[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