[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 5, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38810-38817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-13805]



[[Page 38809]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 38810]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by electronic mail (e-
mail) to: [email protected]. 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.''

[[Page 38811]]

    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 Sec. 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

[[Page 38812]]

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 state-of-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 Sec. 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

[[Page 38813]]

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

[[Page 38814]]

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 cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least-burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA 
to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost-
effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the Administrator 
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was 
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements 
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including 
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the 
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for 
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of 
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that 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 [email protected], 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,

[[Page 38815]]

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:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 63.342  Standards.

* * * * *
    (b) Applicability of emission limitations. (1) The emission 
limitations in this section apply during tank operation as defined in 
Sec. 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  x  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  x  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  x  10-\3\ pound-force per 
foot (lbf/ft)) as measured by a stalagmometer or 35 dynes/cm 
(2.4  x  10-\3\ lbf/ft) as measured by a 
tensiometer at any time during tank operation.

[[Page 38816]]

    (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 
x  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  x  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  x  10-\3\ lbf/ft) as measured by a 
stalagmometer or 35 dynes/cm (2.4  x  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 
Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 federally-enforceable limit on the maximum 
cumulative potential rectifier capacity of a hard chromium 
electroplating facility and by maintaining monthly records in 
accordance with Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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  x  10-\3\ lbf/ft) as measured by a 
stalagmometer or 35 dynes/cm (2.4  x  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:


Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 63.342 through the use of a composite mesh-pad 
system shall determine the outlet chromium concentration using the test 
methods and procedures in Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 38817]]

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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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  x  K  x  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(ft2).
K=a conversion factor, 425 dscm/(ft2  x  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 Sec. 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  x  K  x  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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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