
[Federal Register: March 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 51)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 14125-14151]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14mr08-26]                         


[[Page 14125]]

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

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area Source 
Standards for Plating and Polishing Operations; Proposed Rule


[[Page 14126]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0084; FRL-8541-9]
RIN 2060-AM37

 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area 
Source Standards for Plating and Polishing Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing national emission standards for control of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for the plating and polishing area 
source category. This rule proposes emission standards in the form of 
management practices for new and existing tanks, thermal spraying 
equipment, and mechanical polishing equipment in certain plating and 
polishing processes. These proposed standards reflect EPA's 
determination regarding the generally achievable control technology 
(GACT) and/or management practices for the area source category.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 14, 2008, unless a 
public hearing is requested by March 24, 2008. If a hearing is 
requested on this proposed rule, written comments must be received by 
April 28, 2008. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the 
information collection provisions must be received by OMB on or before 
April 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2005-0084, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744.
     Mail: NESHAP: Area Source Standards for Plating and 
Polishing Operations Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of 
two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the 
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk 
Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA 
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0084. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ``NESHAP for Plating and 
Polishing Area Sources'' Docket, at the EPA Docket and Information 
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 
Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Donna Lee Jones, Sector Policies 
and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
(D243-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5251; fax number: 
(919) 541-3207; e-mail address: jones.donnalee@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards
    A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for 
the proposed standards?
    B. What source category is affected by the proposed standards?
    C. How did we gather information for this proposed rule?
    D. What is the industry profile?
    E. What are the production processes, emissions sources, and 
available controls?
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
    A. Do the proposed standards apply to my source?
    B. When do I comply with the proposed standards?
    C. What emissions control requirements is EPA proposing?
    D. What are the initial compliance provisions?
    E. What are the continuous compliance provisions?
    F. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
IV. Rationale for Selecting this Proposed Standards
    A. How did we select the source category?
    B. How did we select the affected sources?
    C. How did we subcategorize plating and polishing processes?
    D. How was GACT determined?
    E. How did we select the compliance requirements?
    F. How did we decide to exempt this area source category from 
title V permit requirements?
V. Impacts of the Proposed Standards
    A. What are the air impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy 
impacts?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

[[Page 14127]]

    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated category and entities potentially affected by this 
proposed action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                   NAICS code\1\              Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................          332813  Area source facilities engaged in any one or more
                                                            types of nonchromium electroplating;
                                                            electropolishing; electroforming; electroless
                                                            plating, including thermal metal spraying, chromate
                                                            conversion coating, and coloring; or mechanical
                                                            polishing of metals and formed products for the
                                                            trade. Regulated sources do not include chromium
                                                            electroplating and chromium anodizing sources, as
                                                            those sources are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
                                                            N, ``Chromium Emissions From Hard and Decorative
                                                            Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing
                                                            Tanks.''
Manufacturing............................          32, 33  Area source establishments engaged in one or more
                                                            types of nonchromium electroplating;
                                                            electropolishing; electroforming; electroless
                                                            plating, including thermal metal spraying, chromate
                                                            conversion coating, and coloring; or mechanical
                                                            polishing of metals and formed products for the
                                                            trade. Examples include: 33251, Hardware
                                                            Manufacturing; 323111, Commercial Gravure Printing;
                                                            332116, Metal Stamping; 332722, Bolt, Nut, Screw,
                                                            Rivet, and Washer Manufacturing; 332811, Metal Heat
                                                            Treating; 332812, Metal Coating, Engraving (except
                                                            Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to
                                                            Manufacturers; 332913, Plumbing Fixture Fitting and
                                                            Trim Manufacturing; Other Metal Valve and Pipe
                                                            Fitting Manufacturing; 332999, All Other
                                                            Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product
                                                            Manufacturing; 334412, Bare Printed Circuit Board
                                                            Manufacturing; 336412, Aircraft Engine and Engine
                                                            Parts Manufacturing; and 339911, Jewelry (except
                                                            Costume) Manufacturing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this 
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 
63.11475, `` Am I subject to this subpart?'' of subpart WWWWWW 
(National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): 
Area Source Standards for Plating and Polishing Operations). If you 
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the 
entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in Sec.  63.13 of 
the General Provisions to part 63 (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?

    Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified 
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 
Control Officer (C404-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0084. Clearly mark 
the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 
information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within 
the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In 
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the 
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) 
through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). A copy of this 
proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page 
for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and 
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

D. When would a public hearing occur?

    If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing 
concerning this proposed rule by March 24, 2008, we will hold a public 
hearing on March 31, 2008. If you are interested in attending the 
public hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 541-7966 to verify 
that a hearing will be held. If a public hearing is held, it will be 
held at 10 a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research Center Auditorium, 
Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby.

II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards

A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for the 
proposed standards?

    Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires us to establish 
NESHAP for both major and area sources of HAP that are listed for 
regulation under CAA section 112(c). A major source emits or has the 
potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or 
25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. An area source is a 
stationary source that is not a major source.
    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least 
30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the 
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. 
EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air 
Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in the 
Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health 
threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``30 urban 
HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or 
subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing 
90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to 
regulation. We implemented these requirements through the Integrated 
Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). A primary goal 
of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent reduction in cancer 
incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources.

[[Page 14128]]

    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards 
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of 
generally available control technologies or management practices by 
such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' 
Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate report on the 
legislation (Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which 
describes GACT as:

    * * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the 
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities 
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.

Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and 
economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important 
when developing regulations for source categories that have many small 
businesses.
    Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control 
technologies and management practices that are generally available to 
the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards 
applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine 
if the control technologies and management practices are transferable 
and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances, 
we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major 
sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies 
and practices could be considered generally available for the area 
source category at issue. Finally, as we have already noted, in 
determining GACT for a particular area source category, we consider the 
costs and economic impacts of available control technologies and 
management practices on that category.
    We are proposing these national emission standards in response to a 
court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for 11 
source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) by June 
15, 2008 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01-1537, D.D.C., March 2006). We 
have already issued regulations addressing one of the 11 source 
categories. See regulations for Wood Preserving (Federal Register, 72 
(135), July 16, 2007.) Other rulemakings will include standards for the 
remaining source categories that are due in June 2008.

B. What area source category is affected by the proposed standards?

    The Plating and Polishing Area Source Category includes any 
facility engaged in one or more of the following operations or 
processes: electroplating without chromium; electroforming; 
electropolishing; electroless plating; other non-electrolytic metal 
coating, such as chromate conversion coating and thermal spraying; and 
the mechanical polishing of finished metals and formed products after 
plating. Note that facilities that are engaged in chromium 
electroplating that also perform any of the above plating and polishing 
processes are included in the Plating and Polishing Area Source 
Category for these processes.
    Plating and polishing facilities are primarily classified under 
NAICS code 332813. However, plating and polishing processes are also 
co-located at many facilities that are classified under other NAICS 
codes. Examples include NAICS 33251, Hardware Manufacturing; 323111, 
Commercial Gravure Printing; 332116, Metal Stamping; 332722, Bolt, Nut, 
Screw, Rivet, and Washer Manufacturing; 332811, Metal Heat Treating; 
332812, Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware), and 
Allied Services to Manufacturers; 332913, Plumbing Fixture Fitting and 
Trim Manufacturing; Other Metal Valve and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing; 
332999, All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing; 
334412, Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing; 336412, Aircraft 
Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing; and 339911, Jewelry (except 
Costume) Manufacturing.
    We added plating and polishing operations to the Integrated Urban 
Air Toxics Strategy Area Source Category List on June 26, 2002 (67 FR 
43113). The inclusion of this source category to the section 112(c)(3) 
area source category list is based on 1990 emissions data, as EPA used 
1990 as the baseline year for that listing. EPA listed this source 
category for regulation pursuant to section 112(c)(3), based on 
emissions of compounds of five HAP metals: cadmium, chromium, lead, 
manganese, and nickel. These five metal HAP represent part of the 90 
percent of those urban HAP emissions in the 1990 inventory to be 
regulated, and are hereafter referred to as ``plating and polishing 
metal HAP.'' This source category was also listed for emissions of the 
organic HAP trichloroethylene (TCE). Chlorinated solvents such as TCE 
are used as degreasers in the plating industry. We subsequently 
discovered that the 1990 emissions data for TCE was for plating 
facilities that used TCE in degreasing operations, which are not part 
of this source category. Rather, these emission units at both major and 
area sources are subject to standards for halogenated solvent cleaning 
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart T. Consequently, we are not proposing 
standards for TCE from plating and polishing facilities. The plating 
and polishing source category listed for TCE emissions remains a listed 
source category pursuant to section 112(c)(3) of this part, and this 
proposed rule establishes standards for emissions of plating and 
polishing metal HAP. Therefore, we are clarifying that we do not need 
plating and polishing to meet the section 112(c)(3) 90 percent 
requirement regarding area source emissions of TCE.

C. How did we gather information for this proposed rule?

    We gathered information for this proposed rule from industry 
representatives, trade associations, technical experts, published 
literature, the 2002 EPA National Emission Inventory, and a 2006 EPA 
survey of the industry that we performed specifically for the plating 
and polishing area source rule.
    The EPA survey, also called information collection requests (ICR), 
was developed by EPA under the authority of section 114 of the CAA. A 
copy of the ICR questionnaire and the responses can be found in the 
docket for the Plating and Polishing Area Source Rule (Docket Number 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0084).
    The first version of the questionnaire was sent out in November 
2004 to nine recipients; responses were received from eight facilities. 
A Federal Register Notice (FRN) was published in July 2005 (70 FR 
43865, July 29, 2005) requesting comment on a second, improved 
questionnaire that was revised based on comments received from the 
first version. A second FRN was published on October 26, 2005 (70 FR 
61810) to announce that the questionnaire had been submitted to the OMB 
for approval. Approval was received from OMB on February 23, 2006 (OMB 
2060-0577, ICR 2186.01, Form No. 7610-32). A total of 1,151 
questionnaires were mailed on May 10, 2006; most responses were 
received by July 31, 2006.
    Potential recipients for the ICR were identified from names and 
addresses of facilities listed in several on-line databases, company 
websites, and information obtained from EPA Regional offices and State 
and local regulatory agencies. Through this process a list of 
approximately 2,500 facilities was compiled that was later reduced to 
1,151 by eliminating plants with incomplete mailing addresses or plants 
that appeared to not belong to the source category. From the 1,151 
total

[[Page 14129]]

ICR mailed, EPA received back 598 questionnaires. Adding these ICR to 
the previous 8 surveys, the total number of industry responses received 
by EPA was 606. Of this total, 120 were excluded from the area source 
analysis because either the information was not complete (80 ICR) or 
because the facilities were major sources that were not within the 
plating and polishing area source category (40 ICR).\a\ The result was 
486 surveys from area sources in the plating and polishing source 
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \a\ We did, however, analyze separately the information on major 
sources in similar source categories to determine if the control 
technologies and management practices were transferable and 
generally available to the plating and polishing area source 
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2006 EPA survey responses, no facility was found to be a 
major source for their plating and polishing processes. There were 15 
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63) that were reported to be applicable to 
processes at the surveyed facilities co-located with plating and 
polishing processes. The most frequently identified NESHAP included 
``Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating 
and Chromium Anodizing Tanks'' (subpart N) and ``Halogenated Solvent 
Cleaning'' (subpart T). These NESHAP (subparts N and T) apply to both 
major and area sources. Of the 486 area source plating and polishing 
facilities that responded to the 2006 EPA survey, approximately 250 
have co-located area source processes subject to one or both of these 
two NESHAP.
    The results of the survey analyses can be found in a memorandum for 
the Plating and Polishing Area Source Rule. (See Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0084.)

D. What is the industry profile?

    Based on 2002 U.S. Census data and the 2006 EPA survey of the 
industry, we estimate that 2,900 plating and polishing area source 
facilities are currently operating in the U.S. Independent estimates by 
the industry trade association confirm our estimate. The estimate 
includes several plating and polishing area sources that are captive 
facilities (i.e., co-located at manufacturing and other facilities 
engaged primarily in other operations). See section I(A) above, ``Does 
this action apply to me?'' for examples of some of these operations.
    The 2006 EPA survey results indicated about 80 percent of the 
industry is located in 14 States, with about 40 percent of the area 
source facilities located in three States (Illinois, California, and 
Ohio). Nearly all (97 percent) of the plating and polishing facilities 
are in urban areas \b\ based on the 2006 EPA survey. Our analyses also 
indicate that between 92 and 98 percent of the plating and polishing 
area source category is comprised of small businesses, which the Small 
Business Administration defines to be facilities with less than 500 
employees. The 2002 Census data also showed that 50 percent of the 
facilities in this source category had less than 10 employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \b\ These urban areas are defined to be the urban 1 and urban 2 
areas that formed the basis of the listing decisions under 112(c)(3) 
and (k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the 2,900 estimated area source facilities in the plating and 
polishing industry, we estimate that there are approximately 22,000 
tanks and 1,400 thermal spray lines that use the plating and polishing 
metal HAP. Based on the 2006 EPA survey, the number of tanks per 
facility with plating and polishing metal HAP is estimated to range 
from 1 to 20 with an average of 10 tanks per facility. For the 
estimated 300 area source facilities that do thermal spraying with 
plating and polishing metal HAP, we estimate that these facilities have 
from 1 to 20 lines, with an average of 5 thermal spraying lines per 
facility.

E. What are the production processes, emission sources, and available 
controls?

1. Plating and Polishing Processes
    Plating and polishing facilities perform several operations that 
use and can emit the plating and polishing metal HAP. These include 
electrolytic processes, non-electrolytic processes, thermal spraying 
processes, and dry mechanical polishing operations. Electrolytic 
processes include non-chromium electroplating, electroforming, and 
electropolishing. Non-electrolytic processes include electroless nickel 
plating, chromate conversion coating, and other tank-based processes, 
such as nickel acetate sealing. Electroplating, electroforming, 
electropolishing, and non-electrolytic (or ``electroless'') plating all 
take place in a tank or ``bath.''
    From the analyses performed with data acquired in the 2006 EPA 
survey, it is estimated that more than half of the plating and 
polishing area source facilities (estimated at over 1,500 facilities) 
perform electroplating with the plating and polishing metal HAP, with 
nickel the predominant metal plated; 4 percent or 80 facilities are 
estimated to perform electropolishing with the plating and polishing 
metal HAP; and less than 1 percent or 25 facilities are estimated to 
perform electroforming with the plating and polishing metal HAP. For 
the non-electrolytic processes, approximately 25 percent of the 
facilities are estimated to perform electroless nickel and/or other 
electroless coating with the plating and polishing metal HAP. For the 
mechanical polishing process, we estimate that approximately 25 
percent, or 700 facilities, perform mechanical polishing of the plating 
and polishing metal HAP. For thermal spraying process, we estimate that 
approximately 11 percent, or 300 facilities, have thermal spraying 
processes that use the plating and polishing metal HAP.
    Many facilities perform more than one type of metal plating or 
polishing. From the analyses performed with data acquired in the 2006 
EPA survey, we estimate that 80 percent of the facilities use nickel 
(with two-thirds of the nickel used in electroplating and one-third in 
electroless nickel plating); 29 percent use lead, 16 percent use 
chromium (in non-electroplating tanks), 5 percent use manganese, and 4 
percent use cadmium. This includes both tank-based plating as well as 
thermal spraying processes, and where more than one plating or 
polishing process occurs at many facilities.
    Electrolytic Plating and Polishing Processes. Electrolytic 
processes include electroplating, electroforming, and electropolishing. 
In the electroplating process, metal ions in either acid (pH less than 
7), alkaline (pH greater than 7), or neutral (pH approximately equal to 
7) solutions are reduced onto the surface of the work piece (the 
cathode or substrate) via an electrical current. The metal ions in the 
solution are usually replenished by the dissolution of metal from solid 
metal anodes (made of the same metal as that being plated), or by 
direct replenishment of the solution with metal salts or oxides. 
Electroplating can be performed with or without cyanide in the bath. 
Cyanide is a constituent of some baths and works to keep the metals in 
solution. More discussion of plating with cyanide follows below.
    Electroforming is similar to electroplating, except that the plated 
surface is the product and the item that shapes the metal (the mandrel) 
is removed and discarded afterwards. Otherwise, electroforming is 
similar in chemistry to electroplating processes. Electroforming can be 
performed with or without cyanide in the bath.
    Electropolishing is essentially the opposite of electroplating; the 
metal to be polished acts as the anode in an electric circuit. In this 
process, the work piece is attached to the anode and metal substrate is 
dissolved electrolytically, thereby removing the surface contaminant. 
Electropolishing can be

[[Page 14130]]

performed in acid or alkaline baths, although most electropolishing is 
performed in acid baths containing phosphoric acid and one or more 
additional acids. Other acids that are used in electropolishing baths 
include sulfuric, chromic, fluoboric, hydrochloric, citric, and 
glycolic acid. According to industry experts, less than 1 percent of 
plating and polishing facilities currently use chromic acid in 
electropolishing processes. Electropolishing is not performed with 
cyanide in the bath.
    Most electroplating tank chemical formulations (or ``chemistries'') 
that do not use cyanide incorporate a wetting agent to minimize pitting 
from the hydrogen gas bubbles that form on the surface of the parts 
being plated. Wetting agents prevent the bubbles from adhering to the 
surface of the parts. Wetting agents also lower the surface tension of 
the plating bath and act to reduce the amount of energy released when 
the gas bubbles rise to the surface of the bath and burst. 
Consequently, the wetting agents also reduce the level of misting and 
metal HAP emissions from the tank. As a result of this dual function, 
these chemical compounds are referred to collectively as wetting agent/
fume suppressants (WAFS). Because WAFS prevent metal HAP emissions, as 
opposed to collecting metal HAP emissions after they occur with add-on 
control devices, they are considered a pollution prevention technique.
    Some chemicals that are not part of the initial plating bath 
chemistries are added ``over the side'' of the plating tanks, and 
include chemicals such as WAFS. This is especially true for the plating 
tanks that lose a significant amount of their ingredients through what 
is called ``drag-out,'' or the loss of tank solution that occurs when 
parts are removed. The occurrence of drag-out necessitates the 
replenishing of the bath ingredients ``over the side'' during the 
plating process.
    As noted above, some plating baths use cyanide as a major bath 
ingredient. Cyanide is added to dissolve the metal cyanide compound 
(e.g., cadmium cyanide) and to create free cyanide in solution, which 
helps to corrode the anode. Caustic soda and carbonate also are added 
to the bath. These three constituents (cyanide, caustic soda, and 
carbonate) all work to increase the pH of the solution to at least 12. 
These tanks are self-regulating to a pH equal to or greater than 12 due 
to the nature of the cyanide bath chemistry.
    The cyanide in the bath is a major bath constituent and not an 
additive. However, because of the self-regulating chemistry of the 
bath, the cyanide causes the bath to act as if WAFS are being used to 
prevent the metal HAP from being emitted rather than plated. All 
cyanide plating baths at pH greater than or equal to 12 have cyanide-
metal complexes in solution. The metal to be plated is either bound in 
the metal-cyanide complex, or reduced at the cathode to elemental metal 
and plated onto the immersed parts. According to the technical 
literature and industry experts, considering the self-regulating 
chemistry of the bath, emissions of cyanide in the form of hydrogen 
cyanide would occur only at a pH of less than 12. Cyanide baths are not 
intentionally operated at pH less than 12 since unfavorable plating 
conditions would occur in the tank, among other negative effects. See 
the docket for this rule for minutes of meetings with industry 
representative and literature documents related to cyanide bath 
chemistry. (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0084).
    Non-electrolytic Processes. Non-electrolytic or ``electroless'' 
plating involves the deposition of a metallic coating on a metallic or 
nonmetallic surface without the use of external electrical energy. The 
basic ingredients in an electroless plating solution are a metal 
(usually in the form of a salt), a reducer, a complexing agent to hold 
the metal in solution, a WAFS, and various buffers and other chemicals 
to maintain bath stability and increase bath life. Non-electrolytic 
processes include electroless nickel plating, chromate conversion 
coating, nickel acetate sealing, sodium dichromate sealing, and 
manganese phosphate coating.
    Conversion coatings, such as chromate, are produced on various 
metal substrates to create a protective film that is formed when a 
portion of the base metal is converted to one of the components of the 
film by reaction with aqueous solutions containing the metal (such as 
hexavalent chromium) and other active organic or inorganic compounds. 
Chromate conversion coatings are most frequently applied to zinc, 
cadmium, aluminum, magnesium, copper, tin, chromium, brass, bronze, and 
silver metal base products. Manganese phosphate coating is another type 
of conversion coating used to increase wear resistance. In this 
process, the work piece is immersed in a tank with a heated bath that 
includes phosphoric acid and manganese dioxide for a period of minutes 
up to several hours, depending on the application.
    Nickel acetate, dichromate, and lead acetate sealing are steps that 
help to seal work pieces to increase corrosion resistance. These 
processes involve immersing the part in a tank with a heated bath for a 
relatively short period of time (e.g., 5 to 10 minutes).
    Thermal/flame Spraying Processes. Thermal spraying or flame 
spraying is another type of metal coating operation that uses one or 
more of the plating and polishing metal HAP. Thermal spraying usually 
is performed at dedicated facilities that specialize in this process 
and do not perform the other plating and polishing processes described 
in this section. In thermal spraying, a metal, such as chromium or 
nickel, is melted and then immediately sprayed onto a part or surface. 
Commonly-used thermal spraying processes are flame spraying, electric 
arc spraying, plasma arc spraying, and high velocity oxy-fuel. Unlike 
the other plating and coating processes discussed previously that 
involve immersing the work piece in a liquid-filled tank, thermal 
spraying is performed in a spray booth. Thermal spraying is not a 
complete substitute for tank plating because thermal spraying can only 
apply metal coatings to line-of-sight surfaces and does not penetrate 
into the depressions and holes of the work piece as in tank plating.
    Dry Mechanical Polishing Processes. Dry mechanical polishing is 
performed using hard-faced wheels constructed of muslin, canvas, felt 
or leather. Abrasives are applied to the wheels with synthetic 
adhesives or cements, typically silicate-base cements. Abrasive belts 
coated with adhesives and abrasives in the same way as the wheels are 
also used for polishing. Lubricants including oil, grease, tallow, and 
special bar lubricants are often used to prevent gouging and tearing 
when a fine polished surface is required and also to minimize 
frictional heat.
2. Plating and Polishing Metal HAP Emission Sources
    In the plating industry, the metal being plated is part of the 
product sold, therefore, any metal HAP emissions are an economic loss, 
i.e., cost, to the facility and are avoided as much as possible. 
Generally, the primary plating and polishing metal HAP emission sources 
are the tanks in which plating processes occur.
    Electrolytic Plating and Polishing Metal HAP Emissions. The primary 
mechanism that can release any metal HAP, including the plating and 
polishing metal HAP, from electrolytic plating and polishing tanks is 
the evolution of hydrogen and oxygen gas in bubbles that form on the 
surfaces of the submerged work piece, or on anodes or cathodes during 
electroplating. These gas bubbles rise to the surface and then burst, 
carrying liquid with them in the form of a fine mist. In 
electroplating, the

[[Page 14131]]

rate of bubbling is a function of the chemical or electrochemical 
activity in the tank and increases with the amount of work in the tank, 
the strength and temperature of the solution, and the current densities 
in the plating tanks.
    A term commonly used to describe the ease or difficulty of 
electroplating a specific metal is its cathodic efficiency, which 
refers to the ability of the cathode to reduce the metal to the 
elemental form so that the metal can be plated onto the part surface. 
The cathodic efficiencies of nickel and cadmium, the most common metals 
plated in the plating and polishing industry of this proposed rule, are 
high and on the order of 90 percent or more. Chromium, on the other 
hand, has a relatively low cathodic efficiency of less than 20 percent. 
Plating processes with high cathodic efficiencies, such as nickel and 
cadmium, generate less gassing at the anode and consequently have lower 
emissions than plating processes with low cathodic efficiencies, such 
as chromium.
    As discussed above in section (1), ``Plating and Polishing 
Processes,'' WAFS, a common ingredient in plating tanks for purposes of 
generating a better plated product, also incidentally lower the surface 
tension of the bath. The WAFS act to reduce the amount of energy 
released when gas bubbles rise to the surface of the bath and burst, 
thereby reducing the level of misting and metal HAP emissions from the 
tank. Because WAFS prevent most metal HAP emissions from occurring, 
they are considered a pollution prevention technique, as opposed to 
techniques that control emissions after they occur, such as add-on 
control devices. All non-chromium electroplating baths use WAFS, except 
for cyanide electroplating. The reason for the exception to this 
practice is discussed below.
    In plating tanks that use cyanide as a major bath ingredient, which 
are operated at a pH of at least 12, the self-regulating chemistry of 
the cyanide in the bath causes the bath to operate as if WAFS were 
being used, which ensures an optimum plating process, as discussed 
above in section (1), ``Plating and Polishing Processes.'' All cyanide 
plating baths are composed of cyanide-metal complexes in solution. 
There are little metal HAP emissions from these tanks because the metal 
to be plated is either bound in the metal-cyanide complex or reduced at 
the cathode to elemental metal and plated onto the immersed parts. 
Emissions of cyanide in the form of hydrogen cyanide are also low or 
nonexistent; these emissions would occur only at pH values less than 
12.
    Non-Electrolytic Plating Metal HAP Emissions. Plating tanks that do 
not use electrical current have much lower metal HAP emissions than 
electroplating tanks because the bubbling that occurs from electrolysis 
is not present. Chromium conversion coating was excluded from the 
estimates of chromium emissions in the Occupational Safety and Health 
(OSHA) work place rule for hexavalent chromium (Federal Register 71 
(39), 10099-10385, February 28, 2006).
    In addition, the concentration of the metals in non-electrolytic 
tanks is much lower than the concentration in their electrolytic bath 
counterparts. For example, the concentration of nickel in an 
electroless plating bath is less than one ounce of nickel metal per 
gallon (oz/gal) of tank contents (less than 7 grams per liter (g/L)) as 
compared to the concentration of nickel in a nickel electroplating bath 
of 13 oz/gal (91 g/L). In manganese phosphating, the manganese 
concentration is less than 1 percent by volume (v/v).
    Metal HAP Emissions from Procedures Used for All Tank-based 
Processes. Procedures that can result in emissions from all plating and 
polishing tanks are: Bath agitation; placement of the work pieces in 
the tank; and removal of the work pieces from the tank. Bath agitation 
typically is accomplished by air sparging (i.e., bubbling air through 
the tank), or by mechanical agitation using eductors; emissions 
generally are greater when air sparging is used.
    Plating emissions can also be affected by whether rack or barrel 
plating is performed. In rack plating, the parts to be plated are 
mounted on racks and immersed in the plating solution, where they 
remain stationary. In barrel plating, the parts to be plated are placed 
in a slotted or perforated barrel that is immersed in the plating 
solution and rotated to ensure even coverage of the plate on the parts. 
The movement of the barrel has the potential to cause more emissions to 
be generated than rack plating.
    Metal HAP Emissions from Thermal Spraying and Dry Mechanical 
Polishing Processes. Metal HAP emissions from thermal spraying and dry 
mechanical polishing are in the form of particulate matter (PM). In 
thermal spraying, the PM is emitted as excess metal spray that results 
from over-spraying during application of the metal to the product. The 
PM emitted from dry mechanical polishing results mostly from excess 
plated metal that is removed from the product along with a small amount 
of PM that originates from the abrasive material on the polishing wheel 
or machine. For affected plating and polishing area sources, all the PM 
described above, except the PM from abrasive material on the wheel, 
includes metal HAP.
3. Plating and Polishing Metal HAP Emission Controls
    As discussed above in section (2), ``Plating and Polishing Metal 
HAP Emission Sources,'' the metal being plated is part of the products 
from the plating industry, therefore, any metal HAP emissions are an 
economic loss (i.e., cost) to the facility and are avoided as much as 
possible. Consequently, a variety of methods are used by the industry 
to prevent emissions from plating and polishing processes. These 
methods are designed to reduce the amount of metal HAP emitted from 
plating tanks by using what is called ``in-tank controls,'' that are 
discussed in more detail below.
    Some facilities use add-on control systems to control emissions 
from plating and polishing tanks that involve capturing emissions and 
exhausting them to add-on emission control devices. Control systems are 
the combination of a capture system and an add-on control device. The 
capture system is designed to collect and transport air emissions from 
the affected source to the control device. The overall control 
efficiency of any control system is a combination of the ability of the 
system to capture the air emissions (i.e., the capture efficiency) and 
the control device efficiency. Consequently, it is important to achieve 
good capture to ensure good overall control efficiency. Capture devices 
that are known to provide high capture efficiencies include hoods, 
enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, 
manifolds, plenums, or fans.
    Add-on controls in the plating and polishing industry are used to 
control water vapor (steam) and other non-HAP tank ingredients that 
evaporate from the tank. These add-on control systems also incidentally 
capture and control any metal HAP that may be emitted from the tank. In 
addition, add-on controls are used to control PM, which is a surrogate 
for metal HAP, from thermal spraying and dry mechanical polishing 
processes. These add-on controls are discussed in more detail below.
    In-tank Pollution Prevention Controls. Wetting agent/fume 
suppressants, as previously discussed, are ingredients included in 
plating tanks for purposes of generating a better plated product. The 
WAFS also incidentally lower the surface tension of the bath and in 
turn

[[Page 14132]]

the metal HAP emissions, and therefore are a pollution prevention 
control technique. The WAFS act to reduce the amount of energy released 
when gas bubbles rise to the surface of the bath and burst, thereby 
significantly reducing the level of misting and metal HAP emissions 
from the tank. All non-cyanide electroplating baths use WAFS.
    Data compiled during the development of the NESHAP for ``Chromium 
Emissions From Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium 
Anodizing Tanks (subpart N), hereafter called the ``Chromium 
Electroplating NESHAP,'' and during a recent study of nickel plating 
sponsored by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), 
demonstrated that plating tanks that use WAFS have significantly lower 
emissions than tanks that do not use wetting agents. The use of WAFS 
was found to reduce plating emissions by up to 95 percent, depending on 
the initial level of emissions without WAFS.
    Other types of in-the-tank controls for plating tanks include foam 
blankets and polyballs, both of which reduce emissions by covering the 
liquid surface of the tank thereby minimizing the misting that results 
from the bursting of gas bubbles at the tank surface. These 
technologies are estimated to reduce emissions by 70 to 80 percent 
provided they cover the entire surface of the tank bath. The difficulty 
in maintaining complete coverage of the tank surface prevents many 
plants from using foam blankets and polyballs as their sole emission 
control technique.
    Tank Add-on Controls. Add-on controls are used in plating and 
polishing facilities to collect water vapor (steam) and other non-HAP 
tank ingredients that evaporate from the tank. These add-on controls 
also incidentally capture and control any metal HAP that may be emitted 
from the tank. Add-on control devices used to reduce emissions from 
plating and polishing tanks include composite mesh pads (CMP), packed 
bed scrubbers (PBS), and mesh pad mist eliminators (MPME). CMP, which 
are used on many chromium electroplating tanks, operate at 99 percent 
control efficiency. The data compiled for the Chromium Electroplating 
NESHAP demonstrate that PBS operate at 94 to 99 percent control 
efficiency. MPME typically achieve 98 to 99 percent control. Simple 
mist eliminators reduce emissions by 80 to 99 percent depending on 
design; chevron blade mist eliminators achieve 80 to 95 percent 
control.
    The overall control efficiency of any control system is a 
combination of the ability of the system to capture the fumes (i.e., 
capture efficiency) and the control device efficiency. The capture 
system transports the HAP emissions from the affected source to the 
control device; consequently, it is important to achieve good capture 
of the plating HAP emissions to ensure control of the majority of the 
metal HAP emissions. Capture devices that are known to provide high 
capture efficiencies include hoods, enclosures, or any other duct 
intake devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans that 
draw greater than 90 percent of the emissions from the process into the 
control device.
    Thermal Spraying Add-on Controls. Thermal spraying processes in the 
plating and polishing industry are performed in spray booths where 
metal HAP emissions are most often controlled with add-on controls for 
PM such as fabric filters or high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) 
filters. Both of these filtration techniques reduce emissions by 95 to 
99 percent, depending on the capture efficiency of the system, as 
discussed above under ``Tank Add-on Controls.'' Water curtains, which 
achieve 90 percent control, also are used in the plating and polishing 
industry for controlling PM from thermal spraying.
    The large amount of PM generated during thermal spraying has made 
it necessary for facilities to control the PM emitted at all times to 
protect the worker and working environment. Consequently, by 
controlling the PM facilities are also simultaneously controlling the 
metal HAP, where the PM is a surrogate for the metal HAP.
    Dry Mechanical Polishing Controls. The metal HAP emissions from dry 
mechanical polishing, which are in the form of PM in this process, are 
controlled with a control system, as discussed above in section II 
(E)(3), ``Plating and Polishing Metal HAP Emission Controls.'' 
Historically, the large amount of PM generated during the dry 
mechanical polishing operations has made it necessary for facilities to 
control the PM emitted at all times to protect the work environment. 
Metal HAP are simultaneously controlled as an additional benefit of 
this current control practice.
    The control system for dry mechanical polishing is the combination 
of a capture system and an add-on control device. The capture system is 
designed to collect and transport air emissions from the affected 
source to the control device. The overall control efficiency of a 
control system is a combination of the ability of the system to capture 
the air emissions (i.e., the capture efficiency) and the control device 
efficiency. Consequently, it is important to achieve good capture to 
ensure good overall control efficiency.
    Capture devices that are known to provide high capture efficiencies 
include hoods or any other duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, 
manifolds, plenums, or fans. Control devices used for dry mechanical 
polishing include filtration devices such as cartridge, fabric, or HEPA 
filters, where PM is controlled as a surrogate for metal HAP. These 
control techniques reduce PM and metal HAP emissions by more than 90 
percent, depending on the capture efficiency of the system. Complete 
capture of the PM (and also metal HAP) by the exhaust system is not 
typical in this industry because of the need for the workers to be 
close to the polishing wheels, which precludes the use of total 
enclosures.

III. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Do the proposed standards apply to my source?

    The proposed subpart WWWWWW applies to new and existing area 
sources of plating and polishing that use any of the plating and 
polishing metal HAP (cadmium, chromium,\c\ lead, manganese, or nickel) 
in tanks or thermal spraying processes; and dry mechanical polishing 
operations used to remove or polish products with these metal HAP. A 
new source is any affected source where you commenced construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source on or after the date that this 
proposed rule is published in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \c\ Regulated sources do not include chromium electroplating and 
chromium anodizing sources, as those sources are subject to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart N, ``Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative 
Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. When do I comply with the proposed standards?

    All existing area source facilities with operations subject to this 
proposed rule would be required to comply with the rule requirements 
for their existing operations no later than 2 years after the date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The owner or 
operator of a new area source operation would be required to comply 
with the rule requirements by the date of publication of the final rule 
in the Federal Register or upon startup, whichever is later.

[[Page 14133]]

C. What emissions control requirements is EPA proposing?

1. Controls for All Affected Plating and Polishing Process Tanks
    Owners or operators of all new and existing affected plating and 
polishing processes performed in tanks, regardless of bath pH, presence 
of cyanide, or use of electricity, would be required to comply with the 
following management and pollution prevention practices: (1) Minimize 
bath agitation when removing tank objects; (2) maximize dripping of 
bath solution back into tank by extending drip time when removing the 
tank objects and using drain boards (also known as drip shields); (3) 
optimize the design of barrels, racks, and parts to minimize dragout of 
bath solution, such as by using slotted barrels and tilted racks, or by 
using designs with flow-through holes to allow the tank solution to 
drip back into the tank; (4) use tank covers, if available on-site at 
the facility, whenever possible (i.e., not during lifting or lowering 
parts); and (5) minimize or reduce heating during tank operation and 
when tanks are not in use.
2. Controls for Non-cyanide Electrolytic Process Tanks Operated at pH 
Less than 12.
    Non-cyanide electrolytic process tanks are operated at pH less than 
12 (hereafter referred to as non-cyanide electrolytic process tanks) 
and include tanks that are used for electroplating, electroforming, or 
electropolishing, as defined in Sec.  63.11510, ``Definitions.'' This 
proposed rule would require owners or operators of new and existing 
affected non-cyanide electrolytic processes, which are operated at a pH 
of less than 12, to use a WAFS in the tank bath as directed by the 
manufacturer of plating chemicals, as an equipment standard. All 
electroplating baths in the plating and polishing source category use 
WAFS, except for tanks that perform electroplating with cyanide in the 
bath. This proposed rule would also require owners or operators of 
affected non-cyanide electrolytic process tanks to implement the 
management and pollution prevention practices described previously in 
section (1), ``Controls for All Affected Tanks.''
    The requirement for WAFS would not apply to cyanide electroplating 
and electroforming tanks that operate at pH of 12 or greater, or 
facilities that comply with the requirement for electroplating for 
short time periods discussed below. The in-tank control requirements 
proposed for these processes are discussed below in sections (4) and 
(5).
    To meet the requirement for WAFS, the owner or operator would 
operate either a tank with bath chemistry that includes a WAFS or add 
WAFS separately to the bath. The owner or operator would also document 
that WAFS are added when each tank is initially filled for plating and 
polishing operations. For tanks where WAFS are separately purchased 
tank ingredients, the use of WAFS would also be documented every time 
other bath ingredients are replenished during the plating process, 
where the WAFS are to be added in the same proportion as in the 
original bath.
    As a compliance option we are proposing that in lieu of using WAFS, 
facilities may use control systems that include capture devices 
designed to capture the plating and polishing metal HAP emissions from 
the tanks and to transport these metal HAP emissions to CMP, PBS, or 
MPME control devices. These control systems include capture devices 
such as hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with 
ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. The use of such capture 
devices, in combination with CMP, PBS, and MPME control devices, if 
operated according to the manufacturers' specifications, has been 
demonstrated to achieve equivalent emission reductions to WAFS, which 
we determined to be GACT for non-cyanide electrolytic process tanks). 
Add-on controls are used to control water vapor (steam) and other non-
HAP tank ingredients that evaporate from the tank; these add-on 
controls also incidentally capture and control any metal HAP that may 
be emitted from the tank at a level of at least 95 percent control when 
operated according to the manufacturer's specifications.
    Facilities that would like to use equipment other than those listed 
above can seek approval to do so pursuant to the procedures in Sec.  
63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63, which require the owner 
or operator to demonstrate that the alternative means of emission 
limitation achieves at least equivalent HAP emission reductions as the 
controls specified in this rule.
3. Non-electrolytic (Electroless) Process Tanks
    This proposed rule would require owners or operators of new and 
existing affected non-electrolytic process tanks to implement the 
management and pollution prevention practices described previously in 
section (1), ``Controls for All Affected Tanks.'' Affected non-
electrolytic processes under this proposed rule would include but are 
not limited to processes such as electroless nickel plating; chromate 
conversion coating; manganese phosphating; and nickel acetate, 
dichromate, and lead sealing processes.
4. Controls for Electroplating and Electroforming Process Tanks with 
Cyanide Operated at a pH Equal to or Greater than 12
    This proposed rule would require owners or operators of new and 
existing affected electroplating and electroforming process tanks with 
cyanide operated at pH equal to or greater than 12, to implement the 
management and pollution prevention practices described in section (1) 
above, ``Controls for All Affected Tanks.''
5. Controls for Flash or Short-term Electroplating Process Tanks
    Under this proposed rule, new and existing affected ``flash'' or 
short-term electroplating processes are defined to be tanks that 
perform plating no more than 1 hour per day or 3 minutes per hour of 
plating time; or use covers for 95 percent of the total plating time. 
These electroplating processes are performed infrequently or for short 
periods of time, some of which are on the order of 30 seconds or less, 
as a quick dip. These tanks would be required to meet the management 
and pollution prevention practices, described previously in section (1) 
above, ``Controls for All Affected Tanks,'' which include the 
requirement to reduce the heat when the tanks are not in use.
6. Controls for Thermal Spraying Processes
    For existing affected thermal spraying processes, this proposed 
rule would require control systems that are designed to provide capture 
of the plating and polishing metal HAP emissions from thermal spraying 
processes and transport these metal HAP emissions to water curtains, 
fabric filters, or HEPA filters. The control systems include capture 
devices such as hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices 
with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. The use of such 
capture devices in combination with water curtains, fabric filters, or 
HEPA filters, if operated according to the manufacturers 
specifications, have been demonstrated to achieve at least 90 percent 
overall control. Based on our surveys and a thorough review of the 
industry, we determined that the above capture and control devices are 
currently used by the industry.
    This proposed rule would require new thermal spraying processes to 
install control systems that are designed

[[Page 14134]]

to provide capture and control of the metal HAP emissions from these 
sources and that transport these emissions from the affected source to 
fabric or HEPA filters. These control systems include capture devices 
such as hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with 
ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. The use of such capture 
devices in combination with fabric or HEPA filters, if operated 
according to the manufacturers specifications, have been demonstrated 
to achieve 95 percent overall control. Based on our surveys and a 
thorough review of the industry, we determined that the above capture 
and control devices are currently used by the industry.
    Facilities that would like to use equipment other than those listed 
above can seek approval to do so pursuant to the procedures in Sec.  
63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63, which require the owner 
or operator to demonstrate that the alternative means of emission 
limitation achieves at least equivalent HAP emission reductions as the 
controls specified in this proposed rule.
7. Controls for Dry Mechanical Polishing Operations
    For new and existing affected dry mechanical polishing operations, 
this proposed rule would require control systems that are designed to 
capture the plating and polishing metal HAP emissions from dry 
mechanical polishing operations and transport these metal HAP emissions 
to cartridge, fabric, or HEPA filters. These control systems include 
capture devices such as hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake 
devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. The use of 
such capture devices in combination with cartridge, fabric, or HEPA 
filters, if operated according to the manufacturers specifications, 
have been demonstrated to achieve 90 percent overall control. Based on 
our surveys and a thorough review of the industry, we determined that 
the above capture and control devices are currently used by the 
industry. Complete capture of the PM, which is a surrogate for metal 
HAP, by the exhaust system is not typical in this industry because of 
the need for the workers to be close to the polishing wheels and which 
precludes the use of total enclosures.
    Facilities that would like to use equipment other than those listed 
above can seek approval to do so pursuant to the procedures in Sec.  
63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63, which require the owner 
or operator to demonstrate that the alternative means of emission 
limitation achieves at least equivalent HAP emission reductions as the 
controls specified in this proposed rule.

D. What are the initial compliance requirements?

    To demonstrate initial compliance with this proposed rule, owners 
or operators of affected new or existing plating and polishing tanks 
would certify they have implemented the management and pollution 
prevention practices specified in this proposed rule and are 
maintaining the appropriate records to document compliance. The owner 
or operator of a facility that uses an affected flash electroplating 
process would also demonstrate initial compliance by documenting that 
the plating tank is operated no more than 1 hour per day or 3 minutes 
per hour; or that the tank is covered for at least 95 percent of the 
plating time.
    Owners or operators of affected new or existing non-cyanide 
electrolytic process tanks that comply with the WAFS requirement would 
demonstrate initial compliance with this proposed rule by certifying 
that WAFS has been added to the tank when each tank is initially filled 
for plating and polishing operations, according to the manufacturer's 
specifications and operating instructions. In addition, owners or 
operators of all affected electrolytic process tanks would certify that 
they have implemented the management and pollution prevention practices 
required for all affected plating tanks in this proposed rule.
    As an alternative to the use of WAFS, we are proposing as a 
compliance option that owners or operators of affected new or existing 
non-cyanide electrolytic process tanks use a control system that 
captures the metal HAP emissions from plating tanks and transports 
these emissions to CMP, PBS, or MPME. These control systems are known 
to be able to achieve at least 95 percent control efficiency if 
operated according to the manufacturers' specifications. Owners or 
operators can use other devices to the extent those devices provide at 
least equivalent HAP emission reductions and are approved in accordance 
with the procedures of 40 CFR 63.6(g).
    Owners or operators that choose the alternative compliance option 
(i.e., that use either CMP, PBS, or MPME), would certify that they have 
installed and are operating an emissions control system according to 
the manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions, and that 
the control system is designed to provide capture of the metal HAP 
emissions from these sources and transport these emissions from the 
affected source to CMP, PBS, or MPME which achieve equivalent emission 
reductions to the use of WAFS. Capture devices include devices such as 
hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with ductwork, 
dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. These control systems have been 
demonstrated to achieve equivalent emission reductions to the use of 
WAFS if operated according with the manufacturer's specifications. 
Facilities could demonstrate that other control devices are at least 
equivalent for control of metal HAP emissions according to the 
procedures in Sec.  63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63.
    The owners or operators of affected new and existing dry mechanical 
polishing processes would demonstrate initial compliance by certifying 
that they have installed and are operating an emissions control system 
according to the manufacturer's specifications and operating 
instructions and that the capture system is designed to provide capture 
of the metal HAP emissions from these sources and to transport these 
emissions from the affected source to cartridge, fabric, or HEPA 
filters. Capture devices include devices such as hoods, enclosures, or 
any other duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, 
plenums, or fans that transport the metal HAP from the process into 
cartridge, fabric, or HEPA filters. These control systems have been 
demonstrated to achieve 90 percent control if operated according with 
the manufacturer's specifications. Facilities could demonstrate that 
other control devices are at least equivalent for control of metal HAP 
emissions according to the procedures in Sec.  63.6(g) of the General 
Provisions to part 63.
    Owners or operators of affected existing thermal spraying processes 
would demonstrate initial compliance by certifying that they have 
installed and are operating an emissions control system according to 
the manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions, and that 
the control system is designed to provide capture of the metal HAP 
emissions from these sources and to transport these emissions from the 
affected source to water curtains, fabric filters, or HEPA filters. 
Capture devices include devices such as hoods, enclosures, or any other 
duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or 
fans. These control systems have been demonstrated to achieve at least 
90 percent control if operated according to the manufacturer's 
specifications. Facilities could demonstrate that other control systems 
are at least equivalent for

[[Page 14135]]

control of metal HAP emissions according to the procedures in Sec.  
63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63.
    Owners or operators of affected new thermal spraying processes 
would demonstrate initial compliance by certifying that they have 
installed and are operating an emissions control system according to 
the manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions and that 
the control system is designed to provide capture of the metal HAP 
emissions from these sources and transport these emissions from the 
affected source to fabric or HEPA filters. Capture devices include 
devices such as hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices 
with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. These control 
systems have been demonstrated to achieve 95 percent control if 
operated according to the manufacturer's specifications. Facilities 
could demonstrate that other control systems are at least equivalent 
for control of metal HAP emissions according to the procedures in Sec.  
63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63.

E. What are the continuous compliance requirements?

    This proposed rule also requires owners or operators of all 
affected plating and polishing process tanks to demonstrate continuous 
compliance by adhering to the management and pollution prevention 
practices specified in this proposed rule and maintaining the 
appropriate records to document compliance.
    For affected non-cyanide electrolytic process tanks that comply by 
using WAFS, where the WAFS are purchased separately from other tank 
materials, the use of WAFS would be documented every time other bath 
ingredients are replenished during the plating process. The WAFS are to 
be added in the same proportion as in the original bath, according to 
the manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions. Records 
would also be maintained of all the chemical additions. The WAFS should 
be added in proportion to the amounts of other bath chemistry 
ingredients that are added to replenish the tank bath, as in the 
original make-up of the tank.
    Owners or operators that comply with the rule by operating control 
systems are required to operate and maintain each capture system and 
add-on control device according to the manufacturer's specifications 
and operating instructions, and to keep these documents at the facility 
at all times in a location where it can be easily accessed by the 
operators. Owners or operators also are required to maintain records to 
document conformance with this requirement.
    The owner or operator of a facility that uses an affected flash 
electroplating process would demonstrate continuous compliance by 
keeping records of daily plating time; the time the tank operates with 
the cover in place, if applicable; and maintaining the appropriate 
records to document compliance with the management and pollution 
prevention practices specified in this proposed rule.

F. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?

    The owner or operator of a new or existing affected source is 
required to comply with certain requirements of the General Provisions 
to part 63, which are identified in Table 1 of this proposed rule. Each 
facility is required to submit an Initial Notification and a 
Notification of Compliance Status according to the requirements in 40 
CFR 63.9, General Provisions to part 63. The owner or operator of an 
affected source is required to submit an annual compliance 
certification and, if there were any deviations during the year, a 
report that describes the deviations and the corrective action taken.
    Owners and operators also are required to maintain all records that 
demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with this proposed rule, 
including records of all required notifications and reports, with 
supporting documentation; and records showing compliance with the 
management and pollution prevention practices. Owners and operators 
would also maintain records of the following, if applicable: Amount and 
frequency of WAFS additions; daily plating time; the time the tank is 
operated with a cover in place; and maintenance of any required control 
systems.

IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule

A. How did we select the source category?

    Plating and Polishing was listed as an area source category on June 
26, 2002 (67 FR 43112). The inclusion of this source category on the 
area source category list was based on data from the CAA section 112(k) 
inventory, which represents 1990 urban air information. Those data 
indicated that plating and polishing plants were contributors to 
emissions of five of the listed urban HAP metals: cadmium, chromium, 
manganese, nickel, and lead.

B. How did we select the affected sources?

    The affected sources for the proposed rule include plating and 
polishing tanks (other than those that are subject to the Chromium 
Electroplating NESHAP), dry mechanical polishing operations, and 
thermal spray processes, which have the potential to emit the five 
plating and polishing metal HAP. We selected these sources because the 
plating and polishing metal HAP are used in and have the potential to 
be emitted from these sources.
    Electrolytic process tanks emit metal HAP when gas bubbles formed 
by the electrolytic process rise to the tank surface and burst; as the 
result of bath agitation, particularly when air sparging is practiced; 
and from the placing of parts in, or the removal of parts from, the 
tank. Non-electrolytic process tanks emit metal HAP as the result of 
bath agitation, and from the placing of parts in, or the removal of 
parts from, the tank. Emissions of metal HAP from thermal spraying 
result from overspray, when the sprayed metal does not contact or 
adhere to the target part and becomes entrained in the air. Emissions 
of metal HAP from dry mechanical polishing operations occur as the 
result of the abrasion of metal surfaces and the subsequent entrainment 
of the abraded particles in the air.
    The Plating and Polishing Source Category also was listed as an 
area source of TCE emissions. Chlorinated solvents such as TCE are used 
as degreasers in the plating industry. We subsequently discovered that 
the 1990 emissions data for TCE was for plating facilities that used 
TCE in degreasing operations, which are not part of this source 
category. Rather, these emission units at both major and area sources 
are subject to standards for halogenated solvent cleaning under 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart T. Consequently, we are not proposing standards for 
TCE from plating and polishing facilities. The plating and polishing 
source category listed for TCE emissions remains a listed source 
category pursuant to section 112(c)(3) of this part, and this proposed 
rule establishes standards for emissions of plating and polishing metal 
HAP. Therefore, we are clarifying that we do not need plating and 
polishing to meet the section 112(c)(3) 90 percent requirement 
regarding area source emissions of TCE.
    Several plating and polishing area source facilities also perform 
chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing. The chromium 
electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks at these facilities are 
already subject to the

[[Page 14136]]

Chromium Electroplating NESHAP (subpart N) that apply to both major and 
area sources. Therefore, these chromium electroplating and chromium 
anodizing tanks would not be affected sources under the proposed rule 
although their plating and polishing area source processes would be 
subject.

C. How did we subcategorize plating and polishing processes?

    As part of the GACT analysis, we considered whether there were 
differences in processes, sizes, or other factors affecting emissions 
and control technologies that would warrant subcategorization. Under 
section 112(d)(1) of the CAA, EPA ``may distinguish among classes, 
types, and sizes within a source category or subcategory in 
establishing such standards * * *''
    In our review of the available data, we observed significant 
differences in the chemistry and operation of some electroplating and 
electroforming processes. We therefore have identified three 
subcategories of electrolytic process units: (1) Non-cyanide 
electrolytic process tanks, operated at pH less than 12, (2) 
Electroplating and electroforming process tanks with cyanide, operated 
at a pH greater than or equal to 12; and (3) Flash or short-term 
electroplating processes.
    Non-cyanide electrolytic process tanks are operated at pH less than 
12, and use WAFS as part of their normal bath chemistry. In 
electroplating and electroforming process tanks that have cyanide in 
the bath and which have a pH of 12 or greater, there are metal 
complexing agents, called anions or ligands, which keep the metals to 
be plated in solution as an ionic complex with the result that minimal 
emissions of either the anion or metal HAP occur. According to 
technical literature, these highly alkaline solutions are self-
regulating and simulate the effect of adding WAFS to the bath. Ionic 
baths are used in the plating of brass (copper and zinc), bronze 
(copper and tin), cadmium, copper, gold, silver, and zinc, of which 
only cadmium is an urban HAP. Note that electropolishing is not 
performed with cyanide.
    Flash or short-term electroplating is conducted infrequently and 
for short periods of time, on the order of 30 seconds or less as a 
quick dip, for no more than 3 minutes total per hour. Facilities that 
use this process generally keep the tanks covered and, if the bath is 
heated, reduce the heat when the tanks are not in use. General practice 
in the industry does not include monitoring WAFS levels or the use of 
add-on emission controls. Only a small number of the total tanks in the 
plating and polishing industry are ``flash'' plating tanks, and are 
estimated to be less than 3 percent of all tanks in the industry.

D. How was GACT determined?

    As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), we are proposing standards 
representing GACT for the Plating and Polishing Area Source Category. 
As noted in section II of this preamble, the statute requires the 
Agency to establish standards for area sources listed pursuant to 
section 112(c) based on GACT. The statute does not set any condition 
precedent for issuing standards under section 112(d)(5) other than that 
the area source category or subcategory at issue must be one that EPA 
listed pursuant to section 112(c), which is the case here.
    The tank-based operations of this proposed rule, that include 
electroplating (without chromium), electroless plating, and polishing, 
have little or no emissions compared to chromium electroplating. We 
evaluated the control technologies and management practices that reduce 
HAP emissions that are generally available for the Plating and 
Polishing Area Source Category. We also considered costs and economic 
impacts in determining GACT. We believe the consideration of costs and 
economic impacts is especially important for plating and polishing area 
sources because requiring additional controls would result in only 
marginal reductions in emissions at very high costs for modest 
incremental improvement in control for this area source category. 
Furthermore, more than 90 percent of plating and polishing plants are 
small businesses. We explain our proposed GACT below, in sections (1) 
through (5).
1. GACT for All Plating and Polishing Process Tanks
    From the 2006 EPA survey of the industry, we identified several 
management and pollution prevention practices that minimize emissions 
from plating and polishing process tanks and are commonly used in the 
industry. These practices include minimizing bath agitation when 
removing and plating parts; maximizing dripping of tank solution back 
into bath by extending drip time when removing the tank objects and 
using drain boards (also known as drip shields); optimizing the design 
of barrels, racks, and parts to minimize dragout of bath solution, such 
as by using slotted barrels and tilted racks, or by using designs with 
flow-through holes to allow the tank solution to drip back into the 
tank; using tank covers whenever possible; and minimizing or reducing 
heating during tank operation and when the tanks are not in use.
    The above practices reflect the practices employed by the plating 
and polishing area source category. In addition, other source 
categories with similar industrial processes use these same management 
practices to reduce HAP emissions and water pollution. Because these 
practices are standard industry practice, we are proposing that these 
practices are GACT for all new and existing affected plating and 
polishing processes performed in tanks that include electrolytic 
process tanks with and without cyanide, as well as non-electrolytic 
process tanks. The costs of implementing these management practices are 
reasonable due to the relatively small amount of time needed to perform 
the practices, the relatively small amount of materials used, and 
especially because they are oftentimes cost savings measures. These 
benefits were reported by facilities in the 2006 EPA survey and in 
discussions with industry representatives.
    Some of these management and pollution prevention practices also 
have the co-benefit of reducing water pollution since they prevent 
metal from reaching nearby water systems. These pollution prevention 
practices are also recommended for this industry by EPA's Office of 
Water for this industry. See ``Development Document for the Final 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products 
and Machinery Point Source Category,'' EPA-821-B-03-001, February 2003. 
[Available at: http://www.epa.gov/guide/mpm/tdd/index.htm]
2. GACT for Non-cyanide Electrolytic Process Tanks Operated at pH Less 
Than 12
    We are proposing GACT for non-cyanide electroplating process tanks, 
which operate at pH less than 12, to be the use of WAFS in the plating 
bath. This requirement was also the control specified as MACT in the 
Chromium Electroplating NESHAP that applies to both major and area 
sources.
    All non-cyanide electrolytic plating tanks that operate with a pH 
less than 12 include a WAFS in the bath chemistry to prevent gas 
bubbles from adhering to the surfaces of work pieces, thereby ensuring 
a smooth plating finish. The WAFS also lower the surface tension of the 
bath to allow the bath solution to cover or coat, i.e., ``wet,'' the 
surfaces of the parts and consequently also lower metal HAP emissions. 
Using WAFS to maintain the bath surface tension below specified levels 
is one of

[[Page 14137]]

the control options specified in the Chromium Electroplating NESHAP. 
The use of WAFS is also a pollution prevention technique since it 
prevents the metal HAP from being emitted rather than controlling the 
metal after it is emitted, as in add-on control strategies.
    A recent ORD study of emissions from nickel plating also showed 
that WAFS in nickel electroplating is an effective means of reducing 
nickel emissions from electroplating that achieves a comparable post-
control metal HAP emissions concentration as the levels of chromium 
under the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards in the 
Chromium Electroplating NESHAP. Test data for nickel electroplating 
tanks using WAFS that were submitted with the 2006 EPA survey responses 
show the same low level of post-control HAP metal emission 
concentration as the ORD data.
    Electroforming is essentially the same process as electroplating 
except the metal plate is subsequently removed from the plated mold and 
becomes the product. Because non-cyanide electroforming bath 
chemistries are the same as for non-cyanide electroplating, WAFS are 
also used in electroforming baths. Therefore, we are proposing GACT for 
non-cyanide electroforming baths, which operate at pH less than 12, 
also to be the use of WAFS.
    Electropolishing commonly uses non-HAP acids such as sulfuric and 
phosphoric, and occasionally chromic acid (at 5 to 7 percent in the 
bath) to prepare the metal surface for plating. For those 
electropolishing processes that do use chromic acid, using WAFS 
prevents significant chromium emissions.
    For these non-cyanide electrolytic process tanks operated at pH 
less than 12, we are also proposing that GACT includes the management 
and pollution prevention practices described above in section (1), 
``GACT for All Plating and Polishing Process Tanks.'' These practices 
reflect the practices employed by the plating and polishing area source 
category. In addition, other source categories with similar industrial 
processes use these same management practices to reduce HAP emissions 
and water pollution. Because these practices are standard industry 
practice, we are proposing that these practices are GACT for new and 
existing affected non-cyanide electrolytic process tanks operated at pH 
less than 12. The costs of implementing these management practices are 
reasonable due to the relatively small amount of time needed to perform 
the practices; the relatively small amount of materials used, as 
reported in the 2006 EPA survey and in discussions with the industry; 
and especially because they are cost savings measures.
    Because the tank chemical constituents are depleted as bath liquid 
is lost by drag-out of parts and other mechanisms, tank chemical 
ingredients often are added ``over the side'' of tanks to maintain the 
proper concentrations. Therefore, to ensure continuous compliance with 
GACT, we are proposing that non-cyanide electrolytic process tanks add 
WAFS to the tank when any other bath ingredient is replenished. For 
tanks that purchase WAFS separate from other tank ingredients, we are 
proposing that WAFS are to be added when other tank ingredients are 
replenished, in the same proportion to the other ingredients as in the 
original make-up of the bath. This will ensure that any WAFS that are 
lost during the plating and polishing process are replenished.
    As an alternative to the use of WAFS, we are proposing as a 
compliance option that owners or operators can use control systems that 
include capture devices that are designed to capture the plating and 
polishing metal HAP emissions from the tanks and transport these metal 
HAP emissions to CMP, PBS, or MPME control devices. These control 
systems include capture devices such as hoods, enclosures, or any other 
duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or 
fans. The use of such capture devices in combination with CMP, PBS, and 
MPME control devices, if operated according to the manufacturers' 
specifications, has been demonstrated to achieve equivalent emission 
reductions to WAFS, which we determined to be GACT for non-cyanide 
electrolytic process tanks). Add-on controls are used to control water 
vapor (steam) and other non-HAP tank ingredients that evaporate from 
the tank; these add-on controls also incidentally capture and control 
any metal HAP that may be emitted from the tank. Data from the chromium 
electroplating industry indicate that CMP, PBS, and MPME achieve 
chromium emission control efficiencies of at least 95 percent.
    Because these add-on control devices are not pollution prevention 
technologies, and because of the high costs required to purchase, 
install, and operate add-on controls for a relatively low level of 
plating and polishing metal HAP emissions, these devices are not being 
proposed as GACT. From the information acquired during the development 
of the Chromium Electroplating NESHAP that applied to similar 
electroplating processes in tanks, the cost of using add-on controls to 
reduce metal HAP emissions from the electroplating tanks ranged from 
$100,000 to $1 million per ton of chromium removed. Much higher costs, 
on the order of five to 10 times higher or more, are expected for 
plating and polishing process electroplating tanks since the metal HAP 
emissions from these tanks are lower due to the higher cathodic 
efficiency of the plating and polishing metal HAP as opposed to 
chromium. This level of costs would impose a large negative economic 
impact upon the area sources in the plating and polishing industry, 
which are predominately small businesses. Therefore, we propose that 
this technology does not represent GACT for the plating and polishing 
area source category.
    Because some facilities already have these control systems in place 
or, for new sources, want to control water vapor (steam) and other non-
HAP tank ingredients that evaporate from the tank, we are allowing 
these devices as an equivalent alternative to the use of WAFS as GACT 
for control of metal HAP from non-cyanide electrolytic plating and 
polishing.
3. GACT for Non-Electrolytic (Electroless) Processes
    Under this proposed rule, affected non-electrolytic processes 
include electroless nickel plating, chromate conversion coating, nickel 
acetate sealing, dichromate sealing, and manganese phosphate coating. 
For these processes we are proposing GACT is management and pollution 
prevention practices as described above in section (1), ``GACT for All 
Plating and Polishing Process Tanks.'' These practices reflect the 
practices employed by the plating and polishing area source category. 
In addition, other source categories with similar industrial processes 
use these same management practices to reduce HAP emissions and water 
pollution. Because these practices are standard industry practice, we 
are proposing that these practices are GACT for all new and existing 
affected non-electrolytic (electroless) processes. The costs of 
implementing these management practices are reasonable due to the 
relatively small amount of time needed to perform the practices; the 
relatively small amount of materials used, as reported in the 2006 EPA 
survey and in discussions with the industry; and especially because 
they are cost savings measures.
    Emissions of the plating and polishing metal HAP from non-
electrolytic process tanks are significantly lower than are emissions 
from electrolytic

[[Page 14138]]

process tanks for several reasons. Unlike electrolytic processes, these 
processes do not apply electrical currents to the tank baths. As a 
result, there is no mechanism that produces the hydrogen and oxygen gas 
bubbles which cause the misting from electrolytic tanks; therefore, 
fume suppressants are not needed. Furthermore, the non-electrolytic 
processes do not require vigorous agitation of the baths, which is 
another source of emissions from electrolytic process tanks that can be 
significant in some situations. The concentration of metal in non-
electrolytic process tanks also is relatively low. For example, the 
concentration of nickel in electroless nickel plating baths is less 
than one oz/gal of bath solution (less than 7 g/L), whereas in nickel 
electroplating baths, the concentration of nickel is 13 oz/gal (91 g/
L). In manganese phosphate coating, the manganese concentration is less 
than 1 percent (v/v). The low chromium emissions from chromium 
conversion coating were well documented during development of the OSHA 
workplace standard for hexavalent chromium. Consequently, we are 
setting GACT as the management and pollution prevention practices 
described above in this section.
    Because of the relatively low emissions from these tanks, a 
requirement for add-on controls for these operations would not be cost-
effective and would result in costs on the upper end of the estimated 
cost impacts for plating and polishing sources, at 10 or more times the 
cost levels of $100,000 to $1 million per ton of chromium removed found 
for chromium electroplating.
4. GACT for Electroplating and Electroforming Process Tanks With 
Cyanide Operated at pH Values Greater Than or Equal to 12
    For cyanide electroplating baths with pH greater than or equal to 
12, such as cadmium cyanide plating, metal HAP emissions are minimal 
because the metal remains in solution as a metal-cyanide complex. The 
chemistry of electroplating baths with cyanide are such that a high pH 
(pH >= 12) is maintained to keep the cyanide and metals to be plated in 
solution as a metal-cyanide ionic complex, with minimal emissions of 
cyanide gas or metal HAP. According to the technical literature, the 
self-regulating chemistry of the highly alkaline bath solutions 
simulate the effect of adding WAFS to the bath, which is GACT for the 
non-cyanide electroplating processes. Cyanide baths are not 
intentionally operated at pH less than 12 since unfavorable plating 
conditions would occur in the tank, among other negative effects.
    Therefore, we are proposing that GACT for these tanks consists of 
the management practices described above in section (1), ``GACT for All 
Plating and Polishing Process Tanks.'' These practices reflect the 
practices employed by the plating and polishing area source category. 
In addition, other source categories with similar industrial processes 
use these same management practices to reduce HAP emissions and water 
pollution. Because these practices are standard industry practice, we 
are proposing that these practices are GACT for electroplating and 
electroforming process tanks with cyanide operated at pH values greater 
than or equal to 12. The costs of implementing these management 
practices are reasonable due to the relatively small amount of time 
needed to perform the practices; the relatively small amount of 
materials used, as reported in the 2006 EPA survey and in discussions 
with the industry; and especially because they are cost savings 
measures.
5. GACT for Short-Term or ``Flash'' Electroplating
    In this proposed rule, we define flash electroplating tanks as 
those tanks that operate one hour plating per day or 3 minutes per 
hour, or tanks that have a cover in place during 95 percent of the 
plating time. Plating that occurs for only one hour daily (or 3 minutes 
per hour for 24 hours) or tanks that are covered 95 percent of the 
plating time have equivalent emissions to plating that is performed 
less than 5 percent of the day. Since plating tanks can be operated 
continuously, 24 hours per day, this level of operation is equivalent 
to 95 percent control of emissions.
    We are proposing that GACT for these short-term operations is the 
management and pollution prevention practices described above in 
section (1), ``GACT for All Plating and Polishing Process Tanks,'' that 
are applicable to this process, such as reducing the heat when not in 
use. These management practices reflect the practices employed by the 
plating and polishing area source category. In addition, other source 
categories with similar industrial processes use these same management 
practices to reduce HAP emissions and water pollution. Because these 
practices are standard industry practice, we are proposing that these 
practices are GACT for short-term or ``flash'' electroplating processes 
performed in tanks. The costs of implementing these management 
practices are reasonable due to the relatively small amount of time 
needed to perform the practices; the relatively small amount of 
materials used, as reported in the 2006 EPA survey and in discussions 
with the industry; and especially because they are cost savings 
measures.
    Because of the combination of low levels of emissions and short 
time periods it is not cost-effective to install add-on emission 
controls and it would be unnecessarily burdensome to require 
recordkeeping of WAFS levels use. From the information acquired during 
the development of the Chromium Electroplating NESHAP, which was 
described further above, the cost of using add-on controls for similar 
electroplating tanks ranged from $100,000 to $1 million per ton of 
chromium removed. Much higher costs, on the order of 100 to 200 times 
higher or more, are expected for these short-term plating and polishing 
process tanks since the metal HAP emissions from these tanks are lower 
due to the short periods of time the tanks are used or operate 
uncovered. This level of costs would impose a large negative economic 
impact upon the area sources in the plating and polishing industry, 
which are predominately small businesses. Therefore, we propose that 
this technology does not represent GACT for the plating and polishing 
area source category.
    Only a small number of the total tanks in the plating and polishing 
industry are ``flash'' plating tanks, and are estimated to be less than 
3 percent of all the tanks in the industry. Because of the short time 
periods for operation of these ``flash'' processes, the emissions from 
these processes are equivalent to the 95 percent control achieved by 
add-on controls that are GACT for continuous electroplating processes.
6. GACT for Dry Mechanical Polishing Operations
    For new and existing sources of dry mechanical polishing 
operations, we are proposing GACT to be control systems that are 
designed to provide capture of the plating and polishing metal HAP 
emissions from the process and transport these metal HAP emissions to 
cartridge, fabric, or HEPA filters. These control systems include 
capture devices such as hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake 
devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. The use of 
such capture devices in combination with cartridge, fabric, or HEPA 
filters, if operated according to the manufacturers specifications, 
have been demonstrated to achieve at least 90 percent overall control. 
Based on our surveys and a thorough review of the industry, we 
determined that the above

[[Page 14139]]

capture and control devices are currently used by the industry.
    Only dry mechanical polishing that has the potential to generate 
one or more of the five plating and polishing metal HAP of cadmium, 
chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel would be subject to this part of 
the standard. This GACT requirement would be an equipment standard.
    Dry mechanical polishing generates a fine metal dust which is 
controlled by PM collection systems, using PM as a surrogate for metal 
HAP, that include a local capture device exhausted to a filtration 
device. These devices are the best available control technology and are 
standard practice in the industry to protect the workers and workplace 
from PM. Because of the need for the workers to be close to the 
polishing wheels, total enclosures around the polishing equipment are 
not possible.
    Requiring source testing to determine control efficiency or 
emissions would be an economic burden for the facilities that in most 
cases are small businesses; therefore, we are proposing that compliance 
with GACT is to operate the control devices according to the 
manufacturer's instructions.
7. GACT for Thermal Spraying Processes
    For existing thermal spraying processes, we are proposing GACT to 
be control systems that are designed to provide capture of the plating 
and polishing metal HAP emissions from thermal spraying processes and 
transport these metal HAP emissions to water curtains, fabric filters, 
or HEPA filters. These control systems include capture devices such as 
hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with ductwork, 
dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. The use of such capture devices 
in combination with water curtains, fabric filters, or HEPA filters, if 
operated according to the manufacturers specifications, have been 
demonstrated to achieve at least 90 percent overall control. Based on 
our surveys and a thorough review of the industry, we determined that 
the above capture and control devices are currently used by the 
industry.
    This GACT requirement is an equipment standard. Facilities could 
demonstrate that other control devices are at least equivalent for 
control of metal HAP emissions according to the procedures in Sec.  
63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63.
    For new thermal spraying sources, we are proposing that GACT is to 
install control systems that are designed to provide capture and 
control of the metal HAP emissions from these sources and that 
transport these emissions from the affected source to fabric or HEPA 
filters. These control systems include capture devices such as hoods, 
enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, 
manifolds, plenums, or fans. The use of such capture devices in 
combination with fabric or HEPA filters, if operated according to the 
manufacturers specifications, have been demonstrated to achieve at 
least 95 percent overall control. Based on our surveys and a thorough 
review of the industry, we determined that the above capture and 
control devices are currently in use by the industry and generally 
available for new sources.
    Requiring source testing to determine control efficiency or 
emissions would be an economic burden for the facilities that in most 
cases are small businesses; therefore, we are proposing that compliance 
with GACT is to operate the control devices according to the 
manufacturer's instructions.

E. How did we select the compliance requirements?

    We are proposing notification, reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements to ensure compliance with this proposed rule. We are 
requiring an Initial Notification and Notification of Compliance Status 
because these requirements are consistent with section Sec.  63.9(h) of 
the General Provisions to part 63.
    For demonstrating initial compliance, this proposed rule requires 
affected facilities to certify that the required management practices 
and equipment standards have been implemented; and if applicable, the 
existing add-on control devices have been installed properly.
    For demonstrating continuous compliance, the proposed requirements 
include annual certifications that the management practices are being 
followed and control systems, if any, are being properly operated and 
maintained. Because all facilities currently operate at the GACT level 
of control and greater than 90 percent of the affected facilities are 
small businesses, we are proposing a requirement for the minimum 
information necessary to ensure compliance. We believe the proposed 
requirements for annual certifications achieve that objective.
    Consequently, we are not requiring emission testing and compliance 
with a control efficiency requirement to establish proper operation of 
control devices as part of compliance with equipment standards. Testing 
a plating and polishing tank would require a ventilation system and 
exhaust duct or stack for sampling emissions, and the large majority of 
plating and polishing tanks are not equipped with ventilation and 
exhaust systems. Emission testing would necessitate installing either a 
permanent or temporary exhaust system, which would significantly 
increase the costs of the emission test. For these reasons, we are 
proposing to allow affected facilities to demonstrate compliance 
without incurring the costs of installing ventilation and exhaust 
systems and conducting emission tests. Considering that more than 90 
percent of the companies that would be affected by this proposed rule 
are small businesses, the proposed formats would help to minimize the 
burden on the regulated community.
    This proposed rule also would require recordkeeping in accordance 
with Sec.  63.10 of the General Provisions to part 63. These records 
are needed for EPA to determine compliance with specific rule 
requirements.
    Under this proposed rule, each facility would also submit an annual 
compliance certification and an annual compliance report. The annual 
report identifies deviations, if any, from the equipment and work 
practice requirements. We are also proposing annual compliance 
certifications and annual compliance reports, which should help 
identify facilities with potential compliance issues.
    We are proposing a 2-year period for existing facilities to achieve 
compliance. Since many facilities may be subject to EPA rules for the 
first time and because most of these facilities are small businesses 
with 50 percent of the firms having less than 10 employees, we believe 
the 2-year period is needed to provide time for facilities to identify 
any changes that are needed to comply with the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements and institute those changes. All new area source 
processes or facilities would be required to comply upon the date of 
publication of the final rule, or startup, whichever is later.

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

    We are proposing exemption from title V permitting requirements for 
affected facilities in the plating and polishing area source category 
for the reasons described below. Section 502(a) of the CAA provides 
that the Administrator may exempt an area source category from title V 
if she determines that compliance with title V requirements is 
``impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome'' on an area 
source

[[Page 14140]]

category. See CAA section 502(a). In December 2005, in a national 
rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in 
CAA section 502 and developed a four-factor balancing test for 
determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a 
particular area source category, such that an exemption from title V is 
appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December 19, 2005 (``Exemption Rule'').
    The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for 
determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' on a 
particular area source category include: (1) Whether title V would 
result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements, 
including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting that are proposed 
for an area source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V 
permitting would impose significant burdens on the area source category 
and whether the burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the 
sources may have in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 
FR 75324); (3) whether the costs of title V permitting for the area 
source category would be justified, taking into consideration any 
potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 
75325); and (4) whether there are implementation and enforcement 
programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the 
NESHAP for the area source category, without relying on title V permits 
(70 FR 75326).
    In discussing these factors in the Exemption Rule, we further 
explained that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to 
which one or more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for 
a given source category, and then we assessed whether considered 
together those factors demonstrated that compliance with title V 
requirements would be `unnecessarily burdensome' on the category, 
consistent with section 502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, in 
the Exemption Rule, we explained that not all of the four factors must 
weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to determine that title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category. 
Instead, the factors are to be considered in combination, and EPA 
determines whether the factors, taken together, support an exemption 
from title V for a particular source category.
    In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether 
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome 
on an area source category, we considered, consistent with the guidance 
provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether 
exempting the area source category would adversely affect public 
health, welfare or the environment. See 70 FR 15254-15255, March 25, 
2005. We have determined that the proposed exemptions from title V 
would not adversely affect public health, welfare and the environment. 
Our rationale for this decision follows here.
    In considering the proposed exemption from title V requirements for 
sources in the category affected by this proposed rule, we first 
compared the title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements (factor one) to the requirements in the proposed NESHAP 
for the Plating and Polishing area source category. EPA determined that 
the management practices currently used by plating and polishing 
facilities is GACT, and this proposed rule would require recordkeeping, 
which serves as monitoring and deviation reporting, to assure 
compliance with the NESHAP. The monitoring component of the first 
factor favors title V exemption because this proposed standard would 
provide for monitoring in the form of recordkeeping that would assure 
compliance with the requirements of this proposed rule. This proposed 
NESHAP would require annual compliance certification and annual 
deviation reports which should call attention to those facilities in 
need of supervision to the state agency in the same way as a title V 
permit. Monitoring other than recordkeeping would not be practical or 
appropriate because the requirements are management practices. Records 
would be required to ensure that the management practices are followed, 
including such records as the amount of WAFS added to the plating 
tanks.
    As part of the first factor, we have considered the extent to which 
title V could potentially enhance compliance for area sources covered 
by this proposed rule through recordkeeping or reporting requirements. 
We have considered the various title V recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements, including requirements for a 6-month monitoring report, 
deviation reports, and an annual certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6. 
For any affected plating and polishing area source facility, this 
proposed NESHAP would require an Initial Notification and a 
Notification of Compliance Status. This proposed Plating and Polishing 
NESHAP also would require affected facilities to maintain records 
showing compliance with the required equipment standard and management 
practices. The information that would be required in the notifications 
and records is similar to the information that would be provided in the 
deviation reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3). We acknowledge that title V might impose additional 
compliance requirements on this category, but we have determined that 
the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this 
proposed NESHAP for plating and polishing would be sufficient to assure 
compliance with the provisions of the NESHAP, and title V would not 
significantly improve those compliance requirements.
    For the second factor, we determine whether title V permitting 
would impose a significant burden on the area sources in the category 
and whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the 
source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency. 
Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and 
costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. EPA estimated 
that the average cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit 
was $38,500 per source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. See 
ICR for Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, January 2000, EPA ICR 
Number 1587.05. EPA does not have specific estimates for the burdens 
and costs of permitting plating and polishing area sources; however, 
there are certain activities associated with the part 70 and 71 rules. 
These activities are mandatory and impose burdens on the facility. They 
include reading and understanding permit program guidance and 
regulations; obtaining and understanding permit application forms; 
answering follow-up questions from permitting authorities after the 
application is submitted; reviewing and understanding the permit; 
collecting records; preparing and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-
month or more frequent basis; preparing and submitting prompt deviation 
reports, as defined by the State, which may include a combination of 
written, verbal, and other communications methods; collecting 
information, preparing, and submitting the annual compliance 
certification; preparing applications for permit revisions every 5 
years; and, as needed, preparing and submitting applications for permit 
revisions. In addition, although not required by the permit rules, many 
sources obtain the contractual services of consultants to help them 
understand and meet the permitting program's requirements. The ICR for 
part 70 provides additional information on the overall burdens and

[[Page 14141]]

costs, as well as the relative burdens of each activity. Also, for a 
more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70 sources 
(hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 
70.6, and 70.7.
    In assessing the second factor for plating and polishing 
facilities, we found that nearly all of the approximately 2,900 plating 
and polishing facilities affected by this proposed rule are small 
businesses, some with as few as one or two employees. These small 
sources lack the technical resources that would be needed to comply 
with permitting requirements and the financial resources that would be 
needed to hire the necessary staff or outside consultants. As discussed 
previously, title V permitting would impose significant costs on these 
area sources, and, accordingly, we propose that title V would be a 
significant burden for sources in this category. More than 90 percent 
of the facilities that would be subject to this proposed rule are small 
businesses with limited resources, and under title V they would be 
subject to numerous mandatory activities with which they would have 
difficulty complying, whether they were issued a standard or a general 
permit. Furthermore, given the number of sources in the category and 
the relatively small size of many of those sources, it would likely be 
difficult for them to obtain assistance from the permitting authority. 
Thus, we believe that the second factor strongly supports the proposed 
title V exemption for plating and polishing facilities.
    The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is 
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be 
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance 
likely to occur for such sources. We explained for the second factor 
that the costs of compliance with title V would impose a significant 
burden on nearly all of the approximately 2,900 plating and polishing 
facilities affected by this proposed rule. We also believe in 
considering the first factor that, while title V might impose 
additional requirements, the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements in this proposed NESHAP would assure compliance with the 
equipment standard and management practices imposed in the NESHAP. In 
addition, in our consideration of the fourth factor, we find that there 
are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place to assure 
compliance with the NESHAP. Because the costs, both economic and non-
economic, of compliance with title V are so high, and the potential for 
gains in compliance is low, we propose that title V permitting is not 
justified for this source category. Accordingly, the third factor 
supports the proposed title V exemptions for plating and polishing area 
sources.
    The fourth factor we considered in determining if title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome is whether there are implementation and 
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance 
with the NESHAP without relying on title V permits. There are State 
programs in place to enforce this area source NESHAP, and we believe 
that the State programs will be sufficient to assure compliance with 
this NESHAP. We also note that EPA retains authority to enforce this 
NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. We further note 
that small business assistance programs required by CAA section 507 may 
be used to assist area sources that have been exempted from title V 
permitting. Also, States and EPA often conduct voluntary compliance 
assistance, outreach, and education programs (compliance assistance 
programs), which are not required by statute. These additional programs 
would supplement and enhance the success of compliance with this area 
source NESHAP. We believe that the statutory requirements for 
implementation and enforcement of this NESHAP by the delegated States 
and EPA, combined with the additional assistance programs would be 
sufficient to assure compliance with this area source NESHAP without 
relying on title V permitting.
    In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had 
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had 
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only 
enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted, 
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to assure 
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the 
NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. In proposing this rule, we do not have 
similar data available on the specific enforcement as in the Exemption 
rule, but we have no reason to think that States will be less diligent 
in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have 
adequate programs to enforce the section 112 regulations and provide 
assurances that they will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate 
the program. See 40 CFR part 63, General Provisions, subpart E.
    In light of all the information presented here, we believe that 
there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are 
sufficient to assure compliance with the Plating and Polishing NESHAP 
without relying on title V permitting.
    Balancing the four factors for this area source category strongly 
supports the proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome. 
While title V might add additional compliance requirements if imposed, 
we believe that there would not be significant improvements to the 
compliance requirements in the NESHAP because the requirements in this 
proposed rule are specifically designed to assure compliance with the 
standards and management practices imposed on this area source 
category. We further maintain that the economic and non-economic costs 
of compliance with title V, in conjunction with the likely difficulty 
this number of small sources would have obtaining assistance from the 
permitting authority, would impose a significant burden on the sources. 
In addition, the high relative costs would not be justified given that 
there is likely to be little or no potential gain in compliance if 
title V were required. And, finally, there are adequate implementation 
and enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP. 
Thus, we propose that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily 
burdensome'' for the Plating and Polishing area source category.
    In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V 
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' EPA also considered, 
consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section 
502(a), whether exempting the Plating and Polishing area source 
category from title V requirements would adversely affect public 
health, welfare, or the environment. Exemption of the Plating and 
Polishing area source category from title V requirements would not 
adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment because the 
level of control would remain the same if a permit were required. The 
title V permit program does not impose new substantive air quality 
control requirements on sources, but instead requires that certain 
procedural measures be followed, particularly with respect to 
determining compliance with applicable requirements. As stated in our 
consideration of factor one for this category, title V would not lead 
to significant improvements in the compliance requirements applicable 
to existing or new area sources.

[[Page 14142]]

    Furthermore, we explained in the Exemption Rule that requiring 
permits for the large number of area sources could, at least in the 
first few years of implementation, potentially adversely affect public 
health, welfare, or the environment by shifting State agency resources 
away from assuring compliance for major sources with existing permits 
to issuing new permits for these area sources, potentially reducing 
overall air program effectiveness. Based on this analysis, we believe 
that title V exemptions for plating and polishing area sources would 
not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment for all 
of the reasons previously explained.
    For the reasons stated here, we are proposing to exempt the Plating 
and Polishing area source category from title V permitting 
requirements.

V. Impacts of the Proposed Standards

A. What are the air impacts?

    Since 1990, the plating and polishing industry has reduced their 
air impacts by voluntary controls that were likely motivated by 
concerns for worker safety. These controls would have reduced 
approximately 20 tons of the metal HAP (cadmium, chromium, lead, 
manganese, and nickel) attributed to this industry in the 1990 urban 
HAP inventory. Although there are no additional air emission reductions 
as a result of this proposed rule, we believe that this proposed rule 
will assure that the emission reductions made by the industry since 
1990 will be maintained.
    Along with the HAP described above, there is an undetermined amount 
of PM that has been co-controlled in thermal spraying and mechanical 
polishing processes that contributed to criteria pollutant emissions in 
1990.

B. What are the cost impacts?

    All facilities are expected to be achieving the level of control 
required by the proposed standard; therefore, no additional air 
pollution control devices or systems are required. Many of the 
management and pollution prevention practices are expected to provide a 
cost savings for facilities, as reported by facilities in the 2006 EPA 
survey. Therefore, no capital costs are associated with this proposed 
rule. No operation and maintenance costs are associated with this 
proposed rule because facilities are already following the 
manufacturer's instructions for operation and maintenance of pollution 
control devices and systems.
    We estimate the only impact to affected sources is the labor burden 
associated with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The cost 
associated with recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated 
to be $722 per facility after the first year, or less than 0.04 percent 
of revenues. Costs for initial notifications in the first year are 
estimated at $380 per facility, for a total of $1,115 per facility in 
the first year for all costs. Detailed information on our impact 
estimates for the affected sources is available in the docket. (See 
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0084.)

C. What are the economic impacts?

    This proposed standard is estimated to impact a total of 2,900 area 
source facilities. We estimate that more than 2,600 of these facilities 
are small entities. Our analysis indicates that this proposed rule 
would not impose a significant adverse impact on any facilities, large 
or small. The economic impacts are estimated to be less than 0.04 
percent of revenues.

D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy impacts?

    No detrimental secondary impacts are expected to occur because all 
facilities are currently achieving the GACT level of control. 
Therefore, no facilities would be required to install and operate new 
or additional control devices or systems. In addition, no facilities 
would be required to install and operate monitoring devices or systems. 
Therefore, no additional solid waste would be generated as a result of 
the PM and metal HAP emissions collected. There also are no additional 
energy impacts associated with operation of control devices or 
monitoring systems.
    Because some of the management practices we are proposing in this 
proposed rule also have the potential co-benefit of reducing water 
pollution, there would be a beneficial effect of this proposed rule to 
reduce water pollution. However, today's proposed regulatory changes 
will not: (1) Increase the amount of discharged wastewater pollutants 
at the industry or facility levels; or (2) interfere with the ability 
of facilities in the plating and polishing area source category to 
comply with the Clean Water Act requirements (e.g., Metal Finishing 
Effluent Guidelines, 40 CFR Part 433).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 
therefore not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The ICR document prepared by EPA has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 2294.01.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this proposed rule 
are based on the requirements in EPA's NESHAP General Provisions to 
part 63. This proposed NESHAP requires plating and polishing area 
sources to submit an Initial Notification and a Notification of 
Compliance Status according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the 
General Provisions to part 63.
    Records would be required to demonstrate compliance with good 
operation and maintenance of capture systems and control devices, use 
of wetting agents and fume suppressants, plating time, use of tank 
covers, and other management practices. The owner or operator of a 
plating and polishing facility also is subject to notification and 
recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 and 63.10 of the General 
Provisions to part 63. Annual compliance certifications and annual 
compliance reports are required instead of the semiannual excess 
emissions reports required by the General Provisions to part 63.
    The average annual burden for this information collection, averaged 
over the first 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to total 33,568 labor 
hours per year at a cost of $1,057,733, which is less than 0.02 percent 
of revenues. The average annual reporting burden is 10 hours per 
response, with approximately one response per facility for the 2,900 
facilities. The only costs attributable to the proposed standards are 
associated with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements. There are no capital, operating, maintenance, or purchase 
of services costs expected as a result of this proposed rule.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide 
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed 
to review instructions; develop, 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

[[Page 14143]]

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 in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection 
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this action, which 
includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0084. Submit 
any comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. 
See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to 
submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after March 14, 2008, a comment to OMB is best 
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by April 14, 2008. 
This final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that 
meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small 
businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 500 employees for NAICS 
codes 332813); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 
government of a city, county, town, school district, or special 
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 
proposed rule is estimated to impact a total of 2,900 area source 
plating and polishing facilities; more than 2,600 of these facilities 
are estimated to be small entities. We have determined that small 
entity compliance costs, as assessed by the facilities' cost-to-sales 
ratio, are expected to be approximately 0.14 percent. The analysis also 
shows that of the more than 2,600 small entities, no small entities 
would incur economic impacts exceeding 3 percent of its revenue. 
Although this proposed rule contains requirements for new area sources, 
we are not aware of any new area sources being constructed now or 
planned in the next 3 years, and consequently, we did not estimate any 
impacts for new sources. Although this proposed rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small 
entities. The standards represent practices and controls that are 
common throughout the sources engaged in plating and polishing. The 
standards also require minimal amount of recordkeeping and reporting 
needed to demonstrate and verify compliance. These standards were 
developed in consultation with small business representatives on the 
state and national level and the trade associations that represent 
small businesses.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this 
proposed action on small entities and welcome comments on issues 
related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.''

[[Page 14144]]

    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule does not 
impose any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule. In the spirit of 
Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 
communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA 
specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and 
local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175 entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires 
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This 
proposed rule imposes no requirements on tribal governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. EPA 
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from 
tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (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 
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, 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.
    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 
to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such 
that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 
13045 because it is based solely on technology performance.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed 
rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify 
potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why 
such standards should be used in this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this proposed 
rule would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it 
increases the level of environmental protection for all affected 
populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects on any population, including any 
minority or low-income population. The nationwide standards would 
reduce HAP emissions and thus decrease the amount of emissions to which 
all affected populations are exposed.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: March 6, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the 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.

    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart WWWWWW to read as follows:

Subpart WWWWWW--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Area Source Standards for Plating and Polishing 
Operations

Sec.

Applicability and Compliance Dates

63.11475 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11480 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.11485 What are my compliance dates?

Standards and Compliance Requirements

63.11490 What are my standards and management practices?
63.11495 What are my compliance requirements?
63.11500 What are my notification, reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements?

Other Requirements and Information

63.11505 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
63.11510 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11512 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.11513 [Reserved]

Tables to Subpart WWWWWW of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart WWWWWW of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Plating and Polishing Area Sources

[[Page 14145]]

Subpart WWWWWW--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Area Source Standards for Plating and Polishing 
Operations

Applicability and Compliance Dates


Sec.  63.11475  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a plating 
and polishing facility that is an area source of hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) emissions and meets the criteria specified in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) A plating and polishing facility is a plant site that is 
engaged in one or more of the processes listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) 
through (vi) of this section.
    (i) Electroplating other than chromium electroplating (i.e., non-
chromium electroplating).
    (ii) Electroless plating.
    (iii) Other non-electrolytic metal coating processes, such as 
chromate conversion coating and thermal spraying.
    (iv) Dry mechanical polishing of finished metals and formed 
products after plating.
    (v) Electroforming.
    (vi) Electropolishing.
    (2) An area source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or 
group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common 
control that does not have the potential to emit any single HAP at a 
rate of 9.07 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10 tons per year (tpy)) or 
more or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 Mg/yr (25 tpy) or 
more.
    (3) Your plating and polishing facility uses or has emissions of 
compounds of one or more plating and polishing metal HAP, which means 
any compound of any of the following metals: cadmium, chromium, lead, 
manganese, and nickel, as defined in Sec.  63.11510, ``What definitions 
apply to this subpart?''
    (b) [Reserved]


Sec.  63.11480  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected sources, 
as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, at all 
times. A new source is defined in Sec.  63.11510, ``Definitions.''
    (1) Each tank that contains compounds of one or more of the plating 
and polishing metal HAP and is used for non-chromium electroplating; 
electroforming; electropolishing; electroless plating; or other non-
electrolytic metal coating operations, such as chromate conversion 
coating, nickel acetate sealing, sodium dichromate sealing, and 
manganese phosphate coating.
    (2) Each thermal spraying operation that applies compounds of one 
or more of the plating and polishing metal HAP.
    (3) Each dry mechanical polishing operation that emits one or more 
of the plating and polishing metal HAP.
    (b) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction, 
reconstruction, or operation of the affected source before March 14, 
2008.
    (c) An affected source is new if you commenced construction, 
reconstruction, or operation of the affected source on or after March 
14, 2008.
    (d) This subpart does not apply to research and development process 
units, as defined in Sec.  63.11510, ``Definitions.''
    (e) This subpart does not apply to sources that are subject to the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart N (National Emission Standards 
for Chromium Emissions From Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating 
and Chromium Anodizing Tanks).
    (f) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, ``Title V,'' provided you are not 
otherwise required to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 
71.3(a) for a reason other than your status as an area source under 
this subpart. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue 
to comply with the provisions of this subpart applicable to area 
sources.


Sec.  63.11485  What are my compliance dates?

    (a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must 
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by 
not later than 2 years after the date of publication of the final rule 
in the Federal Register.
    (b) If you own or operate a new affected source for which the 
initial startup date is on or before the date of publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register, you must achieve compliance with 
the provisions of this subpart not later than the date of publication 
of the final rule in the Federal Register.
    (c) If you own or operate a new affected source for which the 
initial startup date is after the date of publication of the final rule 
in the Federal Register, you must achieve compliance with the 
provisions of this subpart upon initial startup of your affected 
source.

Standards and Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.11490  What are my standards and management practices?

    (a) If you own or operate an affected new or existing non-cyanide 
electroplating, electroforming, or electropolishing tank (hereafter 
referred to as an ``electrolytic'' process tank, as defined in Sec.  
63.11510, ``Definitions''), that operates at a pH of less than 12, you 
must comply with either the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) 
of this section.
    (1) You must use a wetting agent/fume suppressant in the bath of 
the affected tank according to paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 
section.
    (i) You must initially add the wetting agent/fume suppressant in 
the amounts recommended by the manufacturer for the specific type of 
wetting agent/fume suppressant process.
    (ii) You must add wetting agent/fume suppressant in proportion to 
the other bath chemistry ingredients that are added to replenish the 
tank bath, as in the original make-up of the tank.
    (2) Alternatively, you must capture and exhaust emissions from the 
affected tank to any one of the following add-on emission control 
devices: Composite mesh pad, packed bed scrubber, mesh pad mist 
eliminator, or any other device that is shown to achieve at least 
equivalent control of metal HAP emissions, according to Sec.  63.6(g), 
of the General Provisions of this part (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).
    (b) If you own or operate an affected new or existing ``flash'' or 
short-term electroplating tank, as defined in Sec.  63.11510 
``Definitions,'' you must comply with either the requirement in 
paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section.
    (1) You must limit short-term or flash electroplating to no more 
than 1 hour per day or 3 minutes per hour of plating time.
    (2) You must use a tank cover, as defined in Sec.  63.11510 
``Definitions,'' for at least 95 percent of the plating time.
    (c) If you own or operate affected new or existing dry mechanical 
polishing equipment, you must operate a capture system that captures 
particulate matter (PM) emissions from the dry mechanical polishing 
process and transport the emissions to a cartridge, fabric, or HEPA 
filter or other device that achieves equivalent control of PM, which is 
a surrogate for metal HAP emissions, according to paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) You must operate all capture and control devices according to 
the manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions.

[[Page 14146]]

    (2) You must keep the manufacturer's specifications and operating 
instructions at the facility at all times in a location where it can be 
easily accessed by the operators.
    (3) If you use a control device other than one of the devices 
listed in paragraph (c) of this section, you must establish that the 
alternate control device is at least equivalent, according to Sec.  
63.6(g) of the General Provisions of this part.
    (d) If you own or operate affected existing thermal spraying 
operation, you must operate a capture system that collects PM 
emissions, which is a surrogate for plating and polishing metal HAP 
emissions, from the thermal spraying process and transport the 
emissions to a water curtain, fabric filter, high efficiency 
particulate air (HEPA) filter, or other device that achieves equivalent 
control of PM emissions, which is a surrogate for plating and polishing 
metal HAP emissions, according to paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) You must operate all capture and control devices according to 
the manufacturer's specifications and instructions.
    (2) You must keep the manufacturer's operating instructions at the 
facility at all times in a location where it can be easily accessed by 
the operators.
    (3) If you use a control device other than one of the devices 
listed in paragraph (d) of this section, you must establish that the 
alternate control device is at least equivalent according to Sec.  
63.6(g) of the General Provisions of this part.
    (e) If you own or operate an affected new thermal spraying 
operation, you must operate a capture system that collects PM emissions 
from the thermal spraying process and transport the emissions to a 
fabric or HEPA filter, or other device that achieves equivalent control 
of PM emissions, which is a surrogate for plating and polishing metal 
HAP emissions, according to paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) You must operate all capture and control devices according to 
the manufacturer's specifications and instructions.
    (2) You must keep the manufacturer's operating instructions at the 
facility at all times in a location where it can be easily accessed by 
the operators.
    (3) If you use a control device other than one of the devices 
listed in paragraph (e) of this section, you must establish that the 
alternate control device is at least equivalent according to Sec.  
63.6(g) of the General Provisions of this part.
    (f) If you own or operate an affected new or existing plating and 
polishing process tank, you must meet the management practices 
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Minimize bath agitation when removing any tank parts.
    (2) Maximize dripping of bath solution back into the tank by 
extending drip time when removing the tank objects and using drain 
boards (also known as drip shields).
    (3) Optimize the design of barrels, racks, and parts to minimize 
dragout of bath solution, such as by using slotted barrels and tilted 
racks, or by designing parts with flow-through holes to allow the tank 
solution to drip back into the tank.
    (4) Use tank covers, if already owned and available at the 
facility, whenever practicable (i.e., not during lifting or lowering 
parts).
    (5) Minimize or reduce heating during tank operation and when tanks 
are not in use.


Sec.  63.11495  What are my compliance requirements?

    (a) If you own or operate an affected source, you must submit a 
Notification of Compliance Status in accordance with Sec.  63.9(h) of 
the General Provisions of this part, and Sec.  63.11500(b) of 
``Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping.''
    (b) You must be in compliance with the applicable management 
practices and equipment standards in this subpart at all times, except 
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (c) To demonstrate initial compliance, you must satisfy the 
requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this 
section.
    (1) If you own or operate an affected electroplating, 
electroforming, or electropolishing tank that is subject to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.11490(a), ``What are my standards and 
management practices,'' and you use a wetting agent/fume suppressant to 
comply with this subpart, you must demonstrate initial compliance 
according to paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) You must add wetting agent/fume suppressant to the bath of each 
affected tank according to manufacturer's specifications and 
instructions.
    (ii) You must certify that you add wetting agent/fume suppressant 
to the bath according to manufacturer's specifications and 
instructions.
    (iii) You must implement the management practices specified in 
Sec.  63.11490(f), ``Standards and Management Practices.''
    (iv) You must certify that you have implemented the management 
practices.
    (2) Alternatively, if you own or operate an affected 
electroplating, electroforming, or electropolishing tank that is 
subject to the requirements in Sec.  63.11490(a), ``Standards and 
Management Practices,'' and you use a control system, as defined in 
Sec.  63.11510, ``What definitions apply to this subpart,'' to comply 
with the requirements of Sec.  63.11490(a)(1), you must demonstrate 
initial compliance according to paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (vi) of 
this section.
    (i) You must install a control system designed to capture emissions 
from the affected tank and exhaust them to a composite mesh pad, packed 
bed scrubber, or mesh pad mist eliminator, or other device that 
achieves equivalent control of metal HAP, according to manufacturer's 
specifications and instructions.
    (ii) You must certify that you have installed the control system 
according to the manufacturer's specifications and instructions.
    (iii) If you choose to use a control device other than one the 
devices listed in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, you must 
establish that the alternate control device is at least equivalent than 
these control devices according to Sec.  63.6(g) of the General 
Provisions of this part.
    (iv) You must implement the management practices specified in Sec.  
63.11490(f) ``Standards and Management Practices,'' as practicable.
    (v) You must certify that you have implemented the management 
practices specified in Sec.  63.11490(f) ``Standards and Management 
Practices,'' as practicable.
    (vi) You must maintain the manufacturer's specifications and 
operating instructions for the control systems at all times.
    (3) If you own or operate an affected flash or short-term 
electroplating tank that is subject to the requirements in Sec.  
63.11490(b), ``Standards and Management Practices,'' and you comply 
with this subpart by limiting the plating time of the affected tank, 
you must demonstrate initial compliance according to paragraphs 
(c)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) You must certify that you limit short-term or flash 
electroplating to no more than 1 hour per day, or 3 minutes per hour of 
plating time.
    (ii) You must implement the management practices specified in Sec.  
63.11490(f) ``Standards and Management Practices,'' as practicable.
    (iii) You must certify that you have implemented the management 
practices specified in Sec.  63.11490(f) ``Standards

[[Page 14147]]

and Management Practices,'' as practicable.
    (4) If you own or operate an affected flash or short-term 
electroplating tank that is subject to the requirements in Sec.  
63.11490(b), ``Standards and Management Practices,'' and you comply by 
operating the affected tank with a cover, you must demonstrate initial 
compliance according to paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iv) of this 
section.
    (i) You must install a tank cover on the affected tank.
    (ii) You must certify that you operate the tank with the cover in 
place at least 95 percent of the plating time.
    (iii) You must implement the management practices specified in 
Sec.  63.11490(f) ``Standards and Management Practices.''
    (iv) You must certify that you have implemented the management 
practices specified in Sec.  63.11490(f), ``Standards and Management 
Practices.''
    (5) If you own or operate an affected dry mechanical polishing 
operation that is subject to the requirements in Sec.  63.11490(c), 
``Standards and Management Practices,'' you must demonstrate initial 
compliance according to paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and (iv) of this section.
    (i) You must install a control system that is designed to capture 
PM emissions, which is a surrogate for plating and polishing metal HAP 
emissions, from the polishing operation and exhaust them to a 
cartridge, fabric, or HEPA filter, or other equivalent control device.
    (ii) You must certify that you have installed the control system 
according to the manufacturer's specifications and instructions.
    (iii) If you choose to use a control device other than one the 
devices listed in paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section, you must 
establish that the alternate control device is at least equivalent than 
these control devices according to Sec.  63.6(g) of the General 
Provisions of this part.
    (iv) You must keep the manufacturer's operating instructions at the 
facility at all times in a location where it can be easily accessed by 
the operators.
    (6) If you own or operate an existing affected thermal spraying 
operation that is subject to the requirements in Sec.  63.11490(d), 
``Standards and Management Practices,'' you must demonstrate initial 
compliance according to paragraphs (c)(6)(i) through (iv) of this 
section.
    (i) You must install a control system that is designed to capture 
PM emissions, which is a surrogate for plating and polishing metal HAP 
emissions, from the thermal spaying operation and exhaust them to a 
water curtain, fabric filter, HEPA filter, or equivalent control 
device.
    (ii) You must certify that you have installed and are operating the 
control system according to the manufacturer's specifications and 
instructions.
    (iii) If you choose to use a control device other than one the 
devices listed in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section, you must 
establish that the alternate control device is at least equivalent to 
these control devices according to Sec.  63.6(g) of the General 
Provisions of this part.
    (iv) You must keep the manufacturer's operating instructions at the 
facility at all times in a location where it can be easily accessed by 
the operators.
    (7) If you own or operate a new affected thermal spraying operation 
that is subject to the requirements in Sec.  63.11490(e), ``Standards 
and Management Practices,'' you must demonstrate initial compliance 
according to paragraphs (c)(7)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) You must install and operate a control system that is designed 
to capture PM emissions, which is a surrogate for plating and polishing 
metal HAP emissions, from the thermal spaying operation and exhaust 
them to a fabric or HEPA filter, or equivalent control device.
    (ii) You must certify that you have installed and operate the 
control system according to the manufacturer's specifications and 
instructions.
    (iii) If you choose to use a control device other than one the 
devices listed in paragraph (c)(7)(i) of this section, you must 
establish that the alternate control device is at least equivalent to 
these control devices according to Sec.  63.6(g) of the General 
Provisions of this part.
    (iv) You must keep the manufacturer's operating instructions at the 
facility at all times in a location where it can be easily accessed by 
the operators.
    (d) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable 
management practices and equipment standards specified in this subpart, 
you must satisfy the requirements specified in paragraphs (d)(1) 
through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must always operate and maintain your affected source, 
including air pollution control equipment, according to the provisions 
in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i) of the General Provisions of this part.
    (2) You must submit an annual compliance certification according 
the requirements specified in Sec.  63.11500(c), ``Notification, 
Reporting, and Recordkeeping.''
    (3) If you own or operate an affected electroplating, 
electroforming, or electropolishing tank that is subject to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.11490(a), ``Standards and Management 
Practices,'' and you use a wetting agent/fume suppressant to comply 
with this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance according 
to paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) You must record that you have added the wetting agent/fume 
suppressant to the tank bath in the original make-up of the tank.
    (ii) For tanks where the wetting agent/fume suppressant is a 
separate purchased ingredient from the other tank additives, you must 
demonstrate continuous compliance according to paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)(A) 
and (B) this section.
    (A) You must add wetting agent/fume suppressant in proportion to 
the other bath chemistry ingredients that are added to replenish the 
tank bath, as in the original make-up of the tank.
    (B) You must record each addition of wetting agent/fume suppressant 
to the tank bath.
    (iii) You must state in your annual compliance certification that 
you have added wetting agent/fume suppressant to the bath according to 
the manufacturer's specifications and instructions.
    (4) If you own or operate an affected electroplating, 
electroforming, or electropolishing tank that is subject to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.11490(a), ``Standards and Management 
Practices,'' and you use a control system to comply with this subpart; 
an affected dry mechanical polishing operation that is subject to Sec.  
63.11490(c); or an affected thermal spraying operation that is subject 
to Sec.  63.11490(d) or (e), you must demonstrate continuous compliance 
according to paragraphs (d)(4)(i) through (v) of this section.
    (i) You must operate and maintain the control system according to 
the manufacturer's specifications and instructions.
    (ii) Following any malfunction or failure of the capture or control 
devices to operate properly, you must take immediate corrective action 
to return the equipment to normal operation according to the 
manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions.
    (iii) You must state in your annual certification that you have 
operated and maintained the control system according to the 
manufacturer's specifications and instructions.
    (iv) You must record the results of all control system inspections, 
deviations from proper operation, and any corrective action taken.

[[Page 14148]]

    (v) You must keep the manufacturer's operating instructions at the 
facility at all times in a location where it can be easily accessed by 
the operators.
    (5) If you own or operate an affected flash or short-term 
electroplating tank that is subject to the requirements in Sec.  
63.11490(b), ``Standards and Management Practices,'' and you comply 
with this subpart by limiting the plating time for the affected tank, 
you must demonstrate continuous compliance according to paragraphs 
(d)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) You must limit short-term or flash electroplating to no more 
than 1 hour per day or 3 minutes per hour of plating time.
    (ii) You must record the times that the affected tank is operated 
each day.
    (iii) You must state in your annual compliance certification that 
you have limited short-term or flash electroplating to no more than 1 
hour per day or 3 minutes per hour of plating time.
    (6) If you own or operate an affected flash or short-term 
electroplating tank that is subject to the requirements in Sec.  
63.11490(b), ``Standards and Management Practices,'' and you comply by 
operating the affected tank with a cover, you must demonstrate 
continuous compliance according to paragraphs (d)(6)(i) through (iii) 
of this section.
    (i) You must operate the tank with the cover in place at least 95 
percent of the plating time.
    (ii) You must record the times that the plating tank is operated 
and the times that the tank is covered on a daily basis.
    (iii) You must state in your annual certification that you have 
operated the tank with the cover in place at least 95 percent of the 
plating time.
    (7) If you own or operated an affected tank that is subject to the 
management practices specified in Sec.  63.11490(f), ``Standards and 
Management Practices,'' you must demonstrate continuous compliance 
according to paragraphs (d)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) You must implement the management practices during all times 
that the affected tank is in operation.
    (ii) You must state in your annual compliance certification that 
you have implemented the management practices.
    (8) If you own or operated an affected tank that uses cyanide in 
the bath and is subject to the requirements in Sec.  63.11490 (a) 
through (f), ``Standards and Management Practices,'' you must measure 
the pH of the tank upon start-up and state the result in your annual 
compliance certification.


Sec.  63.11500  What are my notification, reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements?

    (a) If you own or operate an affected source, as defined in Sec.  
63.11480(a) ``What parts of my plant are covered?'', you must submit an 
Initial Notification in accordance with Sec.  63.9(b) of the General 
Provisions of this part, and paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this 
section by the dates specified.
    (1) The Initial Notification must include the information specified 
in Sec.  63.9(b)(2)(i) through (iv) of the General Provisions of this 
part.
    (2) The Initial Notification must include a description of the 
compliance method (e.g., use of wetting agent/fume suppressant) for 
each affected source.
    (3) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2) and (3) of the General 
Provisions of this part, if you start up your affected source before 
the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, you 
must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days 
after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register.
    (4) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(3) of the General Provisions of 
this part , if you start up your new affected source on or after the 
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, you must 
submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after 
you become subject to this subpart.
    (b) If you own or operate an affected source, you must submit a 
Notification of Compliance Status in accordance with Sec.  63.9(h), of 
the General Provisions of this part, and paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
    (1) The Notification of Compliance Status must be submitted before 
the close of business on the compliance date specified in Sec.  
63.11485 ``What are my compliance dates?'', according to Sec.  
63.10(d)(2), of the General Provisions of this part.
    (2) The Notification of Compliance Status must include the items 
specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) List of affected sources and the HAP used in, or emitted by, 
those sources.
    (ii) Methods used to comply with the applicable management 
practices and equipment standards.
    (iii) Description of the capture and emission control systems used 
to comply with the applicable equipment standards.
    (iv) Statement by the owner or operator of the affected source as 
to whether the source has complied with the applicable standards or 
other requirements.
    (c) If you own or operate an affected source, you must submit an 
annual certification of compliance according to paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (5) of this section.
    (1) If you own or operate an affected electroplating, 
electroforming, or electropolishing tank that is subject to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.11490(a), ``Standards and Management 
Practices,'' you must state in your annual compliance certification 
that you have added wetting agent/fume suppressant to the bath 
according to the manufacturer's specifications and instructions.
    (2) If you own or operate any one of the following three affected 
sources:
    (i) An electroplating, electroforming, or electropolishing tank 
that is subject to the requirements in Sec.  63.11490(a), ``Standards 
and Management Practices,'' and you use a control system to comply with 
this subpart;
    (ii) A dry mechanical polishing operation that is subject to Sec.  
63.11490(c); or
    (iii) A thermal spraying operation that is subject to Sec.  
63.11490(d) or (e), then you must state in your annual certification 
that you have operated and maintained the control system according to 
the manufacturer's specifications and instructions.
    (3) If you own or operate an affected flash or short-term 
electroplating tank that is subject to the requirements in Sec.  
63.11490(b), ``Standards and Management Practices,'' and you comply 
with this subpart by limiting the plating time for the affected tank, 
you must state in your annual compliance certification that you have 
limited short-term or flash electroplating to no more than 1 hour per 
day or 3 minutes per hour of plating time.
    (4) If you own or operate an affected flash or short-term 
electroplating tank that is subject to the requirements in Sec.  
63.11490(b), ``Standards and Management Practices,'' and you comply by 
operating the affected tank with a cover, you must state in your annual 
certification that you have operated the tank with the cover in place 
at least 95 percent of the plating time.
    (5) If you own or operate an affected tank that is subject to the 
management practices specified in Sec.  63.11490(f), ``Standards and 
Management Practices,'' you must state in your annual compliance 
certification that you have implemented the management practices.
    (6) If you own or operated an affected tank that uses cyanide in 
the bath and is subject to the requirements in Sec.  63.11490 (a) 
through (f), ``Standards and Management Practices,'' you must

[[Page 14149]]

state the pH of the tank in your annual compliance certification.
    (d) If you own or operate an affected source, and any deviations 
from the compliance requirements specified in this subpart occurred 
during the year, you must report the deviations, along with the 
corrective action taken, in your annual compliance certification.
    (e) You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (e)(1) 
through (4) of this section.
    (1) A copy of any Initial Notification and Notification of 
Compliance Status that you submitted and all documentation supporting 
those notifications, according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.10(b)(2)(xiv) of the General Provisions of this part.
    (2) The records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) of the General 
Provisions of this part, related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (3) The records specified in Sec.  63.10(b)(2) and (c)(1) through 
(13), of the General Provisions of this part.
    (4) The records required to show continuous compliance with each 
management practice and equipment standard that applies to you, as 
specified in Sec.  63.11495(d), ``What are my compliance 
requirements?''
    (f) As specified in Sec.  63.10(b)(1), of the General Provisions of 
this part, you must keep each record for a minimum of 5 years following 
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective 
action, report, or record. You must keep each record onsite for at 
least 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, 
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, according to Sec.  
63.10(b)(1). You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 
years.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.11505  What General Provisions apply to this subpart?

    If you own or operate a new or existing affected source, you must 
comply with the requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A) according to Table 1 of this subpart.


Sec.  63.11510  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in this section.
    Add-on control device means equipment installed on a capture or 
exhaust system that reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted 
to the air.
    Bath means the liquid contents of a tank that is used for 
electroplating, electroforming, electropolishing, or other metal 
coating processes at a plating and polishing facility.
    Capture system means the collection of components used to capture 
gases and fumes released from one or more emissions points and then 
convey the captured gas stream to an add-on control device, as part of 
a complete control system. A capture system may include, but is not 
limited to, the following components as applicable to a given capture 
system design: Duct intake devices, hoods, enclosures, ductwork, 
dampers, manifolds, plenums, and fans.
    Cartridge filter means a type of add-on control device that uses 
perforated metal cartridges containing a pleated paper or non-woven 
fibrous filter media to remove PM, which is a surrogate for plating and 
polishing metal HAP emissions, from a gas stream by sieving and other 
mechanisms. Cartridge filters can be designed with single use 
cartridges, which are removed and disposed after reaching capacity, or 
continuous use cartridges, which typically are cleaned by means of a 
pulse-jet mechanism.
    Composite mesh pad means a type of add-on control device similar to 
a mesh pad mist eliminator except that the device is designed with 
multiple pads in series that are woven with layers of material with 
varying fiber diameters, which produce a coalescing effect on the 
droplets or PM, which is a surrogate for plating and polishing metal 
HAP, that impinge upon the pads.
    Control device means equipment that is part of a control system 
that collects and/or reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is 
emitted to the air. The control device receives emissions that are 
transported from the process by the capture system.
    Control system means the combination of a capture system and an 
add-on control device. The capture system is designed to collect and 
transport air emissions from the affected source to the control device. 
The overall control efficiency of any control system is a combination 
of the ability of the system to capture the air emissions (i.e., the 
capture efficiency) and the control device efficiency. Consequently, it 
is important to achieve good capture to ensure good overall control 
efficiency. Capture devices that are known to provide high capture 
efficiencies include hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake 
devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans.
    Cyanide plating means plating processes performed in tanks that use 
cyanide as a major bath ingredient. Electroplating and electroforming 
are performed with or without cyanide. The cyanide in the bath works to 
dissolve the HAP metal added as a cyanide compound (e.g., cadmium 
cyanide) and creates free cyanide in solution, which helps to corrode 
the anode. These tanks are self-regulating to a pH of 12 due to the 
caustic nature of the cyanide bath chemistry. The cyanide in the bath 
is a major bath constituent and not an additive; however, the self-
regulating chemistry of the bath causes the bath to act as if wetting 
agents/fume suppressants (WAFS) are being used and to ensure an optimum 
plating process. All cyanide plating baths at pH greater than or equal 
to 12 have cyanide-metal complexes in solution. The metal HAP to be 
plated is not emitted because it is either bound in the metal-cyanide 
complex or reduced at the cathode to elemental metal, and plated onto 
the immersed parts. Cyanide baths are not intentionally operated at pH 
less 12 since unfavorable plating conditions would occur in the tank, 
among other negative effects.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source or an 
owner or operator of such an affected source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
rule including, but not limited to, any equipment standard (including 
emissions and operating limits), management practice, or operation and 
maintenance requirement;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this rule and that is included 
in the operating permit for any affected facility required to obtain 
such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any equipment standard (including emission and 
operating limits), management standard, or operation and maintenance 
requirement in this rule during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, 
regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this part.
    Dry mechanical polishing means a process used for removing defects 
from and smoothing a metal surface using hard-faced wheels or belts to 
which abrasives have been applied, and where no liquids or fluids are 
used to trap the removed metal particles.
    Electroforming means an electrolytic process used for fabricating 
metal parts that is essentially the same as electroplating except that 
the plated substrate (mandrel) is removed, leaving only the metal 
plate. In electroforming, the metal plate is self-supporting and 
generally thicker than in electroplating.
    Electroless plating means a non-electrolytic process in which 
metallic ions in a plating bath or solution are reduced to form a metal 
coating at the surface of a catalytic substrate without the use of 
external electrical energy.

[[Page 14150]]

Electroless plating is also called non-electrolytic plating.
    Electrolytic plating and polishing processes means electroplating, 
electroforming, and electropolishing, as described in this section, 
which are the processes in the plating and polishing area source 
category in which metallic ions in a plating bath or solution are 
reduced to form a metal coating on the surface of parts and products 
using electrical energy.
    Electroplating means an electrolytic process in which metal ions in 
solution are reduced onto the surface of the work piece (the cathode) 
via an electrical current. The metal ions in the solution are usually 
replenished by the dissolution of metal from solid metal anodes 
fabricated of the same metal being plated, or by direct replenishment 
of the solution with metal salts or oxides; electroplating is also 
called electrolytic plating.
    Electropolishing means an electrolytic process, in which a work 
piece is attached to an anode immersed in a bath, and the metal 
substrate is dissolved electrolytically, thereby removing the surface 
contaminant; electropolishing is also called electrolytic polishing.
    Fabric filter means a type of add-on air control device used for 
collecting PM, which is a surrogate for plating and polishing metal 
HAP, by filtering a process exhaust stream through a filter or filter 
media. A fabric filter is also known as a baghouse.
    Flash electroplating means an electrolytic process that is used no 
more than 3 continuous minutes per hour in duration.
    General Provisions of this part (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) means 
the section of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that addresses air 
pollution rules that apply to all HAP sources addressed in part 63, 
which includes the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP).
    HAP means hazardous air pollutant as defined from the list of 188 
chemicals and compounds specified in the Clean air Act Amendments of 
1990; HAP are also called ``air toxics.''
    High efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter means a type of add-
on control device that uses an air filter composed of a mat of randomly 
arranged fibers and is designed to remove at least 99.97 percent of 
airborne particles that are 0.3 micrometers or larger in diameter.
    Mesh pad mist eliminator means a type of add-on control device, 
consisting of layers of interlocked filaments densely packed between 
two supporting grids that remove liquid droplets and PM, which is a 
surrogate for plating and polishing metal HAP, from the gas stream 
through inertial impaction and direct interception.
    Metal coating operation means any process performed in a tank 
containing liquids that applies one or more plating and polishing HAP 
metals to parts and products used in manufacturing; these processes 
include but are not limited to: Non-chromium electroplating; 
electroforming; electropolishing; and other non-electrolytic metal 
coating processes, such as chromate conversion coating, phosphate 
coating; and thermal spraying.
    New source means any affected source where you commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or after the publication of this 
rule.
    Non-cyanide electrolytic plating and electropolishing processes 
means electroplating, electroforming, and electropolishing, as 
described in this section, performed without cyanide in the tank. These 
processes that do not use cyanide in the tank operate at pH values less 
than 12. These processes use electricity and add or remove metals such 
as metal HAP from parts and products used in manufacturing. Both 
electroplating and electroforming can be performed with cyanide as 
well.
    Non-electrolytic plating means a process in which metallic ions in 
a plating bath or solution are reduced to form a metal coating at the 
surface of a catalytic substrate without the use of external electrical 
energy. Non-electrolytic plating is also called electroless plating.
    Packed-bed scrubber means a type of add-on control device that 
includes a single or double packed bed that contains packing media on 
which PM, which is a surrogate for plating and polishing metal HAP, and 
droplets impinge and are removed from the gas stream. The packed-bed 
section of the scrubber is followed by a mist eliminator to remove any 
water entrained from the packed-bed section.
    Plating and polishing facility means a facility engaged in one or 
more of the following processes: Electroplating processes other than 
chromium electroplating (i.e., non-chromium electroplating); 
electroless plating; other non-electrolytic metal coating processes, 
such as chromate conversion coating and thermal spraying; and the 
polishing of finished metals and formed products after plating.
    Plating and polishing metal HAP means any compound of any of the 
following metals: cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel. 
Plating and Polishing was listed as an area source category based on 
emissions of these HAP metals, which are included in the list of urban 
HAP in EPA's Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy.
    Plating and polishing process tanks means any tank in which a 
process is performed at affected plating and polishing facility that 
uses or has the potential to emit plating and polishing metal HAP. The 
processes performed in plating and polishing tanks include the 
following: Electroplating processes other than chromium electroplating 
(i.e., non-chromium electroplating) performed in a tank; electroless 
plating; and non-electrolytic metal coating processes, such as chromate 
conversion coating; and electropolishing. This term does not include 
thermal spraying or dry polishing with machines.
    PM means solid or particulate matter that is emitted into the air. 
For the purposes of this rule, PM emissions are a surrogate pollutant 
for control of plating and polishing metal HAP emissions.
    Research and development process unit means any process unit that 
is used for conducting research and development for new processes and 
products and is not used to manufacture products for commercial sale, 
except in a de minimis manner.
    Short-term or ``flash'' electroplating means an electroplating 
process that is used no more than 3 minutes per hour in duration.
    Tank cover means a solid structure made of an impervious material 
that is designed to cover the entire open surface of a tank used for 
plating or other metal coating process.
    Thermal spraying (also referred to as metal spraying or flame 
spraying) is a process in which a metallic coating is applied by 
projecting molten or semi-molten metal particles onto a substrate. 
Commonly-used thermal spraying methods include high velocity oxy-fuel 
(HVOF) spraying, flame spraying, electric arc spraying, and plasma arc 
spraying.
    Water curtain means an air pollution control device that draws the 
exhaust stream through a continuous curtain of moving water to scrub 
out suspended PM.
    Wetting agent/fume suppressant means any chemical agent that 
reduces or suppresses fumes or mists from a non-cyanide plating and 
polishing tank by reducing the surface tension of the tank bath. This 
term is abbreviated WAFS in this section.


Sec.  63.11512  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by EPA or a 
delegated authority such as your State, local, or

[[Page 14151]]

tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your 
State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to EPA, 
has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should 
contact your EPA Regional Office to find out if implementation and 
enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or 
tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section 
are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the 
State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
    (1) Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under 
40 CFR 63.6(g), of the General Provisions of this part.
    (2) Approval of an alternative opacity emissions standard under 
Sec.  63.6(h)(9), of the General Provisions of this part.
    (3) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), of the General Provisions of this part. A 
``major change to test method'' is defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f), 
of the General Provisions of this part. A ``major change to 
monitoring'' under is defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (5) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping and reporting under 
Sec.  63.10(f), of the General Provisions of this part. A ``major 
change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is defined in Sec.  63.90.


Sec.  63.11513  [Reserved]

Tables to Subpart WWWWWW of Part 63

     Table 1 to Subpart WWWWWW of Part 63.--Applicability of General
            Provisions to Plating and Polishing Area Sources
  [As required in Sec.   63.11505, General Provisions Requirements, you
 must meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Citation                             Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1\1\......................  Applicability.
63.2.........................  Definitions.
63.3.........................  Units and abbreviations.
63.4.........................  Prohibited activities.
63.5.........................  Construction/reconstruction.
63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5),        Compliance with standards and maintenance
 (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (g),   requirements.
 (i), (j).
63.9(a)-(d)..................  Notification requirements.
63.10(a), (b) except for       Recordkeeping and reporting.
 (b)(2), (d)(1), (d)(4).
63.12........................  State authority and delegations.
63.13........................  Addresses of State air pollution control
                                agencies and EPA regional offices.
63.14........................  Incorporation by reference.
63.15........................  Availability of information and
                                confidentiality.
63.16........................  Performance track provisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 63.11480(f), ``What parts of my plant are covered,'' exempts
  affected sources from the obligation to obtain title V operating
  permits.

 [FR Doc. E8-4974 Filed 3-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
