[Federal Register: July 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 127)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37727-37749]
[DOCID:fr01jy08-11]

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

Part V

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0084; FRL-8581-3]
RIN 2060-AM37

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are issuing national emission standards for control of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for the plating and polishing area
source category. This final rule establishes 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 final emission standards reflect
EPA's determination regarding the generally achievable control
technology (GACT) and/or management practices for the area source
category.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 1, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0084. 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., confidential business
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, 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 EPA Docket Center, Public
Reading Room, 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(919) 541-3207; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Outline. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information for Final Area Source Standards
III. Summary of Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal
    A. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
    B. Summary of Final Rule
IV. Exemption of Area Source Category From Title V Permitting
Requirements
V. Summary of Comments and Responses
    A. Applicability
    B. Affected Source
    C. GACT
    D. Equipment Standards
    E. Management Practices
    F. Compliance Demonstrations
    G. Burden
    H. Miscellaneous
    I. Non-Significant Comments
VI. Impacts of Final Area Source 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?
VII. 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
    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
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated category and entities potentially affected by this
final 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 will be regulated by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR
63.11504, ``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. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of the final 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.

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of these final rules is available only by filing a petition for review
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by
September 2, 2008. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an
objection to these final rules that was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for us to
convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an
objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was impracticable to raise
such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds
for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but
within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is
of central relevance to the outcome of this rule.'' Any person seeking
to make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for
Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, with a copy to the person listed in
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the
Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office
of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Moreover, under
section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to these final rules
that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for
public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under
section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by these
final rules may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

II. Background Information for Final Area Source Standards

    Section 112(d) of the 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.
    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 establishing 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 (72 FR 38864, July 16,
2007.) Other rulemakings will include standards for the remaining
source categories that are due in June 2008.

III. Summary of Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal

A. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

1. Applicability
    In response to comments, we made several changes to clarify the
applicability of this final rule. Specifically, we have revised the
definition of plating and polishing metal HAP to mean any compound of
cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel. We further clarified
that the term plating and polishing metal HAP includes the elemental
form of these metals, with the exception of lead. We also clarified
throughout this final rule that this final rule applies only to sources
that use the plating and polishing metal HAP (i.e., tanks that contain
one or more of the metal HAP, thermal spraying operations that apply
one or more of the metal HAP, and dry mechanical polishing operations
that emit one or more of the plating and polishing metal HAP).
    We have revised Sec.  63.11505, ``What parts of my plant does this
subpart

cover?'', to clarify that this final rule does not apply to any of the
following sources: Any source subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart N,
National Emission Standards for Chromium Emissions from Hard and
Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks
(Chromium Electroplating NESHAP); process units used strictly for
educational purposes; thermal spraying conducted to repair surfaces;
polishing conducted to restore the original finish to a surface; and
any plating and polishing processes that do not use any materials that
contain cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel in amounts of at least 0.1
percent by weight, and do not use any materials that contain manganese
in amounts of at least 1.0 percent by weight, as reported on the
Material Safety Data Sheet for the material. We do not believe that HAP
emissions from these activities were part of the inventory that
supported the area source listing decision for this category because
the emissions from these activities are very low.
    We also corrected an error in Sec.  63.11505, ``What parts of my
plant does this subpart cover?'', concerning the definitions of new and
existing sources. In the final rule, an existing source is a source for
which construction or reconstruction began on or before March 14, 2008
(i.e., the proposal date), and new source is defined as a source for
which construction or reconstruction began after March 14, 2008.
2. Standards and Compliance Requirements
    We have revised the compliance options specified in Sec.  63.11507,
``What are my standards and management practices?'', of the final rule.
We have clarified in Sec.  63.11507(a) that if wetting agent/fume
suppressant (WAFS) is included in the bath chemicals, and the WAFS is
added according to the manufacturer's instruction, plants are not
required to add more WAFS to the tank. We also have added a third
compliance option for affected electrolytic process tanks. In addition
to using WAFS or exhausting emissions to a control device, the final
rule allows owners and operators of affected tanks to comply by using
tank covers. To meet this option for batch process tanks, a tank cover
will have to be used during at least 95 percent of the process
operating time. As mentioned above, for continuous electrolytic process
tanks, covers must be used whenever the process is operating. We also
expanded the definition of tank cover in Sec.  63.11507 to clarify
that, for continuous process tanks, the tank surface area must be
covered at least 75 percent. We have clarified the requirements for
tanks that are used both for short-term or ``flash'' plating and for
longer plating operations that do not meet the definition of short-term
plating (i.e., ``long-term'' plating). Section 63.11507(c), ``What are
my standards and management practices,'' of the final rule specifies
that owners or operators must comply with the requirements for short-
term plating whenever short-term plating is performed in the tank and
must comply with the requirements for long-term plating whenever long-
term plating is performed.
    We have clarified the requirements for cyanide electroplating tanks
in Sec.  63.11507(d) of the final rule, ``What are my standards and
management practices''. In Sec.  63.11507(f) of the final rule, we have
clarified the requirements for thermal spraying operations. The final
rule distinguishes between permanent and temporary thermal spraying.
The requirements for permanent thermal spraying are the same as in the
proposed rule. However, temporary thermal spraying operations are
required only to meet the applicable management practices specified in
the final rule. We also have added a definition for temporary thermal
spraying to Sec.  63.11511, ``What definitions apply to this
subpart?'', of the final rule to clarify whether a thermal spraying
operation is temporary or permanent.
    In Sec.  63.11507(g), ``What are my standards and management
practices?'', of the final rule, we have expanded the list of
management practices. We also have clarified that this final rule
requires facilities to implement only those listed management practices
that are applicable and that the practices are to be implemented as
practicable. In addition, we have revised some of the specific
practices that were listed in the proposed rule, including the
practices for minimizing bath agitation, maximizing drainage of bath
liquid from parts as they are removed from the tank, using tank covers,
and heating tank baths.
    We have made several changes to Sec.  63.11508, ``What are my
compliance requirements?'', of the final rule to clarify the
requirements for initial and continuous compliance. The changes include
adding the compliance requirements for continuous electrolytic process
tanks and temporary thermal spraying operations, and clarifying the
compliance requirements for cyanide electroplating tanks.
    We have also changed the process by which facilities seek approval
to use an alternative equipment standard other than those specifically
listed in this final rule. In the proposal we indicated that facilities
that would like to use equipment other than those listed must seek
approval to do so pursuant to the procedures in Sec.  63.6(g) of the
General Provisions to part 63. We did not receive any comments on this
part of the proposal, nor did any commenters identify any alternative
equipment standards that are equivalent to those specified in this
final rule. We believe that facilities should be able to request
approval to use an alternative equipment standard, and therefore, we
have identified two different options available to facilities that
would like to use alternative equipment that achieves at least
equivalent HAP emission reductions as the controls specified in this
final rule: (1) Facilities may petition the Agency to amend this final
rule pursuant to section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act, or
(2) facilities may work with State permitting authorities pursuant to
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR Subpart E (``Approval of State Programs and
Delegation of Federal Authorities''). Subpart E implements section
112(l) of the CAA which authorizes EPA to approve alternative State/
Local/Tribal HAP standards or programs when such requirements are
demonstrated to be no less stringent than EPA promulgated standards. We
believe that these options are more appropriate mechanisms for area
sources subject to section 112(d)(5) rules to obtain approval of
alternative equipment standards.
3. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
    We have revised Sec.  63.11509, ``What are my notification,
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements?'', of the final rule to
eliminate the requirement for submitting annual compliance reports. The
final rule still requires owners or operators of affected sources to
prepare annual compliance certifications and keep the certifications
on-site and available for review. However, the certifications need only
be submitted if a deviation occurred during the year, in which case the
certification and report of deviations must be submitted to your state
or local permitting authority. The final rule also specifies the
deadline for preparing the certifications as January 31 of the year
immediately following the reporting period.
4. Definitions
    We have made several changes to the definitions in Sec.  63.11511,
``What definitions apply to this subpart?'', of the final rule and have
added

definitions for other terms used in the final rule. We added
definitions for batch electrolytic process tank, continuous
electrolytic process tank, tank cover for continuous process units, and
temporary thermal spraying. We have revised the definitions of cyanide
plating, dry mechanical polishing, flash electroplating, and plating
and polishing metal HAP.
5. Other
    We also corrected some typographical errors that appeared in
various sections of the proposed rule.

B. Summary of Final Rule

1. Applicability
    The final 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,\1\ 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 after plating. A
new source is any affected source where you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source after March 14, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule applies to the following sources: Any tank that
contains 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; any thermal
spraying operation that applies one or more of the plating and
polishing metal HAP; and any dry mechanical polishing operation that
emits one or more of the plating and polishing metal HAP. This final
rule does not apply to the following sources: Process units that are
subject to the Chromium Electroplating NESHAP, research and development
process units, process units that are used strictly for educational
purposes; thermal spraying conducted to repair surfaces; dry mechanical
polishing conducted to restore the original finish to a surface before
plating; and any plating or polishing process that only uses materials
that do not contain cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel in amounts of at
least 0.1 percent by weight, and do not contain manganese in amounts of
at least 1.0 percent by weight, as reported on the Material Safety Data
Sheet for the material. As stated above, we believe that HAP emissions
from these activities were not part of the inventory that supported the
area source listing decision for this category because the emissions
from these activities are small.
2. Compliance Dates
    All existing area source facilities with operations subject to this
final rule must comply with the final 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 must comply with these final rule
requirements by the date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register or upon startup, whichever is later.
3. Standards
    The final rule requires owners or operators of affected non-cyanide
plating and polishing tanks to meet one of the following three
compliance options, which are described in further detail below: Use
WAFS in the tank, capture and control emissions using an emission
control device, or use a tank cover. To meet the requirement for WAFS,
the owner or operator must use a bath chemistry that includes a WAFS or
must add WAFS separately to the bath. In either case, the owner or
operator will be required to maintain the level of WAFS in the tank
according to manufacturer's specifications and requirements. No
additional WAFS needs to be added beyond the manufacturer's
specifications and requirements.
    To meet the control device option, the owner or operator must
install, operate, and maintain a control system that includes a capture
device designed to capture the plating and polishing metal HAP
emissions from the tank and to transport the metal HAP emissions to a
composite mesh pad (CMP), packed bed scrubber (PBS), or mesh pad mist
eliminator (MPME).
    The tank cover option distinguishes between batch process tanks and
continuous process tanks. For batch process tanks, the cover must
enclose the entire surface area of the tank and must be in place during
at least 95 percent of the process operating time; for continuous
process tanks, the tank surface area must be covered at least 75
percent during all periods of process operation.
    For short-term or flash plating tanks, the final rule requires
owners or operators to limit plating time to no more than 1 cumulative
hour per day or 3 cumulative minutes per hour of plating time, or to
use a tank cover during at least 95 percent of the plating time. For
affected cyanide plating tanks, owners or operators must perform and
record a one-time measurement of pH in the tank bath. In addition to
the above requirements, owners or operators of all affected plating and
polishing tanks are required to implement, as practicable, the
applicable management practices listed in Sec.  63.11507(g), ``What are
my standards and management practices?'', and certify that they have
implemented the management practices.
    For any existing affected permanent thermal spraying processes, the
final rule will require a control system that is designed to provide
capture of the plating and polishing metal HAP emissions from the
thermal spraying operation and transport the metal HAP emissions to a
water curtain, fabric filter, or high efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
filter. For new permanent thermal spraying operations, the final rule
requires owners or operators to install a control system that is
designed to provide capture and control of the metal HAP emissions from
these sources and that transports the emissions from the affected
source to a fabric filter, or HEPA filter. For any temporary thermal
spraying operation, the final rule requires owners or operators to
document the length of time and location of the temporary thermal
spraying, and to meet applicable management practices listed in Sec.
63.11507(g), ``What are my standards and management practices?'', such
as, but not limited to, vacuuming or sweeping following the operation.
    For any new and existing affected dry mechanical polishing
operation, the final rule requires a control system that is designed to
capture the plating and polishing metal HAP emissions from dry
mechanical polishing operations and transport the metal HAP emissions
to a cartridge, fabric, or HEPA filter.
4. Compliance Requirements
    To demonstrate compliance with the final rule, owners or operators
of affected new or existing plating and polishing tanks will have to
implement one or more of the equipment standards specified in Sec.
63.11507, ``What are my standards and management practices?'', of the
final rule and certify that they have implemented the equipment
standard.
    Owners or operators of affected new or existing non-cyanide
electrolytic process tanks that comply with the WAFS requirement must
add WAFS to

the tank and replenish the WAFS levels in the tank, according to the
manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions, and certify
that they have done so. Owners or operators of affected new or existing
non-cyanide electrolytic process tanks that comply with the control
device option must install, operate, and maintain a control system that
captures the metal HAP emissions from plating tanks and transports the
emissions to CMP, PBS, or MPME, and certify that they have done so.
Owners or operators of affected new or existing non-cyanide
electrolytic process tanks that comply using the tank cover option must
certify that they have installed the tank cover and are operating the
tank with the cover in place, as required by the final rule.
    Owners or operators of affected cyanide plating tanks must perform
a one-time measurement of pH, record the measurement, and certify that
they have done so. The owner or operator of a facility that uses an
affected flash electroplating process that chooses to comply by
limiting the plating time must demonstrate compliance by operating the
affected tank no more than 1 cumulative hour per day or 3 cumulative
minutes per hour, and documenting that they have done so.
    Owners or operators of affected flash electroplating tanks that
choose to comply by using a tank cover must certify that they have
installed the tank cover and are operating the tank with the cover in
place for at least 95 percent of the plating time. In addition to the
above requirements, owners or operators of all affected plating and
polishing tanks must demonstrate compliance by implementing the
applicable management and pollution prevention practices specified in
Sec.  63.11507(g), ``What are my standards and management practices?'',
of the final rule, as practicable, maintaining the appropriate records
to document compliance, and certifying that they have implemented the
management practices.
    The owners or operators of affected new and existing dry mechanical
polishing processes must demonstrate compliance by installing,
operating, and maintaining an emissions control system according to the
manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions that is
designed to provide capture of the metal HAP emissions from these
sources and to transport these emissions from the affected source to a
cartridge, fabric, or HEPA filter. In any case, the owner or operator
must also certify that the control system has been installed and is
being operated and maintained according to manufacturer's
specifications.
    Owners or operators of affected existing permanent thermal spraying
processes must demonstrate compliance by installing, operating, and
maintaining an emissions control system according to the manufacturer's
specifications and operating instructions. The control system must be
designed to provide capture of the metal HAP emissions from these
sources and to transport the emissions from the affected source to a
water curtain, fabric filter, or HEPA filter. The owner or operator
must also certify that the control system has been installed and is
being operated and maintained according to manufacturer's
specifications.
    Owners or operators of new permanent thermal spraying processes
must demonstrate initial compliance by installing, operating, and
maintaining an emissions control system according to the manufacturer's
specifications and operating instructions. The control system must be
designed to provide capture of the metal HAP emissions from these
sources and transport the emissions from the affected source to a
fabric or HEPA filter, device. The owner or operator must also certify
that the control system has been installed and is being operated and
maintained according to manufacturer's specifications.
    Owners or operators of affected existing temporary thermal spraying
processes must demonstrate compliance by documenting that the thermal
spraying occurs for less than one hour per day and is performed in
situ; and by implementing the applicable management and pollution
prevention practices specified in Sec.  63.11507(g), ``What are my
standards and management practices?'', of the final rule, as
practicable, maintaining the appropriate records to document
compliance, and certifying that they have implemented the management
practices.
5. 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 the final 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 of the General Provisions to part 63. The owner or operator of
an affected source is required to prepare and keep on-site an annual
compliance certification. If any deviations occurred during the
reporting year, the owner or operator will be required to submit the
compliance certification along with 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 final 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
must maintain records of the following, if applicable: For cyanide
electroplating tanks, the one-time pH measurement value; for non-
cyanide electroplating tanks, the amount and frequency of WAFS
additions; for flash electroplating tanks, the daily plating time; for
electroplating tanks using covers as a control option, the time the
tank is operated with a cover in place; for continuous electroplating
tanks, the amount of tank surface covered and the time the tank is
operated with a cover in place; and maintenance of any required control
systems.

IV. Exemption of Area Source Category From Title V Permitting
Requirements

    We did not receive any comments on our proposal to exempt
facilities in the Plating and Polishing area source category from title
V permitting requirements. Therefore, this final rule does not require
facilities in this source category to obtain an operating permit under
40 CFR part 70 or part 71, provided they are not otherwise required to
obtain a permit under the part 70 or part 71 regulations.

V. Summary of Comments and Responses

    The significant comments and responses are summarized and discussed
below according to the comment subject.

A. Applicability

1. Delisting
    Comment: One commenter stated that the Plating and Polishing source
category should be delisted. The commenter explained that in the past,
when EPA has determined that a NESHAP source category was no longer a
significant source of the targeted HAPs, it was delisted. The commenter
noted that no additional emission reductions are expected as a result
of this rule, which is only codifying the voluntary efforts of
industry, and that small businesses, such as those affected

by the proposed rule, should not be burdened by a rule that provides no
environmental benefit.
    Response: As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, Section
112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify at least 30 HAP which,
as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the greatest threat
to public health in urban areas. 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. This provision requires that we subject
to regulation area source categories representing 90 percent of the
emissions of cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese and nickel. See section
112(c)(3). Since plating and polishing is one of the area source
categories that we need to meet the section 112(c)(3) requirement, we
are issuing regulations for this source category.
    The commenter is correct in stating that no additional emissions
reductions are expected as a result of the final rule. However, we
disagree with the commenter's statement that this rule will result in
no environmental benefit. This final rule will help to ensure that
future emissions will be limited to the same levels currently achieved;
if the source category were to be delisted, as suggested by the
commenter, there would be no such limit of future emissions from
existing and new plating and polishing sources.
    Comment: One commenter explained that in situ thermal spraying is
sometimes performed in confined areas in the interior of vessels. The
commenter explained that these jobs are of short duration
(approximately 1 hour) and infrequent in nature (up to 5 times per
year). The commenter noted that setting up a temporary emissions
capture system for this type of thermal spray operation is
impracticable and economically infeasible because it would take an
estimated 32 hours to set up and remove the temporary capture system.
As an alternative, the commenter recommended allowing up to 2 pounds
per year of metal HAP emissions from uncontrolled thermal spraying if
the operation is temporary and capture and control is impractical.
    Response: We recognize that temporary in situ thermal spraying
operations should not be subject to the same requirements as permanent
thermal spraying operations for the reasons outlined by the commenter.
To address this type of operation, we have included a definition of
short-term thermal spraying in, ``What definitions apply to this
subpart?'', of the final rule. We also have revised, ``What are my
standards and management practices?'', in the final rule to address
thermal spraying in the same manner as another time-limited operation,
flash plating, that is subject only to management practices. In
addition, we have added sweeping and/or vacuuming as a management
practice specifically with short-term thermal spraying operations in
mind, but also as a possible management practice for the other plating
and polishing operations, to be done ``as practicable.'' Also, as
explained above, we believe that repair and maintenance operations were
not part of the source category in the inventory and, therefore, we are
not including requirements for these practices in this final rule.
Since some of the thermal spraying repair and maintenance operations
may also be performed in situ, the number of in-situ thermal spraying
operations at a facility affected by this final rule may be reduced.
2. Regulated Pollutant
    Comment: One commenter recommends that EPA clarify whether
elemental metals (other than lead) are considered ``Plating and
Polishing metal HAP''. The commenter explained that in thermal
spraying, the metallic coating applied is in the elemental form both
before and after application.
    Response: We acknowledge that some thermal spraying operations use
one of the plating and polishing metal HAP in elemental form. The metal
compounds on the HAP list, except for lead, include the elemental form,
as per the footnote in the CAA section 112(b)(1) that reads: ``For all
listings above which contain the word `compounds' and for glycol
ethers, the following applies: Unless otherwise specified, these
listings are defined as including any unique chemical substance that
contains the named chemical (i.e., antimony, arsenic, etc.) as part of
that chemical's infrastructure.'' Moreover, publications by the
American Welding Society and the California Air Resources Board state
that compounds of metal HAP may form and be emitted from the thermal
spraying process even when the metal used is in its elemental form.
Furthermore, elemental metals are emitted from the process as
particulate matter (PM), and PM is a surrogate for the metal HAP at
issue here. For the above reasons, we have revised the definition of
plating and polishing metal HAP in, ``What definitions apply to this
subpart?'', of the final to indicate that, with the exception of lead,
this final rule also applies to metals in their elemental form.
    Comment: One commenter noted that thermal spray operations are
sometimes conducted with non-HAP metals that may contain small amounts
of one or more of the target HAP metals as impurities. The commenter
recommended that EPA revise the definition of Plating and Polishing
metal HAP to include those metal HAPs present in quantities greater
than 0.1 percent for carcinogens and greater than 1.0 percent for other
metal HAP. They also recommend revising the definition of thermal
spraying to include the following language: ``Only thermal spray
materials containing greater than 1 percent (0.1 percent for
carcinogens) of Plating and Polishing Metal HAP as reported on a
Material Safety Data Sheet are subject to this rule.'' Another
commenter requested that we clarify that this rule does not apply to
all plating tanks with cyanide, but only those that contain one or more
of the five metal plating HAP.
    Response: It was not our intent for this rule to apply to non-HAP
materials that contain trace levels of one or more of the plating and
polishing metal HAP as impurities. Therefore, we have revised the
definition of plating and polishing metal HAP in, ``What definitions
apply to this subpart?'', to clarify that this final rule does not
apply to materials that contain any of the metal HAP in concentrations
less than 0.1 percent for carcinogens and less than 1.0 percent for
other metals, as reported in the Material Safety Data Sheet, since
these emissions were not part of the 1990 inventory used for the area
source category listing.
    We also have clarified that this final rule only applies to tanks,
including cyanide tanks, that contain or have the potential to emit the
five metal plating HAP.
3. Thresholds and Exemptions
    Comment: One commenter believes EPA should establish a threshold to
exclude very small plating and polishing area sources from the
applicability of the proposed rule. The commenter noted that, for each
of the 2,900 area sources, the number of plating and polishing tanks
ranged from 1 to 20 tanks, with an average of 10 tanks, and the number
of polishing and thermal spray lines ranged from 1 to 10 lines, with an
average of 5 lines. The commenter stated that a threshold for the
applicability of the proposed rule would result in no net loss in
reductions of metal HAP emissions, would significantly minimize the
regulatory burden on small plating and polishing area sources, and
would reduce the

administrative burden on federal and state regulatory agencies.
    Response: We understand the commenter's concern regarding the
potential impact of this final rule on small facilities. However, we
cannot establish an applicability threshold for small plating
facilities for the following reasons. Plating and polishing is one of
the area source categories needed to meet the section 112(c)(3)
requirement that we subject to regulation, area source categories
representing 90 percent of the emissions of cadmium, chromium, lead,
manganese and nickel. See section 112(c)(3). We recognize that the
plating and polishing area source category is comprised of a large
number of relatively small plating and polishing facilities. Although
area sources individually may be considered low-emitting sources,
collectively, they are not. The commenter's suggestion fails to address
the requirement of section 112(c)(3), and as discussed above, we
previously determined that we need the plating and polishing area
source category to meet this requirement, which provides that EPA
regulate area sources accounting for 90 percent of the emissions of the
30 urban HAP. However, in developing the proposed rule, we attempted to
minimize the burden on small facilities while ensuring that this final
rule includes sufficient requirements for ensuring compliance. As
discussed more fully below, we have incorporated certain changes in the
final rule to further reduce the burden to small facilities. Finally,
we are planning various outreach activities specifically for this
industry to help affected facilities comply with the final rule to
further reduce the overall burden.
    Comment: One commenter requested an exemption for maintenance
activities that require thermal spraying for repair (e.g., that would
take place on an oil rig or platform) and maintenance activities that
might involve polishing a plated surface to restore the original finish
in order to accomplish its intended task (e.g., a sealing plate or
hydraulic cylinder). The commenter explained that the low levels of
emissions from these operations justifies exempting them from the
proposed rule. Another commenter remarked that EPA should exempt small
tanks that are used only for educational purposes. The commenter
believes that such an exemption would be consistent with the exemption
for research and development process units specified in, ``What parts
of my plant does this subpart cover?'', of the proposed rule.
    Response: The commenter has misconstrued this rule's treatment of
research and development process units specified in, ``What parts of my
plant does this subpart cover?''. Research and development process
units are not subject to this rule because the source category does not
cover these activities. Similarly, based on reasonable assumptions
about the practices included in the 1990 112(k) urban HAP inventory, we
have concluded that the processes that contributed to plating and
polishing metal HAP emissions most likely did not include thermal
spraying operations used for repairing surfaces, polishing operations
used to restore original finish, or tanks used strictly for educational
purposes. As a result, we have revised, ``What parts of my plant does
this subpart cover?'', of the final rule by adding a new paragraph (g)
to clarify the scope of the listed source category addressed in this
final rule. The new paragraph provides that the plating and polishing
area source category does not include thermal spraying operations for
repair, polishing operations used to restore original finish, or tanks
used strictly for educational purposes.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should exempt chromate
conversion coating tanks from the plating and polishing rule. The
commenter states that the chromium conversion coating process does not
utilize an electrical current or apply heat to the tank, so there is
nothing to drive emissions from the process. The commenter also pointed
out that chromium conversion tanks were exempted from the Chromium
Electroplating NESHAP; communication in the docket from OSHA states
that employee exposures are very low; and the proposal does not include
any emissions estimates for chromium conversion coating.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter that chromium conversion
tanks should be exempt from this rule. The commenter requests an
exemption, but fails to demonstrate that emissions from such tanks were
not included as part of EPA's inventory analysis when it listed the
area source category. As explained above, we need to regulate the
plating and polishing area source category in order to meet the section
112(c)(3) requirement that we subject to regulation area source
categories representing 90 percent of the emissions of cadmium,
chromium, lead, manganese and nickel.
    Moreover, the proposed management practices represent pollution
prevention activities for air emissions. Incidentally, these practices
also help to prevent pollution associated with water discharges and the
chromate conversion process. It is our understanding that these
practices, when practicable, also can result in cost savings for many
facilities, which thereby reduces the net burden. The lack of emission
data is not in itself a reason to exempt sources when other information
indicates that HAP emissions from those sources are possible. Likewise,
the lack of an electrical current in chromium conversion baths is not a
reason to exempt those processes since electroless nickel plating baths
also are operated without electrical current applied to the bath, yet
the data show that there are metal HAP emissions from electroless
nickel plating tanks.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should exempt all continuous
plating operations from the proposed rule. The commenter reasoned that
exemption of continuous plating from this rule is appropriate based on
the insignificant number of continuous plating operations and the
miniscule amount of potential HAP emissions from the process. The
commenter explained that bubbling, which is the primary emissions
mechanism for batch plating operations, does not occur in continuous
plating. In addition, the commenter stated that the tanks are not
agitated and have little surface area compared to the surface area of
batch plating tanks. The commenter further stated that most of the
surface area of continuous plating operations is covered.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter and are not providing the
exemption requested. We recognize that the plating and polishing area
source category is comprised of a large number of relatively small
plating and polishing facilities. Although area sources individually
may be considered low-emitting sources, collectively, they are not. HAP
emissions from the processes identified by the commenter do occur, and
the commenter has not demonstrated that emissions from such processes
were not included as part of EPA's inventory analysis when it listed
the area source category. As explained above, we need to regulate the
plating and polishing area source category to meet the 90 percent
requirement in section 112(c)(3) for emissions of cadmium, chromium,
lead, manganese and nickel.
    In developing this final rule, we have attempted to minimize the
burden on the sources identified by the commenter. At the time of
proposal, we had no information on the differences between batch
plating processes and continuous plating processes. We acknowledge that
the continuous electroplating processes differ

significantly from batch plating processes for the reasons identified
by this commenter; another commenter also pointed out these
differences. To account for the differences between continuous plating
operations and batch plating operations, we are including in the final
rule separate requirements for continuous plating operations, which
should address the commenter's concerns. Under the final rule,
continuous plating operations will have three options for complying
with the standard. Owners or operators of affected continuous plating
tanks can comply by covering at least 75 percent of the tank whenever
the process is operating. As discussed more fully below in Section C,
this option represents GACT for continuous plating tanks. Owners or
operators can also comply by using WAFS in the plating bath or by using
controls, either of which is equivalent to GACT for continuous plating
tanks. We are also revising the management practices in the final rule
by including practices specifically used with continuous plating
operations.

B. Affected Source

    Comment: One commenter stated that the definition of dry mechanical
polishing in ``What definitions apply to this subpart?'', is ambiguous
and inconsistent with the description of the process in the preamble to
the proposed rule. The commenter suggested the following alternative
wording: ``Dry mechanical polishing means a process used for removing
defects from and smoothing the surface of finished metals and formed
products after plating, using hard-face abrasive wheels or belts and
where no liquids or fluids are used to trap the removed metal
particles.''
    Another commenter noted that the proposed rule does not provide a
definition for the term ``polishing.'' The commenter also remarked that
the proposed rule appears to apply only to the polishing of metals or
finished products after they have been plated, and not to polishing
done before plating, or to grinding and machine operations.
    Response: We agree with both commenters that the definition of dry
mechanical polishing in the proposed rule should be clarified. We are
revising the definition of dry mechanical polishing in, ``What
definitions apply to this subpart?'', of the final rule, as suggested
by the commenters to help clarify which types of operations are subject
to this final rule. In light of the revised definition of dry
mechanical polishing in the final rule, we do not believe it is
necessary to separately define ``polishing.'' With respect to grinding
and machining operations, emissions from these sources are covered
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX--National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants Area Source Standards for 9 Metal Fabrication
and Finishing Source Categories, which we expect to finalize by June
15, 2008.
    Comment: One commenter suggested revising the definition of short-
term or ``flash'' electroplating in, ``What definitions apply to this
subpart?'', to reflect the full range of compliance options. The
commenter noted that doing so would also be consistent with the
preamble to the proposed rule. The commenter suggested revising the
definition as follows: Short-term or ``flash'' electroplating means an
electroplating process that is used no more than 1 hour per day or 3
minutes per hour in duration, or an electroplating process that has a
cover in place 95 percent of the plating time.
    Response: We agree with the commenter's suggestion that the
definition of short-term or ``flash'' electroplating in, ``What
definitions apply to this subpart?'', should be revised to include the
maximum duration of 1 hour per day, and we have revised the definition
in the final rule accordingly. We do not agree with the commenter's
suggestion that flash electroplating should be defined in terms of tank
cover usage since flash electroplating is different from other
electroplating solely on the amount of time is it performed, whereas
using tank covers are a control option. However, as explained below, we
have revised, ``What are my standards and management practices?'', to
add paragraph (3), which provides the option of using tank covers
during at least 95 percent of the process operating time as a
compliance option for long-term plating processes (i.e., for all
affected plating processes that are not short-term or flash processes).
With this change, all batch electroplating processes, both long-term
and short-term, will be allowed to use covers 95 percent of the process
operating time to comply with this final rule. We believe this change
addresses the commenter's concern.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that EPA clarify the requirements
for tanks that are used for both flash electroplating and for other
electroplating processes that are longer in duration. The commenter
suggested such tanks should have to comply by meeting the requirements
for the other types of electroplating processes, as specified in,
``What are my standards and management practices?'', of the proposed
rule.
    Response: Our intent in, ``What parts of my plant does this subpart
cover?'', of the proposed rule was to define affected source in terms
of the plating and polishing process that is performed in the tank and
not to define affected source as the physical tank structure.
Therefore, in the case of a tank that is used for both flash plating
and for any of the other type of plating process that would be subject
to the requirements in, ``What are my standards and management
practices?'', the requirements for flash plating requirements would
apply when the tank is used for short-term plating, and the
requirements for the other affected plating processes would apply when
those processes are being conducted in the tank. We have revised the
final rule to clarify this requirement.

C. GACT

    Comment: Two commenters commented on how GACT was defined for the
proposed rule and the relevance of that definition to continuous
plating tanks. The commenters explained that, as proposed, owners or
operators of continuous plating operations would be required to use
either WAFS or a control device to comply with this rule. However, the
commenters stated that the facility they represent does not use WAFS in
their continuous nickel electroplating tanks, and that WAFS may not be
feasible for the process. One commenter pointed out that for WAFS to be
GACT for continuous plating processes, the technology must be
commercially available and appropriate considering the economic impacts
and technical capabilities. The commenters stated that WAFS are not
used in continuous nickel electroplating tanks, and it is unknown if
WAFS is a feasible control option for continuous nickel plating tanks;
to make this feasibility determination would require lengthy and
expensive trials. The commenters concluded that WAFS is not GACT for
continuous nickel electroplating tanks.
    The commenters also stated that, as proposed, facilities that
cannot use WAFS would have to install a control device, thereby making
control devices GACT for such facilities even though EPA states in the
preamble to the proposed rule that capture and control technology is
cost-prohibitive and therefore not appropriate for GACT.
    Both commenters stated that the continuous plating tanks have
relatively small surface areas and that emissions are negligible
because there is no bubbling in, or agitation of, plating baths. One of
the commenters stated

that the commenter's facility uses tank covers on their continuous
plating tanks, but those covers cover about 80 percent of the surface
area which does not meet the definition of tank cover in the proposed
rule. The commenter pointed out that covers that totally enclose tanks
are practical only for batch operations, and the commenter suggested
revising the definition of tank cover to allow for partial covers over
most of the open surface of the tank. Both commenters stated that
because of the differences in the continuous plating process,
continuous plating should not be required to use WAFS or control
devices, but should be allowed to comply only with appropriate
management practices.
    Response: As a result of these comments, we now recognize that
continuous electroplating operations differ significantly from batch
electroplating operations, that the use of WAFS may not be appropriate
for all continuous electroplating operations, and that control devices
should not be the only compliance option for this type of process. By
consultation with other facilities that responded to our survey that
perform continuous electroplating, we also now recognize that partial
tank covers are the generally available technology for continuous
electroplating tanks, and that partially covering the surface area of
the tank is the most that could be used considering the equipment that
is permanently positioned within the continuous plating tanks.
Consequently, we have revised this final rule to provide separate
requirements for continuous electroplating operations. In the final
rule, continuous electroplating operations will be able to comply using
tank covers that cover at least 75 percent of the tank surface, or by
using WAFS or control devices as alternate compliance options
equivalent to GACT. Although the commenter identified tank covers that
cover 80 percent of the surface area, we chose 75 percent as GACT based
on consultation with other facilities that perform continuous
electroplating. This value is also a more practical percentage in terms
of an accurate estimation. Finally, we have added the use of squeegee
rolls as a management practice for continuous electroplating
operations.

D. Equipment Standards

    Comment: One commenter requested that EPA clarify that when WAFS
are already included in the plating chemicals, the requirement is
simply to identify the WAFS in the plating solution and add the plating
solution to the tank. The commenter also requested that EPA clarify
that when WAFS are added separately plants can comply by adding WAFS as
recommended by the manufacturer and recording the time and amount of
all additions of WAFS. Another commenter requested that EPA clarify the
term or requirement for WAFS so that facilities know that if a WAFS is
already in use, no additional fume suppressants are necessary to meet
the standard. The commenter was concerned that facilities might expand
the use of perfluorooctane sulfate (PFOS), a pollutant of concern
usually used in chromium plating baths as a fume suppressant.
    Response: The commenter is correct regarding the compliance
requirements for the use of WAFS in affected tanks. As specified
compliance is demonstrated by adding and maintaining the WAFS in the
bath according to manufacturer's specifications and instructions, and
documenting that the additions of WAFS to the affected tank, regardless
of whether the WAFS is included in the plating chemical solution or
added separately. In regard to the comment with PFOS concerns, this
final rule will be clarified to state that if WAFS are already in the
bath ingredients, no additional WAFS need to be added unless specified
by the manufacturer's instructions.

E. Management Practices

    Comment: One commenter noted that the proposed rule would require
each affected plant to meet all five of the management practices listed
in, ``What are my standards and management practices?.'' The commenter
stated that because of the variability inherent in plating and
polishing operations, it is not reasonable or practical to implement
all five of the management practices listed in the regulation, and that
some affected facilities may not be able to implement any of them.
    The commenter explained that, while the management practices listed
in the proposed rule can be effective in reducing HAP emissions, they
are unnecessarily limited in scope and do not reflect the broad range
of management practices and pollution prevention techniques that have
been implemented since 1990. The commenter stated that there are
several other management practices and pollution prevention activities
that would be appropriate and would achieve the same objectives as
those listed in the proposed rule, and provided lists of those
practices. The commenter believes that sources should be allowed to
demonstrate compliance with the management practices requirement by
identifying the management practices that it has implemented since
1990, is currently implementing (and will continue to implement), and
any management practices that it implements in the future. Another
commenter urged EPA to not require affected facilities to meet all five
of the listed management practices, some of which would not be
appropriate for the commenter's facility.
    Response: We have added a number of pollution prevention management
practices that were provided to EPA by the commenter. We believe that
the revised list of management practices represents the most
significant pollution prevention management practices that can be done
to eliminate, reduce, or minimize air pollution in the plating and
polishing processes regulated by this final rule. We also have
emphasized in the revised rule that these pollution prevention
management practices need to be done only ``as practicable'' to the
specific plating operation being performed, as explained in this
section in response to other comments. However, we are unable to
provide the additional flexibility suggested by the commenter that
sources be allowed to demonstrate compliance with a site-specific
management plan that would identify management practices. Under the
commenter's approach, no one, other than the source, would review the
site-specific plan. Such an approach would constitute an improper
delegation of our rulemaking authority under the Act. We therefore
reject the approach.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that one or more of the
management practices listed in, ``What are my standards and management
practices?'', of the proposed rule are not practical for all affected
tanks where the practices would be required. The commenters provided
several examples in regard to minimizing bath agitation when removing
any parts from the tank; maximizing the dripping or draining of bath
solution back into the tank; optimizing the design of barrels, racks,
and parts to minimize dragout of bath solution; using tank covers; and
minimizing or reducing the heating of process tanks. The comments on
these practices are discussed in more detail below.
    One commenter stated that the required management practice of
maximizing drip time can present problems for some plating operations.
The commenter noted that if a part is allowed to drip too long, it can
result in a residue pattern that could negatively impact quality. In
addition, longer drip times can lower production rates,

having negative economic impacts. The commenter noted that slow
withdrawal of the part from the plating bath can be far more effective
in reducing potential metal HAP emissions, yet this is not listed as a
management practice in the proposed rule.
    The same commenter noted that the management practice specified,
``What are my standards and management practices?'', is problematic.
This practice requires facilities to ``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.''
The commenter stated that part design is controlled by the customer,
not the plating facility; to the extent that plants have already
redesigned barrels, racks, and parts, the metal HAP emissions
associated with that process have already been reduced and will
continue to be reduced. The commenter also stated that replacing
barrels and racks can be very expensive, and if required, EPA would
have to revise its economic impact analysis for the proposed rule.
    Two commenters expressed concern about the management practice to
minimize bath agitation when removing parts from the tank, as specified
in, ``What are my standards and management practices?'', of the
proposed rule. One commenter stated that minimizing agitation as parts
are removed could adversely affect compliance with the customer
specifications for the part that is being plated. The commenter
suggested revising the language to the following: ``Minimize bath
agitation when removing any parts processed in the tank, except when
necessary to meet part quality requirements.'' The other commenter
noted that replacing air agitation with eductors to reduce emissions
can be very expensive if it requires replacing or reconfiguring tanks.
The commenter also noted that EPA needs to reword the phrase ``when
removing tank parts'' to ``when removing parts from the tank.'' In
addition, the commenter pointed out that air agitation is not only an
issue when parts are removed from the tank, and cites this as another
example of how the management practices as written are unduly limited
and restrictive.
    Another commenter stated that the requirement in, ``What are my
standards and management practices?'', to use tank covers is ambiguous
with respect to when using covers is feasible and when using covers is
not feasible. The commenter pointed out that, as specified in the
proposed rule, this requirement may drive using covers when it is
unwise to do so. The commenter suggested either eliminating this
requirement for tank covers or eliminating the phrase ``(i.e., not
during lifting or lowering),'' because that implies there are no other
times when tank covers are impracticable.
    Two commenters commented on the management practice that addresses
the heating of affected tanks, specified in, ``What are my standards
and management practices?'', of the proposed rule. One commenter
remarked that it may not be practical to adjust tank temperature unless
the tank will be down for an extended period. Doing so could adversely
affect bath stability, which can take a long time to reach. The
commenter suggested revising this practice to specify that it is
required only when practical. The other commenter explained that tanks
must be maintained at the proper temperature due to the quality
requirements for the parts being plated. The commenter also stated that
changes in bath temperature interrupt production, adversely affect
product quality, and can generate additional waste. The commenter
recommended defining the term ``not in use'' to mean when the shop is
not operating, and not when the shop is operating, but tanks or process
lines are idled.
    Another commenter requested that EPA clarify the management
practices specified in the proposed rule as they relate to continuous
plating operations. As an example, the commenter stated that EPA should
clarify if the management practice related to dripping and drainage in,
``What are my standards and management practices?'', can be addressed
by using squeegee rolls in continuous plating.
    Response: As discussed above, we have expanded the list of
potential management practices to include additional practices used in
the industry and also changed this final rule to reaffirm that the
listed management practices are meant to be applied ``as practicable.''
The expanded list of management practices also includes practices that
are more appropriate for continuous plating operations, such as the use
of squeegee rolls. In addition, we have reworded specific management
practices for clarity, as suggested by the commenters.

F. Compliance Demonstrations

    Comment: One commenter requested that EPA confirm that pH
measurement of cyanide baths is required only at startup. The commenter
noted that a single pH measurement taken when the bath is initially
made up makes sense and is adequate because cyanide baths are by nature
self-regulating and can last for years if properly maintained. The
initial pH measurement could then be reported in the facility's annual
compliance certification.
    Response: To clarify that pH measurements of affected tanks with
cyanide plating baths are required only at startup, we have revised,
``What are my compliance requirements?'', to state that a pH
measurement is required in such tanks only at startup.

G. Burden

    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the burden that
the proposed rule would impose. One commenter remarked that, in
addition to imposing an unnecessary burden on industry, the proposed
rule would impose a significant burden on states to provide even a
minimal level of assistance and outreach. The commenter stated that,
given the minimal level of funding available for states to spread
across all the area source categories, their efforts could be better
spent on a rule that would actually achieve some additional emissions
reductions. The same commenter suggested replacing the annual
certification with notification of change as per Sec.  63.11176 (40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHHHH, NESHAP for Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous
Coating Operations). The commenter believes this may reduce the burden
on small facilities.
    Another commenter stated that the burden that would be imposed on
the industry justifies exempting small facilities from this rule. Such
an exemption would also reduce the administrative burden on regulatory
agencies.
    Another commenter stated that the proposed requirements are more
extensive than needed for such low-emitting facilities. The commenter
stated that the proposed notification, reporting and recordkeeping
requirements would be extremely burdensome for small businesses and
especially for small businesses not previously subject to NESHAP. The
commenter urged EPA to minimize the requirements for facilities that
pose minimum risk. The commenter also urged EPA to provide adequate
compliance assistance and outreach. The commenter requested that the
outreach be provided well in advance of rule implementation to allow
time for training; otherwise, affected plants could be vulnerable to
enforcement action. This same commenter stated that EPA has
underestimated burden that would result from the proposed rule.

The commenter stated that understanding all of the proposed
requirements ``could take a facility a minimum of one week's worth of
work * * *'' The commenter stated that EPA needs to recalculate the
costs of this rule to accurately reflect the burden for notification,
reporting, and recordkeeping.
    Response: As explained above, we need to regulate the plating and
polishing area source category to meet the 90 percent requirement in
section 112(c)(3) for emissions of cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese
and nickel. In developing the proposed rule, we attempted to minimize
the burden on small facilities, while ensuring that this final rule
includes sufficient requirements for ensuring compliance. This final
rule imposes no testing or emission monitoring requirements. We also
have incorporated certain changes in the final rule to further reduce
the burden to affected facilities by eliminating the requirement for
submission of the annual compliance certifications. With respect to
recordkeeping, our understanding is that the required records are
already maintained at most facilities as part of routine procedures.
Therefore, the recordkeeping requirements do not represent any
significant burden on these facilities. Regarding the comment about our
estimates of the burden, we based those estimates of the burden on past
experience with similar rules. Finally, because we recognize that many
of the facilities that will be subject to this final rule are likely to
need assistance in understanding what is required to comply, we have
already chosen this source category for implementation support. This
support will include a plain language summary of this final rule and
items such as examples of the ``Initial Notification'' and
``Notification of Compliance Status.'' As an example of this type of
compliance assistance, for the Chromium Electroplating NESHAP, we
developed the publication, ``A Guidebook on How to Comply with the
Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants'' (EPA-453/B-95-001) following
promulgation of that rule. The Guidebook, which is available on our Web
site, at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/chrome/chromepg.html, provides an
overview of that rule, an explanation of compliance dates and how to
comply, and other information to help affected facilities understand
what is required of them.

H. Miscellaneous

    Comment: One commenter, who represents a company that performs
continuous nickel plating, pointed out that the company was not
included in the list of recipients for the Information Collection
Request (ICR) and was not given the opportunity to provide input in the
rulemaking process. The commenter explained that the company's plating
process differs significantly from batch plating processes that appear
to be the focus of the proposed rule.
    Response: When developing the list of recipients for the ICR, we
attempted to identify all companies that potentially would be affected
by the plating and polishing rule. We contacted trade associations and
accessed the available information on company Web sites and on-line
databases. We also contacted state and local permitting agencies for
information on facilities that might be affected. We recognized that
our facility list did not account for all facilities in operation.
However, we believed that the facilities identified through this
process would be representative of the types of plating and polishing
facilities in operation. For those companies that were not included in
this information gathering effort, the public comment process offers
the opportunity to let their concerns be acknowledged and addressed,
and we appreciate the fact that the commenter took advantage of this
process to submit these comments on the proposed rule.
    We acknowledge that the continuous electroplating process differs
from batch plating processes for the reasons identified by this
commenter and another commenter. To address this issue, we are
including in the final rule separate requirements for continuous
plating operations that we believe address the commenter's concerns.
    Comment: One commenter pointed out typographical errors in
Sec. Sec.  63.11500(c), ``What are my notification, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements?'', and 11512(c), ``Who implements and
enforces this subpart?''
    Response: We appreciate the commenter bringing the errors to our
attention. We have made these corrections in the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter agreed with EPA's proposed exemption of
affected facilities from Title V requirements.
    Response: We appreciate the commenter's support of our exemption
for affected facilities from title V permitting requirements.

I. Non-Significant Comments

    A few comments addressed minor clarifications to this rule or other
issues that we did not consider to be significant. Those comments and
the responses to those comments are summarized in a memorandum that is
included in the docket for this final rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2005-0084).

VI. Impacts of the Final Area Source 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 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 rule, we believe that this 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 final 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 rule. No operation
and maintenance costs are associated with this 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. We
estimated that the cost associated with recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for the final rule are $713 per facility starting in the
third 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 $1,094 per facility over the first 3 years for all costs. In
the final rule, we also eliminated the submission of the

annual compliance reports unless deviations of the standards occurred
during the year. Although not included in the above estimates, the
effect of this change can only reduce these costs further, albeit a
small amount. 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 final 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 rule will 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 are required to install and operate new or
additional control devices or systems. In addition, no facilities are
required to install and operate monitoring devices or systems.
Therefore, no additional solid waste will 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 have required in this
rule also have the potential co-benefit of reducing water pollution,
there will be a beneficial effect of the final rule to reduce water
pollution. However, today's final 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 final rule will be
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this final rule are
based on the requirements in EPA's NESHAP General Provisions to part
63. This final 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 will 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 reports are required to be
prepared instead of the semiannual excess emissions reports required by
the General Provisions to part 63; these reports are only required to
be submitted if any violations of the standard occurred during the
year.
    The average annual burden for this information collection, averaged
over the first 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to total 33,290 labor
hours per year at a cost of $1,048,976, which is less than 0.02 percent
of revenues. The average annual reporting burden is 6.9 hours per
response, with less than one average response per facility for the
2,900 facilities. The only costs attributable to the final 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 final rule. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this
ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment
to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control
number for the approved information collection requirements contained
in this final rule.

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 this final
rule will 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 final 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 final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
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 will incur economic
impacts exceeding three percent of its revenue. Although this final
rule contains requirements for new area sources, we are not aware of
any new area sources being constructed now or planned in the next three
years, and consequently, we did not estimate any impacts for new
sources. Although this final 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 final 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.

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 this final 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.
    This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. This final rule is not expected to
impact State, local, or tribal governments. Thus, this final rule is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this final rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This final rule contains no requirements that apply to
such governments, and impose no obligations upon them. Therefore, this
final rule is not subject to section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
    This final 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 final rule does not impose
any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this final rule.

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 final rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This final rule
imposes no requirements on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this final rule.

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 F.R. 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 action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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 final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. The nationwide

standards will reduce HAP emissions and thus decrease the amount of
emissions to which all affected populations are exposed.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing these
final rules and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the final rules in the Federal Register.
A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will be effective on July 1, 2008.

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 12, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

0
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

Applicability and Compliance Dates

Sec.
63.11504 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11505 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.11506 What are my compliance dates?

Standards and Compliance Requirements

63.11507 What are my standards and management practices?
63.11508 What are my compliance requirements?
63.11509 What are my notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements?

Other Requirements and Information

63.11510 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
63.11511 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

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

Applicability and Compliance Dates

Sec.  63.11504  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 or non-eletrolytic plating.
    (iii) Other non-electrolytic metal coating processes, such as
chromate conversion coating, nickel acetate sealing, sodium dichromate
sealing, and manganese phosphate 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 and 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.  63.11511, ``What definitions
apply to this subpart?'' With the exception of lead, plating and
polishing metal HAP also include any of these metals in the elemental
form.
    (b) [Reserved]

Sec.  63.11505  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source,
as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, at all
times. A new source is defined in Sec.  63.11511, ``What definitions
apply to this subpart?''
    (1) Each tank that contains one or more of the plating and
polishing metal HAP, as defined in Sec.  63.11511, ``What definitions
apply to this subpart?'', 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 one or more of the
plating and polishing metal HAP, as defined in Sec.  63.11511, ``What
definitions apply to this subpart?''
    (3) Each dry mechanical polishing operation that emits one or more
of the plating and polishing metal HAP, as defined in Sec.  63.11511,
``What definitions apply to this subpart?''
    (b) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source on or before March 14, 2008.
    (c) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source after March 14, 2008.
    (d) This subpart does not apply to any of the process units or
operations described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) Process units 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).
    (2) Research and development process units, as defined in Sec.
63.11511, ``What definitions apply to this subpart?''
    (3) Process units that are used strictly for educational purposes.
    (4) Thermal spraying conducted to repair surfaces.
    (5) Dry mechanical polishing conducted to restore the original
finish to a surface to apply to restoring the original finish.
    (6) Any plating or polishing process that does not use any material
that contains cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel in amounts of 0.1
percent or more by weight, or that contains manganese

in amounts of 1.0 percent or more by weight, as reported on the
Material Safety Data Sheet for the material.
    (e) 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.  63.11506  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 no
later than July 1, 2010.
    (b) If you own or operate a new affected source for which the
initial startup date is on or before July 1, 2008, you must achieve
compliance with the provisions of this subpart no later than July 1,
2008.
    (c) If you own or operate a new affected source for which the
initial startup date is after July 1, 2008, you must achieve compliance
with the provisions of this subpart upon initial startup of your
affected source.

Standards and Compliance Requirements

Sec.  63.11507  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.
63.11511, ``What definitions apply to this subpart?'') that contains
one or more of the plating and polishing metal HAP and operates at a pH
of less than 12, you must comply with the requirements in paragraph
(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, and implement the applicable
management practices in paragraph (g) of this section, as practicable.
    (1) You must use a wetting agent/fume suppressant, as defined in
Sec.  63.11511, ``What definitions apply to this subpart?'', in the
bath of the affected tank according to paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through
(iii) 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
electrolytic 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.
    (iii) If a wetting agent/fume suppressant is included in the
electrolytic process bath chemicals used in the affected tank according
to the manufacturer's instructions, it is not necessary to add
additional wetting agent/fume suppressants to the tank to comply with
this rule.
    (2) You must capture and exhaust emissions from the affected tank
to any one of the following emission control devices: composite mesh
pad, packed bed scrubber, or mesh pad mist eliminator, according to
paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) You must operate all capture and control devices according to
the manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions.
    (ii) You must keep the manufacturer's specifications and operating
instructions at the facility at all times in a location where they can
be easily accessed by the operators.
    (3) You must cover the tank surface according to paragraph
(a)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) For batch electrolytic process tanks, as defined in Sec.
63.11511, ``What definitions apply to this subpart?'', you must use a
tank cover, as defined in Sec.  63.11511, over all of the effective
surface area of the tank for at least 95 percent of the electrolytic
process operating time.
    (ii) For continuous electrolytic process tanks, as defined in Sec.
63.11511, ``What definitions apply to this subpart?'', you must cover
at least 75 percent of the surface of the tank, as defined in Sec.
63.11511, whenever the electrolytic process tank is in operation.
    (b) If you own or operate an affected new or existing ``flash'' or
short-term electroplating tank, as defined in Sec.  63.11511, ``What
definitions apply to this subpart?'', that uses or emits one or more of
the plating and polishing metal HAP, you must comply with the
requirements specified in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2), and implement the
applicable management practices in paragraph (g) of this section, as
practicable.
    (1) You must limit short-term or ``flash'' electroplating to no
more than 1 cumulative hour per day or 3 cumulative minutes per hour of
plating time.
    (2) You must use a tank cover, as defined in Sec.  63.11511, ``What
definitions apply to this subpart?'', for at least 95 percent of the
plating time.
    (c) If you own or operate an affected new or existing process tank
that is used both for short-term electroplating and for electrolytic
processing of longer duration (i.e., processing that does not meet the
definition of short-term or flash electroplating) and contains one or
more of the plating and polishing metal HAP, you must meet the
requirements specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section,
whichever apply to the process operation, and implement the applicable
management practices in paragraph (g) of this section, as practicable.
    (d) If you own or operate an affected new or existing
electroplating tank that uses cyanide in the plating bath, operates at
pH greater than or equal to 12, and contains one or more of the plating
and polishing metal HAP, you must comply with the requirements in
paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section:
    (1) You must measure and record the pH of the tank upon start-up.
No additional pH measurements are required.
    (2) You must implement the applicable management practices in
paragraph (g) of this section, as practicable.
    (e) If you own or operate an affected new or existing dry
mechanical polishing equipment that emits one or more of the plating
and polishing metal HAP, you must operate a capture system that
captures particulate matter (PM) emissions from the dry mechanical
polishing process and transports the emissions to a cartridge, fabric,
or high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter, according to
paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) You must operate all capture and control devices according to
the manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions.
    (2) You must keep the manufacturer's specifications and operating
instructions at the facility at all times in a location where they can
be easily accessed by the operators.
    (f) If you own or operate an affected thermal spraying operation
that applies one or more of the plating and polishing metal HAP, you
must meet the applicable requirements specified in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (3) of this section, and the applicable management practices in
paragraph (g) of this section.
    (1) For existing permanent thermal spraying operations, you must
operate a capture system that collects PM emissions from the thermal
spraying process and transports the emissions to a water curtain,
fabric filter, or HEPA filter, according to paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and
(ii) of this section.
    (i) You must operate all capture and control devices according to
the manufacturer's specifications and instructions.

    (ii) You must keep the manufacturer's operating instructions at the
facility at all times in a location where they can be easily accessed
by the operators.
    (2) For new permanent thermal spraying operations, you must operate
a capture system that collects PM emissions from the thermal spraying
process and transports the emissions to a fabric or HEPA filter,
according to paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) You must operate all capture and control devices according to
the manufacturer's specifications and instructions.
    (ii) You must keep the manufacturer's operating instructions at the
facility at all times in a location where they can be easily accessed
by the operators.
    (3) For temporary thermal spraying operations, as defined in Sec.
63.11511 ``What definitions apply to this subpart?'', you must meet the
applicable requirements specified in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii) of
this section.
    (i) You must document the amount of time the thermal spraying
occurs each day, and where it is conducted.
    (ii) You must implement the applicable management practices
specified in paragraph (g) of this section, as practicable.
    (g) If you own or operate an affected new or existing plating and
polishing process unit that contains, applies, or emits one or more of
the plating and polishing metal HAP, you must implement the applicable
management practices in paragraphs (g)(1) through (12) of this section,
as practicable.
    (1) Minimize bath agitation when removing any parts processed in
the tank, as practicable except when necessary to meet part quality
requirements.
    (2) Maximize the draining of bath solution back into the tank, as
practicable, by extending drip time when removing parts from the tank;
using drain boards (also known as drip shields); or withdrawing parts
slowly from the tank, as practicable.
    (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), as practicable.
    (4) Use tank covers, if already owned and available at the
facility, whenever practicable.
    (5) Minimize or reduce heating of process tanks, as practicable
(e.g., when doing so would not interrupt production or adversely affect
part quality).
    (6) Perform regular repair, maintenance, and preventive maintenance
of racks, barrels, and other equipment associated with affected
sources, as practicable.
    (7) Minimize bath contamination, such as through the prevention or
quick recovery of dropped parts, use of distilled/de-ionized water,
water filtration, pre-cleaning of parts to be plated, and thorough
rinsing of pre-treated parts to be plated, as practicable.
    (8) Maintain quality control of chemicals, and chemical and other
bath ingredient concentrations in the tanks, as practicable.
    (9) Perform general good housekeeping, such as regular sweeping or
vacuuming, if needed, and periodic washdowns, as practicable.
    (10) Minimize spills and overflow of tanks, as practicable.
    (11) Use squeegee rolls in continuous or reel-to-reel plating
tanks, as practicable.
    (12) Perform regular inspections to identify leaks and other
opportunities for pollution prevention.

Sec.  63.11508  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.  63.11509(b)
of ``What are my notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements?''
    (b) You must be in compliance with the applicable management
practices and equipment standards in this subpart at all times.
    (c) To demonstrate initial compliance, you must satisfy the
requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (11) of this
section.
    (1) If you own or operate an affected electroplating,
electroforming, or electropolishing tank that contains one or more of
the plating and polishing metal HAP and is subject to the requirements
in Sec.  63.11507(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 state in your Notification of Compliance Status that
you add wetting agent/fume suppressant to the bath according to
manufacturer's specifications and instructions.
    (iii) You must implement the applicable management practices
specified in Sec.  63.11507(g), ``What are my standards and management
practices?'', as practicable.
    (iv) You must state in your Notification of Compliance Status that
you have implemented the applicable management practices specified in
Sec.  63.11507(g), ``What are my standards and management practices?'',
as practicable.
    (2) If you own or operate an affected electroplating,
electroforming, or electropolishing tank that contains one or more of
the plating and polishing metal HAP and is subject to the requirements
in Sec.  63.11507(a), ``What are my standards and management
practices?'', and you use a control system, as defined in Sec.
63.11511, ``What definitions apply to this subpart?'', to comply with
this subpart, you must demonstrate initial compliance according to
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (v) 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.
    (ii) You must state in your Notification of Compliance Status that
you have installed the control system according to the manufacturer's
specifications and instructions.
    (iii) You must implement the applicable management practices
specified in Sec.  63.11507(g), ``What are my standards and management
practices?'', as practicable.
    (iv) You must state in your Notification of Compliance Status that
you have implemented the applicable management practices specified in
Sec.  63.11507(g), ``What are my standards and management practices?'',
as practicable.
    (v) You must follow the manufacturer's specifications and operating
instructions for the control systems at all times.
    (3) If you own or operate an affected batch electrolytic process
tank, as defined in Sec.  63.11511, ``What definitions apply to this
subpart?'', that contains one or more of the plating and polishing
metal HAP and which is subject to the requirements in Sec.
63.11507(a), ``What are my standards and management practices?'', and
you use a tank cover, as defined in Sec.  63.11511, to comply with this
subpart, you must demonstrate initial compliance according to
paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) You must install a tank cover on the affected tank.
    (ii) You must state in your Notification of Compliance Status that
you operate the tank with the cover in place at least 95 percent of the
electrolytic process operating time.

    (iii) You must implement the applicable management practices
specified in Sec.  63.11507(g), ``What are my standards and management
practices?'', as practicable.
    (iv) You must state in your Notification of Compliance Status that
you have implemented the applicable management practices specified in
Sec.  63.11507(g), ``What are my standards and management practices?'',
as practicable.
    (4) If you own or operate an affected continuous electrolytic
process tank, as defined in Sec.  63.11511, ``What definitions apply to
this subpart?'', that contains one or more of the plating and polishing
metal HAP and is subject to the requirements in Sec.  63.11507(a),
``What are my standards and management practices?'', and you cover the
tank surface to comply with this subpart, you must demonstrate initial
compliance according to paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
    (i) You must cover at least 75 percent of the surface area of the
affected tank.
    (ii) You must state in your Notification of Compliance Status that
you operate the tank with the surface cover in place whenever the
continuous electrolytic process is in operation.
    (iii) You must implement the applicable management practices
specified in Sec.  63.11507(g), ``What are my standards and management
practices?'', as practicable.
    (iv) You must state in your Notification of Compliance Status that
you have implemented the applicable management practices specified in
Sec.  63.11507(g), ``What are my standards and management practices?'',
as practicable.
    (5) If you own or operate an affected flash or short-term
electroplating tank that contains one or more of the plating and
polishing metal HAP and is subject to the requirements in Sec.
63.11507(b), ``What are my 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)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) You must state in your Notification of Compliance Status that
you limit short-term or flash electroplating to no more than 1
cumulative hour per day, or 3 cumulative minutes per hour of plating
time.
    (ii) You must implement the applicable management practices
specified in Sec.  63.11507(g), ``What are my standards and management
practices?'', as practicable.
    (iii) You must state in your Notification of Compliance Status that
you have implemented the applicable management practices specified in
Sec.  63.11507(g), ``What are my standards and management practices?'',
as practicable.
    (6) If you own or operate an affected flash or short-term
electroplating tank that contains one or more of the plating and
polishing metal HAP and is subject to the requirements in Sec.
63.11507(b), ``What are my standards and management practices?'', and
you comply by operating the affected tank with a cover, you must
demonstrate initial compliance according to paragraphs (c)(6)(i)
through (iv) of this section.
    (i) You must install a tank cover on the affected tank.
    (ii) You must state in your Notification of Compliance Status that
you operate the tank with the cover in place at least 95 percent of the
plating time.
    (iii) You must implement the applicable management practices
specified in Sec.  63.11507(g), ``What are my standards and management
practices?'', as practicable.
    (iv) You must state in your Notification of Compliance Status that
you have implemented the applicable management practices specified in
Sec.  63.11507(g), ``What are my standards and management practices?'',
as practicable.
    (7) If you own or operate an affected tank that contains one or
more of the plating and polishing metal HAP, uses cyanide in the bath,
and is subject to the management practices specified in Sec.
63.11507(d), ``What are my standards and management practices?'', you
must demonstrate initial compliance according to paragraphs (c)(7)(i)
through (iii) of this section.
    (i) You must report in your Notification of Compliance Status the
pH of the bath solution that was measured at start-up, according to the
requirements of Sec.  63.11507(d)(1).
    (ii) You must implement the applicable management practices
specified in Sec.  63.11507(g), ``What are my standards and management
practices?'', as practicable.
    (iii) You must state in your Notification of Compliance Status that
you have implemented the applicable management practices specified in
Sec.  63.11490(g), ``What are my standards and management practices?'',
as practicable.
    (8) If you own or operate an affected dry mechanical polishing
operation that emits one or more of the plating and polishing metal HAP
and is subject to the requirements in Sec.  63.11507(e), ``What are my
standards and management practices?'', you must demonstrate initial
compliance according to paragraphs (c)(8)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
    (i) You must install a control system that is designed to capture
PM emissions from the polishing operation and exhaust them to a
cartridge, fabric, or HEPA filter.
    (ii) You must state in your Notification of Compliance Status that
you have installed the control system according to the manufacturer's
specifications and instructions.
    (iii) You must keep the manufacturer's operating instructions at
the facility at all times in a location where they can be easily
accessed by the operators.
    (9) If you own or operate an existing affected permanent thermal
spraying operation that applies one or more of the plating and
polishing metal HAP and is subject to the requirements in Sec.
63.11507(f)(1), ``What are my standards and management practices?'',
you must demonstrate initial compliance according to paragraphs
(c)(9)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) You must install a control system that is designed to capture
PM emissions from the thermal spraying operation and exhaust them to a
water curtain, fabric filter, or HEPA filter.
    (ii) You must state in your Notification of Compliance Status that
you have installed and are operating the control system according to
the manufacturer's specifications and instructions.
    (iii) You must keep the manufacturer's operating instructions at
the facility at all times in a location where they can be easily
accessed by the operators.
    (10) If you own or operate a new affected permanent thermal
spraying operation that applies one or more of the plating and
polishing metal HAP and is subject to the requirements in Sec.
63.11507(f)(2), ``What are my standards and management practices?'',
you must demonstrate initial compliance according to paragraphs
(c)(10)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) You must install and operate a control system that is designed
to capture PM emissions from the thermal spraying operation and exhaust
them to a fabric or HEPA filter.
    (ii) You must state in your Notification of Compliance Status that
you have installed and operate the control system according to the
manufacturer's specifications and instructions.
    (iii) You must keep the manufacturer's operating instructions at
the facility at all times in a location

where they can be easily accessed by the operators.
    (11) If you own or operate an affected temporary thermal spraying
operation that applies one or more of the plating and polishing metal
HAP and is subject to the requirements in Sec.  63.11507(f)(3), ``What
are my standards and management practices?'', you must demonstrate
initial compliance according to paragraphs (c)(11)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
    (i) You must implement the applicable management practices
specified in Sec.  63.11507(g), ``What are my standards and management
practices?'', as practicable.
    (ii) You must state in your Notification of Compliance Status that
you have implemented the applicable management practices specified in
Sec.  63.11507(g), ``What are my standards and management practices?'',
as practicable.
    (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 (8) of this section.
    (1) You must always operate and maintain your affected source,
including air pollution control equipment.
    (2) You must prepare an annual compliance certification according
to the requirements specified in Sec.  63.11509(c), ``Notification,
Reporting, and Recordkeeping,'' and keep it in a readily-accessible
location for inspector review.
    (3) If you own or operate an affected electroplating,
electroforming, or electropolishing tank that contains one or more of