at
the
U.
S.
EPA,
401
M
Street
SW,
Washington,
DC
20460
in
Room
M–
1500,
Waterside
Mall
(ground
floor),
and
may
be
inspected
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
5:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Mr.
Phil
Mulrine,
Metals
Group,
Emission
Standards
Division
(C439–
02),
U.
S.
EPA,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
telephone
number
(919)
541–
5289,
electronic
mail
address:
mulrine.
phil@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
Comments.
Comments
and
data
may
be
submitted
by
electronic
mail
(e­
mail)
to:
a­
and­
r­
docket@
epa.
gov.
Electronic
comments
must
be
submitted
as
an
ASCII
file
to
avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
encryption
problems
and
will
also
be
accepted
on
disks
in
WordPerfect
 
format.
All
comments
and
data
submitted
in
electronic
form
must
note
the
docket
number:
A–
88–
02.
No
confidential
business
information
(CBI)
should
be
submitted
by
e­
mail.
Electronic
comments
may
be
filed
online
at
many
Federal
Depository
Libraries.
Commenters
wishing
to
submit
proprietary
information
for
consideration
must
clearly
distinguish
such
information
from
other
comments
and
clearly
label
it
as
CBI.
Send
submissions
containing
such
proprietary
information
directly
to
the
following
address,
and
not
to
the
public
docket,
to
ensure
that
proprietary
information
is
not
inadvertently
placed
in
the
docket:
U.
S.
EPA,
OAQPS
Document
Control
Officer
(C404–
02),
Attention:
Phil
Mulrine,
Metals
Group,
Emission
Standards
Division
(C439–
02),
U.
S.
EPA,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711.
The
EPA
will
disclose
information
identified
as
CBI
only
to
the
extent
allowed
by
the
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.
If
no
claim
of
confidentiality
accompanies
a
submission
when
it
is
received
by
the
EPA,
the
information
may
be
made
available
to
the
public
without
further
notice
to
the
commenter.
Public
Hearing.
Persons
interested
in
presenting
oral
testimony
or
inquiring
as
to
whether
a
hearing
is
to
be
held
should
contact
Ms.
Cassie
Posey,
Metals
Group,
Emission
Standards
Division,
(C439–
02),
U.
S.
EPA,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
telephone
number
(919)
541–
0069
in
advance
of
the
public
hearing.
Persons
interested
in
attending
the
public
hearing
should
also
call
Ms.
Cassie
Posey
to
verify
the
time,
date,
and
location
of
the
hearing.
The
public
hearing
will
provide
interested
parties
the
opportunity
to
present
data,
views,
or
arguments
concerning
these
proposed
amendments.
Docket.
The
docket
is
an
organized
and
complete
file
of
all
the
information
considered
by
the
EPA
in
the
development
of
this
rulemaking.
The
docket
is
a
dynamic
file
because
material
is
added
throughout
the
rulemaking
process.
The
docketing
system
is
intended
to
allow
members
of
the
public
and
industries
involved
to
readily
identify
and
locate
documents
so
that
they
can
effectively
participate
in
the
rulemaking
process.
Along
with
the
proposed
and
promulgated
standards
and
their
preambles,
the
contents
of
the
docket
will
serve
as
the
record
in
the
case
of
judicial
review.
(See
section
307(
d)(
7)(
A)
of
the
CAA.)
The
regulatory
text
and
other
materials
related
to
this
rulemaking
are
available
for
review
in
the
docket
or
copies
may
be
mailed
on
request
from
the
Air
Docket
by
calling
(202)
260–
7548.
A
reasonable
fee
may
be
charged
for
copying
docket
materials.
World
Wide
Web
(WWW).
In
addition
to
being
available
in
the
docket,
an
electronic
copy
of
the
proposed
amendments
will
also
be
available
on
the
WWW
through
the
Technology
Transfer
Network
(TTN).
Following
signature,
a
copy
of
the
proposed
rule
will
be
posted
on
the
TTN's
policy
and
guidance
page
for
newly
proposed
or
promulgated
rules
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
oarpg.
The
TTN
provides
information
and
technology
exchange
in
various
areas
of
air
pollution
control.
If
more
information
regarding
the
TTN
is
needed,
call
the
TTN
HELP
line
at
(919)
541–
5384.
Regulated
Entities.
Entities
potentially
regulated
by
this
action
include
facilities
engaged
in
chromium
electroplating,
hard
and
decorative,
or
chromium
anodizing
of
metal
or
plastic
parts
either
as
a
primary
activity
or
as
an
activity
incidental
to
a
larger
fabricating
or
manufacturing
establishment.
Regulated
categories
and
entities
include
sources
listed
under
the
North
American
Information
Classification
System
(NAICS)
U.
S.
Industries
code
332813,
as
well
as
sources
listed
under
numerous
industry
codes
within
the
industry
subsector
titled
``
Fabricated
Metal
Product
Manufacturing.
''

VerDate
May<
23>
2002
18:
06
Jun
04,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
05JNP3.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
05JNP3
38811
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
108
/
Wednesday,
June
5,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
This
description
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
action.
To
determine
whether
your
facility
is
regulated
by
this
action,
you
should
examine
the
applicability
criteria
in
§
63.340
of
the
current
standard
promulgated
on
January
25,
1995
(60
FR
4963).
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
in
the
preceding
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.
Outline.
The
information
presented
in
this
preamble
is
organized
as
follows:

I.
Background
A.
What
are
the
requirements
of
the
current
rule?
B.
Do
the
proposed
amendments
apply
to
me?
II.
Summary
of
the
Proposed
Amendments
III.
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Amendments
A.
The
Use
of
Fume
Suppressants
for
Controlling
Chromium
Emissions
from
Hard
Chromium
Electroplating
Tanks
B.
Revised
Surface
Tension
Limit
When
Measuring
Surface
Tension
with
a
Tensiometer
C.
Hard
Chromium
Electroplating
Facilities
Which
Operate
Tanks
Equipped
with
Enclosing
Hoods
D.
Chromium
Electroplating
and
Chromium
Anodizing
Tank
Definitions
E.
Pressure
Drop
Monitoring
Requirement
for
Composite
Mesh
Pads
IV.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
C.
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
D.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
E.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
F.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(RFA),
as
Amended
by
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Act
of
1996
(SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.
G.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
H.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
I.
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution
or
Use
I.
Background
A.
What
Are
the
Requirements
of
the
Current
Rule?
The
current
national
emission
standards
for
chromium
emissions
from
hard
and
decorative
chromium
electroplating
and
chromium
anodizing
tanks
were
promulgated
on
January
25,
1995
(60
FR
4963).
In
that
rule,
EPA
established
different
standards
for
small
and
large
facilities
which
operate
hard
chromium
electroplating
tanks.
The
standard
for
existing
hard
chromium
electroplating
tanks
at
small
facilities
limits
the
concentration
of
chromium
air
emissions
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
to
0.03
milligrams
of
total
chromium
per
dry
standard
cubic
meter
(mg/
dscm).
A
hard
chromium
electroplating
facility
is
considered
small
if
its
maximum
rectifier
capacity
is
less
than
60
million
ampere­
hours
per
year
(amp­
hr/
yr).
The
standard
for
new
sources
and
existing
hard
chromium
electroplating
tanks
at
large
facilities
is
0.015
mg/
dscm.
A
performance
test
must
be
conducted
to
demonstrate
compliance.
In
addition,
the
rule
includes
operation,
maintenance,
and
monitoring
requirements
for
the
control
devices.
The
standard
for
new
and
existing
decorative
chromium
electroplating
tanks
and
new
and
existing
chromium
anodizing
tanks
is
0.01
mg/
dscm.
Decorative
chromium
electroplating
and
chromium
anodizing
tanks
using
a
fume
suppressant
for
controlling
emissions
can
elect
to
maintain
the
surface
tension
of
the
plating
solution
at
45
dynes
per
centimeter
(dynes/
cm)
or
less
as
an
alternative
standard.
Sources
can
choose
to
monitor
the
surface
tension
of
the
plating
solution
instead
of
conducting
a
performance
test.

B.
Do
the
Proposed
Amendments
Apply
to
Me?
The
amendments
contained
in
today's
proposed
rule
may
apply
to
you
if
your
facility
meets
any
of
the
following
criteria:
 
Your
facility
operates
a
hard
chromium
electroplating
tank
and
uses
fume
suppressants
for
emission
control.
 
Your
facility
operates
an
enclosed
hard
chromium
electroplating
tank.
 
Your
facility
is
considering
replacing
a
chromium
electroplating
or
anodizing
tank
and
is
concerned
about
triggering
a
reconstruction
determination.
 
Your
facility
operates
a
composite
mesh
pad
control
system
for
emission
control.
 
Your
facility
operates
a
decorative
chromium
electroplating
tank
or
chromium
anodizing
tank
that
uses
fume
suppressants
for
emission
control
and
uses
a
tensiometer
to
measure
surface
tension.

II.
Summary
of
the
Proposed
Amendments
The
proposed
amendments
would
allow
hard
chromium
electroplating
facilities
using
fume
suppressants
for
emission
control
to
meet
a
surface
tension
limit
similar
to
the
requirements
for
decorative
chromium
electroplating
and
chromium
anodizing
facilities
instead
of
the
present
requirement
to
meet
an
emission
limit.
Facilities
choosing
to
use
fume
suppressants
for
emission
control
would
be
required
to
monitor
the
surface
tension
at
the
same
frequency
currently
required
for
decorative
chromium
and
chromium
anodizing
tanks
and
demonstrate
compliance
with
either
one
of
two
surface
tension
operating
limits:
45
dynes/
cm
if
measured
with
a
stalagmometer,
or
35
dynes/
cm
if
measured
with
a
tensiometer.
The
proposed
amendments
would
allow
affected
facilities
which
operate
hard
chromium
electroplating
tanks
equipped
with
enclosing
hoods
the
option
of
meeting
an
alternative
and
equivalent,
site
specific
mass
rate
emission
limit
instead
of
the
present
concentration
limit.
An
affected
facility
would
have
the
option
of
meeting
the
alternative
standard
if
the
affected
tank
is
equipped
with
an
enclosing
hood,
and
the
ventilation
is
no
more
than
half
the
rate
of
a
comparable
open
surface
tank
of
the
same
surface
area
equipped
with
conventional
hooding
and
ventilation.
The
proposed
amendments
would
change
the
chromium
electroplating
or
anodizing
tank
definition
to
include
all
the
ancillary
components
necessary
to
accomplish
electroplating
or
anodizing.
Specifically,
the
definition
of
tank
would
be
expanded
to
include
ancillary
components
such
as
rectifiers,
anodes,
heat
exchanger
equipment,
circulation
pumps
and
air
agitation
systems.
These
components
would
then
be
included
in
the
50
percent
fixed
capital
cost
calculation
for
determining
reconstruction.
The
proposed
amendments
would
change
the
operating
limit
for
pressure
drop
across
composite
mesh
pad
control
devices.
The
current
standard
requires
composite
mesh
pad
devices
to
be
operated
at
all
times
within
±
1
inch
of
water
column
of
the
pressure
drop
value
established
during
an
initial
or
subsequent
performance
test.
We
are
proposing
to
change
this
operating
limit
from
±
1
inch
to
±
2
inches.

III.
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Amendments
A.
The
Use
of
Fume
Suppressants
for
Controlling
Chromium
Emissions
From
Hard
Chromium
Electroplating
Tanks
This
change
is
being
proposed
in
response
to
recommendations
made
by
the
Common
Sense
Initiative
(CSI)
metal
finishing
subcommittee
and
research
conducted
by
EPA's
Office
of
Research
and
Development
(ORD).
The
CSI
was
established
to
bring
together
a
broad
spectrum
of
stakeholders
to
advise,
consult
with
and
make
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
10:
52
Jun
04,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
05JNP3.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
05JNP3
38812
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
108
/
Wednesday,
June
5,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
recommendations
on
matters
pertaining
to
improving
the
Nation's
pollution
prevention
and
control
programs.
Metal
finishing
was
one
of
six
industry
sectors
for
which
CSI
subcommittees
were
convened.
Participants
included
independent
experts
selected
from
among
the
national
and
local
environmental
interest
groups,
industry,
State
and
local
governments,
and
other
stakeholders
such
as
labor
organizations,
environmental
justice
organizations,
and
the
Federal
government.
The
CSI
metal
finishing
subcommittee
has
overseen
several
studies
designed
to
identify
cleaner,
cheaper,
and
smarter
ways
for
the
metal
finishing
industry
to
achieve
environmental
compliance.
Among
these
were
studies
performed
by
EPA's
ORD
to
demonstrate
that
new
generation
fume
suppressants
applied
to
hard
chromium
electroplating
operations
are
a
viable
alternative
to
tank
ventilation
and
air
pollution
control
devices.
The
first
study
evaluated
using
fume
suppressants
in
conjunction
with
air
pollution
control
devices.
The
dramatic
results
in
terms
of
emission
reduction
led
to
a
second
study
which
examined
the
effectiveness
of
fume
suppressants
independent
of
air
pollution
control
devices.
The
study
results
clearly
demonstrate
that
these
commercially
available
fume
suppressants
are
very
effective
in
suppressing
misting
and,
thus,
limiting
chromium
emissions
from
hard
chromium
electroplating
tanks.
In
addition,
the
studies
demonstrate
that
fume
suppressants
can
be
used
without
adverse
impact
on
plating
quality,
which
historically
has
been
a
major
concern
for
this
industry
and
an
impediment
to
their
use.
The
use
of
fume
suppressants
is
a
highly
cost­
effective
pollution
prevention
approach
which
enables
hard
chromium
electroplaters
to
meet
the
standards
with
little
or
no
additional
capital
investment.
Like
decorative
chromium
electroplating
and
chromium
anodizing
facilities,
hard
chromium
electroplating
facilities
would
now
be
allowed
to
monitor
surface
tension
to
demonstrate
compliance
in
lieu
of
performance
testing.
The
surface
tension
would
be
limited
to
45
dynes/
cm
when
measured
by
a
stalagmometer
or
35
dynes/
cm
when
measured
by
a
tensiometer.

B.
Revised
Surface
Tension
Limit
When
Measuring
Surface
Tension
With
a
Tensiometer
The
35
dynes/
cm
limit
when
measured
by
a
tensiometer
is
a
new
requirement
we
are
proposing
which
would
apply
to
any
affected
facility,
whether
it
be
a
decorative
chromium
electroplating
facility,
a
hard
chromium
electroplating
facility,
or
a
chromium
anodizing
facility
that
elects
to
measure
surface
tension
using
a
tensiometer.
The
current
standard
has
a
surface
tension
limit
of
45
dynes/
cm
regardless
of
the
instrument
used
to
make
the
measurement.
During
the
development
of
the
45
dynes/
cm
standard,
all
surface
tension
measurements
were
made
with
a
stalagmometer.
Since
the
promulgation
of
the
standards,
we
have
become
aware
of
differences
in
the
surface
tension
measurement
depending
on
whether
the
measurement
is
made
using
a
stalagmometer
or
a
tensiometer.
The
aforementioned
study
performed
by
EPA's
ORD
observed
that
surface
tension
measurements
made
with
a
tensiometer
were
typically
about
20
percent
lower
than
measurements
of
the
same
plating
bath
with
a
stalagmometer.
Measurements
made
with
both
a
tensiometer
and
stalagmometer
over
a
range
of
different
surface
tension
levels
showed
that
the
two
devices
measurements
varied
at
different
surface
tension
values.
We
believe
that
the
proposed
new
limit
for
the
tensiometer
is
comparable
to
the
existing
limit
when
measured
with
a
stalagmometer.
Therefore,
we
are
proposing
to
add
a
new
alternative
requirement
of
35
dynes/
cm
to
the
45
dyne/
cm
standard
for
hard
chromium
electroplating,
decorative
chromium
electroplating
and
chromium
anodizing
facilities
that
measure
surface
tension
using
a
tensiometer.

C.
Hard
Chromium
Electroplating
Facilities
Which
Operate
Tanks
Equipped
With
Enclosing
Hoods
Since
the
promulgation
of
the
standards,
we
have
become
aware
of
several
sources
that
are
experiencing
difficulty
in
complying
with
the
concentration
emission
limit
for
new
sources,
even
though
they
have
installed
and
are
operating
composite
mesh
pad
scrubbers
similar
or
identical
to
those
used
as
the
basis
for
the
concentration
limit.
These
sources
operate
new
stateof
the­
art
plating
tanks
not
encountered
during
rule
development
which
feature
enclosing
hoods
that
completely
cover
the
surface
of
the
plating
tank.
The
covered
tank
design
allows
for
effective
capture
and
ventilation
at
substantially
lower
ventilation
rates
than
otherwise
encountered
with
more
conventional
hooding.
Tanks
with
conventional
hooding
typically
require
250
cubic
feet
of
ventilation
air
per
minute
per
square
foot
of
plating
tank
surface
area,
while
tanks
equipped
with
enclosing
hoods
typically
require
less
than
100
cubic
feet
per
minute
per
square
foot
of
plating
tank
surface
area.
Consequently,
although
these
sources
often
exceed
the
concentration
limit
of
0.015
mg/
dscm,
actual
mass
rate
(pounds
per
hour)
emissions
are
typically
half
or
less
than
the
mass
rate
which
would
otherwise
be
achieved
by
a
complying
source
with
the
same
size
tank
and
workload
with
conventional
hooding
and
ventilation
rates.
To
address
this
problem,
we
are
proposing
procedures
for
demonstrating
equivalent
performance
by
establishing
an
alternative
mass
rate
emission
limit
for
these
sources.

D.
Chromium
Electroplating
and
Chromium
Anodizing
Tank
Definitions
At
least
in
one
instance,
the
existing
regulations
have
led
to
the
determination
that
tank
replacement
was
considered
a
reconstruction.
The
final
rule
was
interpreted
to
mean
that
a
facility
replacing
an
electroplating
tank
(i.
e.,
the
receptacle
or
container
in
which
chromium
electroplating
occurs)
would
qualify
as
a
reconstructed
source
and,
therefore,
must
comply
with
new
source
standards
according
to
the
provisions
for
reconstructed
sources
prescribed
in
§
63.5
of
the
General
Provisions
to
40
CFR
part
63.
This
is
an
unintended
and
unforeseen
outcome.
Furthermore,
tank
replacements
are
considered
routine
preventive
maintenance.
If
sources
were
subject
to
change
from
existing
to
new
source
standards
due
to
tank
replacement,
there
would
be
a
disincentive
to
replacements
of
tanks
until
a
failure
occurred
which
obviously
would
be
more
detrimental
to
the
environment.
Reconstruction
means
the
replacement
of
components
of
an
affected
source
to
such
an
extent
that
the
fixed
capital
cost
of
the
new
components
exceeds
50
percent
of
the
fixed
capital
cost
that
would
be
required
to
construct
a
comparable
new
source.
Upon
reconstruction,
an
existing
affected
source
becomes
subject
to
relevant
standards
for
new
sources
irrespective
of
any
change
in
emissions
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
from
that
source.
The
chromium
electroplating
standards
designate
each
electroplating
or
anodizing
tank
as
an
affected
source.
Furthermore,
chromium
electroplating
or
chromium
anodizing
tanks
are
defined
as
the
receptacle
or
container
in
which
hard
or
decorative
chromium
electroplating
or
chromium
anodizing
occurs.
It
has
come
to
our
attention
that
the
designation
of
source
coupled
with
the
definition
of
``
chromium
electroplating
or
chromium
anodizing
tank''
as
currently
written
may
lead
to
an
unintended
determination
that
tank
replacement
alone
qualifies
as
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
10:
52
Jun
04,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
05JNP3.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
05JNP3
38813
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
108
/
Wednesday,
June
5,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
reconstruction,
causing
the
new
tank
to
be
subject
to
new
source
standards.
The
intent
of
the
standards
is
to
limit
chromium
emissions
from
chromium
electroplating
and
anodizing
processes.
A
hard
chromium
electroplating
facility
needs
many
other
components
and
ancillary
equipment
in
addition
to
the
plating
tank.
The
minimum
equipment
needed
for
even
a
small
hard
chromium
electroplating
process
would
include
the
following:
an
electroplating
tank,
rectifiers,
anodes,
heat
exchanger
equipment,
circulation
pumps
and
air
agitation
systems.
Similarly,
decorative
chromium
electroplating
and
chromium
anodizing
facilities
include
many
other
components
in
addition
to
the
tank.
Therefore,
the
50
percent
fixed
capital
cost
trigger
for
determining
reconstruction
should
be
measured
against
all
equipment
components
needed
to
achieve
plating
or
anodizing.
In
most
cases,
similar
tank
replacement
should
be
considered
routine
preventive
maintenance
and
not
trigger
a
reconstruction
determination
in
and
of
itself.
We
are,
therefore,
proposing
revisions
to
the
definitions
to
clarify
this
intent.

E.
Pressure
Drop
Monitoring
Requirement
for
Composite
Mesh
Pads
Since
the
promulgation
of
the
standards,
we
have
been
informed
of
many
sources
that
are
experiencing
difficulty
in
complying
with
the
standards'
pressure
drop
operating
limit
for
composite
mesh
pad
control
devices.
The
current
operating
limit
requires
composite
mesh
pad
devices
to
be
operated
at
all
times
within
±
1
inch
of
water
column
of
the
pressure
drop
value
established
during
the
initial
performance
test.
The
most
common
problem
encountered
occurs
when
a
pad
is
cleaned
or
replaced.
The
cleaner
or
newer
pad
often
operates
at
a
pressure
drop
outside
of
the
allowed
range
causing
the
source
to
be
out
of
compliance
with
the
operating
limit.
We
have
obtained
results
of
numerous
performance
tests
conducted
at
several
different
facilities
that
clearly
demonstrate
that
sources
can
meet
the
emission
limit
even
though
the
pressure
drop
is
outside
the
±
1
inch
allowable
range.
We
solicited
and
received
information
from
a
manufacturer
and
major
supplier
of
composite
mesh
pad
devices
indicating
that
a
more
appropriate
value
for
the
pressure
drop
operating
limit
would
be
±
1.5
or
±
2
inches
of
water
column.
Consequently,
we
are
proposing
to
change
the
current
operating
limit
from
±
1
inch
to
±
2
inches.
IV.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
the
EPA
must
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and,
therefore,
subject
to
review
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(OMB)
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Executive
Order
defines
``
significant
regulatory
action''
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(2)
create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(3)
materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs,
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(4)
raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.
Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
it
has
been
determined
that
this
regulatory
action
is
not
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
because
none
of
the
listed
criteria
apply
to
this
action.
Consequently,
this
action
was
not
submitted
to
OMB
for
review
under
Executive
Order
12866.

B.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
``
Federalism''
(64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.
''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.
''
The
proposed
amendments
do
not
have
federalism
implications.
None
of
the
affected
facilities
are
owned
or
operated
by
State
governments,
and
the
proposed
amendments
would
not
preempt
any
State
laws
that
are
more
stringent.
Therefore,
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.
In
addition,
the
amendments
if
implemented
as
proposed,
will
not
impose
any
substantial
direct
compliance
costs.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
proposal.
Although
section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply,
we
consulted
with
State
and
local
officials
in
developing
this
proposal,
as
noted
above
in
section
III
A.
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
comments
on
this
proposed
rule
amendment
from
State
and
local
officials.

C.
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
``
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments''
(65
FR
67249,
November
9,
2000),
requires
the
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.
''
``
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
the
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes.
''
The
proposed
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
the
proposed
rule.
In
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13175
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
tribal
governments,
EPA
specifically
solicits
additional
comment
on
the
proposed
rule
from
tribal
officials.

D.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045
(62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(1)
Is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant,
''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(2)
concerns
an
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
10:
52
Jun
04,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
05JNP3.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
05JNP3
38814
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
108
/
Wednesday,
June
5,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
EPA
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.
The
EPA
interprets
Executive
Order
13045
as
applying
only
to
those
regulatory
actions
that
are
based
on
health
or
safety
risks
such
that
the
analysis
required
under
section
5–
501
of
the
Executive
Order
has
the
potential
to
influence
the
regulation.
The
proposed
amendments
are
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
they
are
technology
based
and
not
based
on
health
or
safety
risks.
No
children's
risk
analysis
was
performed
because
no
alternative
technologies
exist
that
would
provide
greater
stringency
at
a
reasonable
cost.
Further,
the
proposed
amendments
have
been
determined
not
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866.

E.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(UMRA),
Public
Law
104–
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
the
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
costbenefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
by
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$100
million
or
more
in
any
1
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
the
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
costeffective
or
least­
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
the
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
leastcostly
most
cost­
effective,
or
leastburdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
the
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
The
EPA
has
determined
that
the
proposed
amendments
do
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
estimated
costs
of
$100
million
or
more
to
either
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector
in
any
1
year.
Thus,
today's
proposed
amendments
are
not
subject
to
sections
202
and
205
of
the
UMRA.
In
addition,
the
EPA
has
determined
that
the
proposed
amendments
contain
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments
because
it
contains
no
requirements
that
apply
to
such
governments
or
impose
obligations
upon
them.
Therefore,
today's
proposed
amendments
are
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
section
203
of
the
UMRA.

F.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(RFA),
as
Amended
by
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Act
of
1996
(SBREFA)
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.
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
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
amendments
on
small
entities,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
In
determining
whether
a
rule
has
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
the
impact
of
concern
is
any
significant
adverse
economic
impact
on
small
entities,
since
the
primary
purpose
of
the
regulatory
flexibility
analyses
is
to
identify
and
address
regulatory
alternatives
``
which
minimize
any
significant
economic
impact
of
the
proposed
rule
amendments
on
small
entities''
(5
U.
S.
C.
603
and
604).
Thus,
an
agency
may
certify
that
a
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
if
the
rule
relieves
regulatory
burden,
or
otherwise
has
a
positive
effect
on
the
small
entities
subject
to
the
rule.
The
amendments
proposed
in
today's
action
only
provide
options
designed
to
provide
facilities
with
increased
flexibility.
The
proposed
amendments
will
not
impose
any
additional
requirements
on
any
small
entities
and
is
expected
to
relieve
burden
for
some
small
entities.
We
continue
to
be
interested
in
the
potential
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities
and
welcome
comments
on
issues
related
to
such
impacts.

G.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
This
action
does
not
impose
any
new
information
collection
burden.
The
proposed
amendments
provide
owners
and
operators
alternatives
to
existing
requirements.
The
existing
alternatives
will
still
be
available
for
those
owners
and
operators
that
choose
to
use
them.
The
26
amendments
we
are
proposing
will
increase
the
flexibility
of
compliance
with
the
current
regulations
without
imposing
any
additional
recordkeeping
requirements.
The
OMB
has
previously
approved
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
the
final
chromium
electroplating
rule
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
and
assigned
the
OMB
control
number
2060–
0327.
A
copy
of
the
information
collection
request
(ICR)
support
document
prepared
by
EPA
for
the
approved
information
collection
requirements
(ICR
No.
1611.02)
may
be
obtained
from
Sandy
Farmer
by
mail
at
the
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Collection
Strategies
Division
(2822),
U.
S.
EPA,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460,
by
e­
mail
at
farmer.
sandy@
epa.
gov,
or
by
calling
(202)
260–
2740.
A
copy
also
may
be
downloaded
off
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr.
Include
the
ICR
and/
or
OMB
number
in
any
correspondence.
These
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
are
specifically
authorized
by
section
112
of
the
CAA
(42
U.
S.
C.
7414).
All
information
submitted
to
the
EPA
pursuant
to
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
which
a
claim
of
confidentiality
is
made
is
safeguarded
according
to
Agency
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2,
subpart
B.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,

VerDate
May<
23>
2002
10:
52
Jun
04,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00006
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
05JNP3.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
05JNP3
38815
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
108
/
Wednesday,
June
5,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
Agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.

H.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(NTTAA),
Public
Law
104–
113,
section
12(
d)
(15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
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.
The
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
does
not
involve
technical
standards
other
than
those
already
specified
in
the
final
rule.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
considering
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.

I.
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution
or
Use
The
proposed
rule
amendments
are
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211
(66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001)
because
they
are
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
63
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedures,
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
substances,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated:
May
23,
2002.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.

For
reasons
stated
in
the
preamble,
title
40,
chapter
I,
part
63
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
proposed
to
be
amended
as
follows:

PART
63—[
AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart
N—[
AMENDED]

2.
Section
63.341
is
amended
by
removing
the
definition
Chromium
electroplating
or
chromium
anodizing
tank,
adding
definitions
for
Chromium
anodizing
tank,
Chromium
electroplating
tank,
Enclosed
hard
chromium
electroplating
tank,
Open
surface
hard
chromium
electroplating
tank,
and
by
revising
the
definitions
for
Stalagmometer
and
Tensiometer,
to
read
as
follows:

§
63.341
Definitions
and
nomenclature.
(a)
*
*
*
Chromium
anodizing
tank
means
the
receptacle
or
container
along
with
the
following
accompanying
internal
and
external
components
needed
for
chromium
anodizing:
rectifiers
fitted
with
controls
to
allow
for
voltage
adjustments,
heat
exchanger
equipment,
circulation
pumps
and
air
agitation
systems.
Chromium
electroplating
tank
means
the
receptacle
or
container
along
with
the
following
internal
and
external
components
needed
for
chromium
electroplating:
rectifiers,
anodes,
heat
exchanger
equipment,
circulation
pumps
and
air
agitation
systems.
*
*
*
*
*
Enclosed
hard
chromium
electroplating
tank
means
a
chromium
electroplating
tank
that
is
equipped
with
an
enclosing
hood
and
ventilated
at
half
the
rate
or
less
that
of
an
open
surface
tank
of
the
same
surface
area.
*
*
*
*
*
Open
surface
hard
chromium
electroplating
tank
means
a
chromium
electroplating
tank
that
is
ventilated
at
a
rate
consistent
with
good
ventilation
practices
for
open
tanks.
*
*
*
*
*
Stalagmometer
means
an
instrument
used
to
measure
the
surface
tension
of
a
solution
by
determining
the
mass
of
a
drop
of
liquid
by
weighing
a
known
number
of
drops
or
by
counting
the
number
of
drops
obtained
from
a
given
volume
of
liquid.
*
*
*
*
*
Tensiometer
means
an
instrument
used
to
measure
the
surface
tension
of
a
solution
by
determining
the
amount
of
force
needed
to
pull
a
ring
from
the
liquid
surface.
The
amount
of
force
is
proportional
to
the
surface
tension.
*
*
*
*
*
3.
Section
63.342
is
amended
by:
a.
Revising
paragraph
(b),
b.
Revising
paragraph
(c),
c.
Revising
paragraph
(d)(
2),
and
d.
Revising
paragraph
(f)(
2)(
ii)(
B).
The
revisions
read
as
follows:

§
63.342
Standards.

*
*
*
*
*
(b)
Applicability
of
emission
limitations.
(1)
The
emission
limitations
in
this
section
apply
during
tank
operation
as
defined
in
§
63.341,
and
during
periods
of
startup
and
shutdown
as
these
are
routine
occurrences
for
affected
sources
subject
to
this
subpart.
The
emission
limitations
do
not
apply
during
periods
of
malfunction,
but
the
work
practice
standards
that
address
operation
and
maintenance
and
that
are
required
by
paragraph
(f)
of
this
section
must
be
followed
during
malfunctions.
*
*
*
*
*
(c)(
1)
Standards
for
open
surface
hard
chromium
electroplating
tanks.
During
tank
operation,
each
owner
or
operator
of
an
existing,
new,
or
reconstructed
affected
source
shall
control
chromium
emissions
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
from
that
affected
source
by
either:
(i)
Not
allowing
the
concentration
of
total
chromium
in
the
exhaust
gas
stream
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
to
exceed
0.015
milligrams
of
total
chromium
per
dry
standard
cubic
meter
(mg/
dscm)
of
ventilation
air
(6.6
×
10
¥
6
grains
per
dry
standard
cubic
foot
(gr/
dscf))
for
all
open
surface
hard
chromium
electroplating
tanks
that
are
affected
sources
other
than
those
that
are
existing
affected
sources
located
at
small
hard
chromium
electroplating
facilities;
or
(ii)
Not
allowing
the
concentration
of
total
chromium
in
the
exhaust
gas
stream
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
to
exceed
0.03
mg/
dscm
(1.3
×
10
¥
5
gr/
dscf)
if
the
open
surface
hard
chromium
electroplating
tank
is
an
existing
affected
source
and
is
located
at
a
small,
hard
chromium
electroplating
facility;
or
(iii)
If
a
chemical
fume
suppressant
containing
a
wetting
agent
is
used,
by
not
allowing
the
surface
tension
of
the
electroplating
or
anodizing
bath
contained
within
the
affected
tank
to
exceed
45
dynes
per
centimeter
(dynes/
cm)
(3.1
×
10
¥
3
pound­
force
per
foot
(lbf/
ft))
as
measured
by
a
stalagmometer
or
35
dynes/
cm
(2.4
×
10
¥
3
lbf/
ft)
as
measured
by
a
tensiometer
at
any
time
during
tank
operation.

VerDate
May<
23>
2002
18:
06
Jun
04,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00007
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
05JNP3.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
05JNP3
38816
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
108
/
Wednesday,
June
5,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
(2)
Standards
for
enclosed
hard
chromium
electroplating
tanks.
During
tank
operation,
each
owner
or
operator
of
an
existing,
new,
or
reconstructed
affected
source
shall
control
chromium
emissions
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
from
that
affected
source
by
either:
(i)
Not
allowing
the
concentration
of
total
chromium
in
the
exhaust
gas
stream
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
to
exceed
0.015
mg/
dscm
(6.6
×
10
¥
6
gr/
dscf)
for
all
enclosed
hard
chromium
electroplating
tanks
that
are
affected
sources
other
than
those
that
are
existing
affected
sources
located
at
small
hard
chromium
electroplating
facilities;
or
(ii)
Not
allowing
the
concentration
of
total
chromium
in
the
exhaust
gas
stream
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
to
exceed
0.03
mg/
dscm
(1.3
×
10
¥
5
gr/
dscf)
if
the
enclosed
hard
chromium
electroplating
tank
is
an
existing
affected
source
and
is
located
at
a
small,
hard
chromium
electroplating
facility;
or
(iii)
If
a
chemical
fume
suppressant
containing
a
wetting
agent
is
used,
by
not
allowing
the
surface
tension
of
the
electroplating
or
anodizing
bath
contained
within
the
affected
tank
to
exceed
45
dynes/
cm
(3.1
×
10
¥
3
lbf/
ft)
as
measured
by
a
stalagmometer
or
35
dynes/
cm
(2.4
×
10
¥
3
lbf/
ft)
as
measured
by
a
tensiometer
at
any
time
during
tank
operation;
or
(iv)
Not
allowing
the
mass
rate
of
total
chromium
in
the
exhaust
gas
stream
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
to
exceed
the
maximum
allowable
mass
emission
rate
determined
by
using
the
calculation
procedure
in
§
63.344(
f)(
1)(
i)
for
all
enclosed
hard
chromium
electroplating
tanks
that
are
affected
sources
other
than
those
that
are
existing
affected
sources
located
at
small
hard
chromium
electroplating
facilities;
or
(v)
Not
allowing
the
mass
rate
of
total
chromium
in
the
exhaust
gas
stream
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
to
exceed
the
maximum
allowable
mass
emission
rate
determined
by
using
the
calculation
procedure
in
§
63.344(
f)(
1)(
ii)
if
the
enclosed
hard
chromium
electroplating
tank
is
an
existing
affected
source
and
is
located
at
a
small,
hard
chromium
electroplating
facility.
(3)(
i)
An
owner
or
operator
may
demonstrate
the
size
of
a
hard
chromium
electroplating
facility
through
the
definitions
in
§
63.341(
a).
Alternatively,
an
owner
or
operator
of
a
facility
with
a
maximum
cumulative
potential
rectifier
capacity
of
60
million
amp­
hr/
yr
or
more
may
be
considered
small
if
the
actual
cumulative
rectifier
capacity
is
less
than
60
million
amp­
hr/
yr
as
demonstrated
using
the
following
procedures:
(A)
If
records
show
that
the
facility's
previous
annual
actual
rectifier
capacity
was
less
than
60
million
amp­
hr/
yr,
by
using
nonresettable
ampere­
hr
meters
and
keeping
monthly
records
of
actual
ampere­
hr
usage
for
each
12­
month
rolling
period
following
the
compliance
date
in
accordance
with
§
63.346(
b)(
12).
The
actual
cumulative
rectifier
capacity
for
the
previous
12­
month
rolling
period
shall
be
tabulated
monthly
by
adding
the
capacity
for
the
current
month
to
the
capacities
for
the
previous
11
months;
or
(B)
By
accepting
a
federallyenforceable
limit
on
the
maximum
cumulative
potential
rectifier
capacity
of
a
hard
chromium
electroplating
facility
and
by
maintaining
monthly
records
in
accordance
with
§
63.346(
b)(
12)
to
demonstrate
that
the
limit
has
not
been
exceeded.
The
actual
cumulative
rectifier
capacity
for
the
previous
12­
month
rolling
period
shall
be
tabulated
monthly
by
adding
the
capacity
for
the
current
month
to
the
capacities
for
the
previous
11
months.
(ii)
Once
the
monthly
records
required
to
be
kept
by
§
63.346(
b)(
12)
and
by
this
paragraph
(c)(
3)(
ii)
show
that
the
actual
cumulative
rectifier
capacity
over
the
previous
12­
month
rolling
period
corresponds
to
the
large
designation,
the
owner
or
operator
is
subject
to
the
emission
limitation
identified
in
paragraph
(c)(
1)(
i),
(iii),
(c)(
2)(
i),
(iii),
or
(iv)
of
this
section,
in
accordance
with
the
compliance
schedule
of
§
63.343(
a)(
5).
*
*
*
*
*
(d)
*
*
*
(2)
If
a
chemical
fume
suppressant
containing
a
wetting
agent
is
used,
by
not
allowing
the
surface
tension
of
the
electroplating
or
anodizing
bath
contained
within
the
affected
source
to
exceed
45
dynes/
cm
(3.1
×
10
¥
3
lbf/
ft)
as
measured
by
a
stalagmometer
or
35
dynes/
cm
(2.4
×
10
¥
3
lbf/
ft)
as
measured
by
a
tensiometer
at
any
time
during
operation
of
the
tank.
*
*
*
*
*
(f)
*
*
*
(2)
*
*
*
(ii)
*
*
*
(B)
Fails
to
provide
for
the
proper
operation
of
the
affected
source,
the
air
pollution
control
techniques,
or
the
control
system
and
process
monitoring
equipment
during
a
malfunction
in
a
manner
consistent
with
good
air
pollution
control
practices;
or
*
*
*
*
*
4.
Section
63.343
is
amended
by:
a.
Revising
paragraph
(b)(
2),
b.
Revising
paragraph
(c)(
1),
c.
Revising
paragraphs
(c)(
5)(
i)
and
(ii).
The
revisions
read
as
follows:

§
63.343
Compliance
provisions.

*
*
*
*
*
(b)
*
*
*
(2)
If
the
owner
or
operator
of
an
affected
source
meets
all
of
the
following
criteria,
an
initial
performance
test
is
not
required
to
be
conducted
under
this
subpart:
(i)
The
affected
source
is
a
hard
chromium
electroplating
tank,
a
decorative
chromium
electroplating
tank
or
a
chromium
anodizing
tank;
and
(ii)
A
wetting
agent
is
used
in
the
plating
or
anodizing
bath
to
inhibit
chromium
emissions
from
the
affected
source;
and
(iii)
The
owner
or
operator
complies
with
the
applicable
surface
tension
limit
of
paragraph
(c)(
1)(
iii),
(c)(
2)(
iii),
or
(d)(
2)
of
§
63.342
as
demonstrated
through
the
continuous
compliance
monitoring
required
by
paragraph
(c)(
5)(
ii)
of
this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(c)
*
*
*
(1)
Composite
mesh­
pad
systems.
(i)
During
the
initial
performance
test,
the
owner
or
operator
of
an
affected
source,
or
a
group
of
affected
sources
under
common
control,
complying
with
the
emission
limitations
in
§
63.342
through
the
use
of
a
composite
mesh­
pad
system
shall
determine
the
outlet
chromium
concentration
using
the
test
methods
and
procedures
in
§
63.344(
c),
and
shall
establish
as
a
site­
specific
operating
parameter
the
pressure
drop
across
the
system,
setting
the
value
that
corresponds
to
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
limitation,
using
the
procedures
in
§
63.344(
d)(
5).
An
owner
or
operator
may
conduct
multiple
performance
tests
to
establish
a
range
of
compliant
pressure
drop
values,
or
may
set
as
the
compliant
value
the
average
pressure
drop
measured
over
the
three
test
runs
of
one
performance
test
and
accept
±
2
inches
of
water
column
from
this
value
as
the
compliant
range.
(ii)
On
and
after
the
date
on
which
the
initial
performance
test
is
required
to
be
completed
under
§
63.7,
except
for
hard
chromium
electroplaters
and
chromium
anodizing
operations
in
California
which
have
until
January
25,
1998,
the
owner
or
operator
of
an
affected
source,
or
group
of
affected
sources
under
common
control,
shall
monitor
and
record
the
pressure
drop
across
the
composite
mesh­
pad
system
once
each
day
that
any
affected
source
is
operating.
To
be
in
compliance
with
the
standards,
the
composite
mesh­
pad
system
shall
be
operated
within
±
2
inches
of
water
column
of
the
pressure
drop
value
established
during
the
initial
performance
test,
or
shall
be
operated
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
10:
52
Jun
04,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00008
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
05JNP3.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
05JNP3
38817
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
108
/
Wednesday,
June
5,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
within
the
range
of
compliant
values
for
pressure
drop
established
during
multiple
performance
tests.
*
*
*
*
*
(5)
Wetting
agent­
type
or
combination
wetting
agent­
type/
foam
blanket
fume
suppressants.
(i)
During
the
initial
performance
test,
the
owner
or
operator
of
an
affected
source
complying
with
the
emission
limitations
in
§
63.342
through
the
use
of
a
wetting
agent
in
the
electroplating
or
anodizing
bath
shall
determine
the
outlet
chromium
concentration
using
the
procedures
in
§
63.344(
c).
The
owner
or
operator
shall
establish
as
the
site­
specific
operating
parameter
the
surface
tension
of
the
bath
using
Method
306B,
appendix
A
of
this
part,
setting
the
maximum
value
that
corresponds
to
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
limitation.
In
lieu
of
establishing
the
maximum
surface
tension
during
the
performance
test,
the
owner
or
operator
may
accept
45
dynes/
cm
as
measured
by
a
stalagmometer
or
35
dynes/
cm
as
measured
by
a
tensiometer
as
the
maximum
surface
tension
value
that
corresponds
to
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
limitation.
However,
the
owner
or
operator
is
exempt
from
conducting
a
performance
test
only
if
the
criteria
of
paragraph
(b)(
2)
of
this
section
are
met.
(ii)
On
and
after
the
date
on
which
the
initial
performance
test
is
required
to
be
completed
under
§
63.7,
except
for
hard
chromium
electroplaters
and
chromium
anodizing
operations
in
California
which
have
until
January
25,
1998,
the
owner
or
operator
of
an
affected
source
shall
monitor
the
surface
tension
of
the
electroplating
or
anodizing
bath.
Operation
of
the
affected
source
at
a
surface
tension
greater
than
the
value
established
during
the
performance
test,
or
greater
than
45
dynes/
cm
as
measured
by
a
stalagmometer
or
35
dynes/
cm
as
measured
by
a
tensiometer
if
the
owner
or
operator
is
using
this
value
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(c)(
5)(
i)
of
this
section,
shall
constitute
noncompliance
with
the
standards.
The
surface
tension
shall
be
monitored
according
to
the
following
schedule:
(A)
The
surface
tension
shall
be
measured
once
every
4
hours
during
operation
of
the
tank
with
a
stalagmometer
or
a
tensiometer
as
specified
in
Method
306B,
appendix
A
of
this
part.
(B)
The
time
between
monitoring
can
be
increased
if
there
have
been
no
exceedances.
The
surface
tension
shall
be
measured
once
every
4
hours
of
tank
operation
for
the
first
40
hours
of
tank
operation
after
the
compliance
date.
Once
there
are
no
exceedances
during
40
hours
of
tank
operation,
surface
tension
measurement
may
be
conducted
once
every
8
hours
of
tank
operation.
Once
there
are
no
exceedances
during
40
hours
of
tank
operation,
surface
tension
measurement
may
be
conducted
once
every
40
hours
of
tank
operation
on
an
ongoing
basis,
until
an
exceedance
occurs.
The
minimum
frequency
of
monitoring
allowed
by
this
subpart
is
once
every
40
hours
of
tank
operation.
(C)
Once
an
exceedance
occurs
as
indicated
through
surface
tension
monitoring,
the
original
monitoring
schedule
of
once
every
4
hours
must
be
resumed.
A
subsequent
decrease
in
frequency
shall
follow
the
schedule
laid
out
in
paragraph
(c)(
5)(
ii)(
B)
of
this
section.
For
example,
if
an
owner
or
operator
had
been
monitoring
an
affected
source
once
every
40
hours
and
an
exceedance
occurs,
subsequent
monitoring
would
take
place
once
every
4
hours
of
tank
operation.
Once
an
exceedance
does
not
occur
for
40
hours
of
tank
operation,
monitoring
can
occur
once
every
8
hours
of
tank
operation.
Once
an
exceedance
does
not
occur
for
40
hours
of
tank
operation
on
this
schedule,
monitoring
can
occur
once
every
40
hours
of
tank
operation.
*
*
*
*
*
5.
Section
63.344
is
amended
by
adding
paragraph
(f)
as
follows:

§
63.344
Performance
test
requirements
and
test
methods.

*
*
*
*
*
(f)
Compliance
provisions
for
the
mass
rate
emission
standard
for
enclosed
hard
chromium
electroplating
tanks.
(1)
This
section
identifies
procedures
for
calculating
the
maximum
allowable
mass
emission
rate
for
owners
or
operators
of
affected
sources
who
choose
to
meet
the
mass
emission
rate
standard
in
§
63.342(
c)(
2)(
iv)
or
(v).
(i)(
A)
The
owner
or
operator
of
an
enclosed
hard
chromium
electroplating
tank
that
is
an
affected
source
other
than
an
existing
affected
source
located
at
a
small
hard
chromium
electroplating
facility
who
chooses
to
meet
the
mass
emission
rate
standard
in
§
63.342(
c)(
2)(
iv)
shall
determine
compliance
by
not
allowing
the
mass
rate
of
total
chromium
in
the
exhaust
gas
stream
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
to
exceed
the
maximum
allowable
mass
emission
rate
calculated
using
equation
9:
MAMER=
ETSA
×
K
×
0.015
mg/
dscm
(9)

Where:
MAMER=
the
alternative
emission
rate
for
enclosed
hard
chromium
electroplating
tanks
in
mg/
hr.
ETSA=
the
hard
chromium
electroplating
tank
surface
area
in
square
feet(
ft
2
).
K=
a
conversion
factor,
425
dscm/(
ft
2
×
hr).

(B)
Compliance
with
the
alternative
mass
emission
limit
is
demonstrated
if
the
three­
run
average
mass
emission
rate
determined
from
Method
306
testing
is
less
than
or
equal
to
the
maximum
allowable
mass
emission
rate
calculated
from
equation
9.
(ii)(
A)
The
owner
or
operator
of
an
enclosed
hard
chromium
electroplating
tank
that
is
an
existing
affected
source
located
at
a
small
hard
chromium
electroplating
facility
who
chooses
to
meet
the
mass
emission
rate
standard
in
§
63.342(
c)(
2)(
v)
shall
determine
compliance
by
not
allowing
the
mass
rate
of
total
chromium
in
the
exhaust
gas
stream
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
to
exceed
the
maximum
allowable
mass
emission
rate
calculated
using
equation
10:

MAMER=
ETSA
×
K
×
0.03
mg/
dscm
(10).

(B)
Compliance
with
the
alternative
mass
emission
limit
is
demonstrated
if
the
three­
run
average
mass
emission
rate
determined
from
testing
using
Method
306
of
appendix
A
to
part
63
is
less
than
or
equal
to
the
maximum
allowable
mass
emission
rate
calculated
from
equation
10.
*
*
*
*
*
6.
Section
63.347
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(c)(
1)(
viii)
to
read
as
follows:

§
63.347
Reporting
requirements.

*
*
*
*
*
(c)
*
*
*
(1)
*
*
*
(viii)
For
sources
performing
hard
chromium
electroplating,
a
statement
of
whether
the
owner
or
operator
of
an
affected
source(
s)
will
limit
the
maximum
potential
cumulative
rectifier
capacity
in
accordance
with
§
63.342(
c)(
2)
such
that
the
hard
chromium
electroplating
facility
is
considered
small;
and
***

[FR
Doc.
02–
13805
Filed
6–
4–
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560–
50–
P
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
10:
52
Jun
04,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00009
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
05JNP3.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
05JNP3