National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; and Steel Pickling-HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants, 58219-58253 [2012-20642]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58219-58253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20642]



[[Page 58219]]

Vol. 77

Wednesday,

No. 182

September 19, 2012

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Hard 
and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; 
and Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid 
Regeneration Plants; Final Rules

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 
/ Rules and Regulations

[[Page 58220]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600; FRL-9709-9]
RIN 2060-AQ60


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 
Emissions: Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium 
Anodizing Tanks; and Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and 
Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
conducted for the following source categories regulated under two 
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP): hard 
and decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks, 
and steel pickling--HCl process facilities and hydrochloric acid 
regeneration plants. On October 21, 2010, EPA proposed amendments to 
these NESHAP under section 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) of the Clean Air Act. 
On February 8, 2012, EPA published a supplemental proposal with new 
analyses and results. For hard and decorative chromium electroplating 
and chromium anodizing tanks these final amendments addressing Clean 
Air Act (CAA) sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) include revisions to the 
emissions limits for total chromium; addition of housekeeping 
requirements to minimize fugitive emissions; and a requirement to 
phase-out the use of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) based fume 
suppressants. These requirements will provide greater protection for 
public health and the environment by reducing emissions of hexavalent 
chromium (a known human carcinogen). In addition, as part of the 
October 2010 proposal, we proposed certain actions pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(2) and (3) for hard and decorative chromium 
electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks. For these sources, we are 
modifying and adding testing and monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements; and revisions to the regulatory provisions 
related to emissions during periods of malfunction. For steel pickling 
hydrochloric acid regeneration plants, we are finalizing our proposal 
to remove the alternative compliance method because we believe it is 
inconsistent with the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). 
This amendment will achieve reductions in chlorine emissions. 
Additionally, we are adding provisions to the Steel Pickling Facilities 
NESHAP requiring that the emission limits of the rule apply at all 
times, including during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction.

DATES: This final action is effective on September 19, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet, and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West 
Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. 
The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 
Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone 
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final rule, 
contact Mr. Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-
02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 
541-5289; fax number: (919) 541-3207; and email address: 
mulrine.phil@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the risk 
modeling methodology, contact Mr. Mark Morris, Health and Environmental 
Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5416; fax number: (919) 
541-0840; and email address: morris.mark@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For information about the applicability of 
these NESHAP to a particular entity, contact the appropriate person 
listed in Table 1 to this preamble.

  Table 1--List of EPA Contacts for the NESHAP Addressed in This Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           NESHAP for:             OECA Contact \a\    OAQPS Contact \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard and Decorative Chromium      Sara Ayres, (202)   Phil Mulrine,
 Electroplating and Chromium       564-5391,           (919) 541-5289,
 Anodizing Tanks; and Steel        ayres.sara@epa.go   mulrine.phil@epa.
 Pickling--HCl Process             v.                  gov.
 Facilities and Hydrochloric
 Acid Regeneration Plants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
\b\ EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

    Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Executive Summary
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    D. Judicial Review
II. Background Information
    A. Overview of the Chromium Electroplating and Chromium 
Anodizing Source Categories
    B. Summary of the Proposed Amendments to the Chromium 
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Source Categories
    C. Overview of the Steel Pickling Source Category
    D. Summary of the Proposed Amendments to the Steel Pickling 
Source Category
III. Summary of the Final Rule
    A. What are the final rule amendments for the Chromium 
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing source categories?
    B. What are the effective and compliance dates for the Chromium 
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing source category amendments?
    C. What are the final rule amendments for the Steel Pickling 
source category?
    D. What are the effective and compliance dates for the Steel 
Pickling source category amendments?
IV. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses
    A. Comments and Responses Associated With the Chromium 
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Source Categories
    B. Comments and Responses Associated With the Steel Pickling 
Source Category

[[Page 58221]]

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the emission reductions?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 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 Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and 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. Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    This action presents the results and final decisions based on EPA's 
review of two national regulations for hazardous air pollutants. 
Specifically, pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA has completed 
risk and technology reviews (RTRs) for four source categories covered 
by two separate regulations.
    Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review these 
regulations (i.e., national emissions standards) and revise them as 
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, 
and control technologies) no less frequently than every 8 years. 
Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires EPA to assess the remaining risks 
due to emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from these source 
categories and determine whether the emissions standards provide an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health within 8 years of 
promulgation of the original standards. The two regulations addressed 
in this action are the following: National Emissions Standards for 
Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and 
Chromium Anodizing Tanks; and National Emissions Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and 
Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants.
    In addition to the reviews described above, the EPA also reviewed 
these rules to determine if any other corrections or clarifications 
were needed pursuant to other Sections the Clean Air Act. As described 
below, based on all these reviews, the EPA has determined it is 
appropriate and necessary to promulgate some amendments to these rules.
2. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Actions
    With regard to the National Emissions Standards for Chromium 
Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium 
Anodizing Tanks, based on the reviews under Sections 112(d)(6) and 
112(f), the EPA has determined it is appropriate to promulgate 
emissions limits and surface tension limits that are moderately lower 
than the limits in the current regulation for new and existing hard 
chromium electroplating, decorative chromium electroplating, and 
chromium anodizing sources. These amendments will reduce chromium 
emissions (a known human carcinogen) and the risk associated with those 
emissions. This action also includes housekeeping requirements to 
minimize fugitive emissions from affected sources. In addition, this 
action eliminates the use of fume suppressants that contain 
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), which has been shown to be 
persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic. Finally, this action amends the 
requirements for testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping for 
consistency with the other requirements of the NESHAP.
    With regard to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric 
Acid Regeneration Plants, the Agency has determined that no amendments 
are needed based on the risk and technology reviews under Sections 
112(d)(6) and 112(f) of the CAA. However, EPA identified two areas 
where amendments were needed to ensure the rules were meeting 
requirements of Sections 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3). First, this action 
eliminates an alternative compliance option that was inconsistent with 
the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). Secondly, we are 
adding provisions to require the emission limits of the rule to apply 
at all times, including during periods of startup, shutdown and 
malfunction.
3. Costs and Emissions Reductions
    Table 2 summarizes the costs and emissions reductions for this 
action. See section V of this preamble for further discussion of the 
costs and impacts.

  Table 2--Summary of the Estimated Costs and Emissions Reductions for the Final Chromium Electroplating NESHAP
                                   and Final Steel Pickling NESHAP Amendments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Emissions
           Source category                Number of       Capital costs  $   Annualized costs   reductions  lbs/
                                       affected plants                             $/yr                yr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Chromium Electroplating NESHAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large hard chromium electroplating..                 57         $6,377,000         $1,686,000                148
Small hard chromium electroplating..                 91          1,424,000            476,000                 33
Decorative chromium electroplating..                313            163,000            166,000                 35
Chromium anodizing..................                 74            235,000             51,000                  8
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................                535          8,200,000          2,380,000                224
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Steel Pickling NESHAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrochloric acid regeneration                        1    100,000-200,000      11,419-22,837             30,000
 facilities.........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 58222]]

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in Table 3 of this preamble.
    Table 3 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To 
determine whether your facility would be affected, you should examine 
the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP.
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect 
of these NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in Table 
1 of this preamble in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section.

                 Table 3--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           NESHAP and Source Category                             NAICS Code \1\   MACT Code \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium Electroplating NESHAP, Subpart N.....  Chromium Anodizing Tanks........          332813            1607
                                                Decorative Chromium                       332813            1610
                                                 Electroplating.
                                                Hard Chromium Electroplating....          332813            1615
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities And Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants      3311, 3312            0310
 NESHAP, Subpart CCC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW) 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature by 
the EPA Administrator, a copy of this final action will be posted on 
the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated 
rules at the following address: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in 
various areas of air pollution control.
    Additional information is available on the residual risk and 
technology review (RTR) Web page at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes source category descriptions and 
detailed emissions and other data that were used as inputs to the risk 
assessments.

D. Judicial Review

    Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action 
is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by November 19, 
2012. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this 
final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal 
proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may 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 the 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 the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such 
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to 
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy 
to both the person(s) 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), U.S. 
EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background Information

A. Overview of the Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing 
Source Categories

    The 1995 Chromium Electroplating NESHAP regulate emissions of 
chromium compounds from three source categories: Hard chromium 
electroplating, decorative chromium electroplating, and chromium 
anodizing. The NESHAP apply to both major sources and area sources. The 
NESHAP were promulgated on January 25, 1995, (60 FR 4963) and codified 
at 40 CFR part 63, subpart N. We amended the NESHAP to address issues 
related to changes in control technology, monitoring and implementation 
on July 19, 2004 (69 FR 42885).
1. Hard Chromium Electroplating
    The Hard Chromium Electroplating source category consists of 
facilities that plate base metals with a relatively thick layer of 
chromium using an electrolytic process. Hard chromium electroplating 
provides a finish that is resistant to wear, abrasion, heat, and 
corrosion. These facilities plate large cylinders and industrial rolls 
used in construction equipment and printing presses, hydraulic 
cylinders and rods, zinc die castings, plastic molds, engine 
components, and marine hardware.
    The NESHAP distinguish between large hard chromium electroplating 
facilities and small hard chromium electroplating facilities. Large 
hard chromium electroplating facilities are defined as any such 
facility with a cumulative annual rectifier capacity equal to or 
greater than 60 million ampere-hours per year (amp-hr/yr). Small hard 
chromium electroplating facilities are defined as any facility with a 
cumulative annual rectifier capacity less than 60 million amp-hr/yr. 
The 1995 NESHAP require all affected tanks located at large hard 
chromium electroplating facilities to meet an emissions limit of 0.015 
milligrams of total chromium per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm). 
Alternatively, large hard chromium facilities also can comply with the 
NESHAP by maintaining the surface tension in affected tanks equal to or 
less than 45 dynes per centimeter (dynes/cm), if measured using a 
stalagmometer, or 35 dynes/cm, if measured using a tensiometer. 
Compliance with the applicable surface tension limit ensures compliance 
with the emission limit.
    The Chromium Electroplating NESHAP require affected tanks at 
existing small hard chromium electroplating facilities to meet an 
emissions limit of 0.030 mg/dscm and affected tanks at new small hard 
chromium electroplating facilities to meet a limit of 0.015 mg/dscm.

[[Page 58223]]

Alternatively, these sources have the option of complying with surface 
tension limits equal to or less than 45 dynes per centimeter (dynes/
cm), if measured using a stalagmometer, or 35 dynes/cm, if measured 
using a tensiometer. Under the current NESHAP, any small hard chromium 
electroplating tank for which construction or reconstruction was 
commenced on or before December 16, 1993 (i.e., the proposal date for 
the original NESHAP), is subject to the existing source standards, and 
any small hard chromium electroplating tank constructed or 
reconstructed after December 16, 1993, is subject to new source 
standards.
    We estimate that there currently are approximately 188 large hard 
chromium electroplating facilities and 394 small hard chromium 
electroplating facilities in operation in the U.S. outside of 
California. Of the 394 small hard chromium electroplating facilities, 
we estimate that 131 of these facilities have one or more tanks that 
are subject to the new source standards, and the affected sources at 
the other 263 facilities are subject to the existing source standards. 
Additionally, there are about 70 hard chromium electroplating 
facilities operating in California.
2. Decorative Chromium Electroplating
    The Decorative Chromium Electroplating source category consists of 
facilities that plate base materials such as brass, steel, aluminum, or 
plastic with layers of copper and nickel, followed by a relatively thin 
layer of chromium to provide a bright, tarnish- and wear-resistant 
surface. Decorative chromium electroplating is used for items such as 
automotive trim, metal furniture, bicycles, hand tools, and plumbing 
fixtures. We estimate that there currently are approximately 517 
decorative chromium electroplating plants in operation in the U.S. The 
1995 NESHAP require all existing and new decorative chromium 
electroplating sources to meet a total chromium emissions limit of 0.01 
mg/dscm or meet the surface tension limits of 45 dynes/cm, if measured 
using a stalagmometer, or 35 dynes/cm, if measured using a tensiometer.
3. Chromium Anodizing
    The Chromium Anodizing source category consists of facilities that 
use chromic acid to form an oxide layer on aluminum to provide 
resistance to corrosion. The chromium anodizing process is used to coat 
aircraft parts (such as wings and landing gears) as well as 
architectural structures that are subject to high stress and corrosive 
conditions. We estimate that there currently are about 170 chromium 
anodizing plants in operation in the U.S. The NESHAP require all 
existing and new chromium anodizing sources to meet a total chromium 
emissions limit of 0.01 mg/dscm, or meet the surface tension limits of 
45 dynes/cm, if measured using a stalagmometer, or 35 dynes/cm, if 
measured using a tensiometer.

B. Summary of the Proposed Amendments to the Chromium Electroplating 
and Chromium Anodizing Source Categories

1. The October 2010 Proposal
    In 2010, pursuant to section 112(f)(2) of the CAA, we evaluated the 
residual risk associated with the NESHAP. At that time, we also 
conducted a technology review, as required by section 112(d)(6). Based 
on the results of our initial residual risk and technology reviews, we 
proposed on October 21, 2010 (75 FR 65071), that the risks due to HAP 
emissions from these source categories were acceptable. The basis for 
this decision is explained in the October 21, 2010 Federal Register 
Notice. Furthermore, we proposed that no additional controls were 
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety (AMOS) to protect public 
health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect because we 
concluded that the costs of the options analyzed were not reasonable 
considering the emissions and risk reductions potentially achieved with 
the controls. Thus, we did not propose to revise the NESHAP under 
112(f)(2). However, as explained in that proposal publication, we 
remained concerned about the potential cancer risks due to emissions 
from these source categories and asked for additional information and 
comments on this issue. See 75 FR 65071.
    As a result of our technology review in 2010, we proposed the 
following amendments to the NESHAP for all three source categories:
     Incorporate housekeeping practices into 40 CFR 63.342(f); 
and,
     Phase out the use of wetting agent fume suppressants 
(WAFS) that use perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS);
    We proposed the housekeeping practices because they will help 
reduce and minimize fugitive emissions of chromium compounds from 
chromium electroplating and anodizing facilities and we had determined 
at the time of the proposal that they could be implemented at 
relatively low costs. We proposed to revise the rule to no longer allow 
the addition of PFOS-based WAFS to tanks as a method to meet the MACT 
requirements for these source categories. The basis for this proposal 
is described in the October 2010 Federal Register Notice (75 FR 65068). 
We explained that alternatives to PFOS-based WAFS had been successfully 
used in the hard and decorative chrome source categories and stated 
that while alternatives had not been used extensively in chromium 
anodizing, we were unaware of any technical reason that precluded such 
use. We specifically solicited comment on this issue.
    We also proposed some additional changes in the 2010 proposal under 
Section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), including:
     Revise the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) 
provisions in the rule;
     Revise the monitoring and testing requirements; and
     Make technical corrections to the NESHAP.
    The proposed changes to the SSM provisions will ensure that the 
standards apply at all times, even during periods of malfunction. 
Regarding the monitoring and testing requirements, we proposed to 
revise the compliance provisions for multiple sources controlled by a 
common add-on air pollution control device, clarify that testing can be 
performed by either Method 306 or Method 306A, revise Method 306B to 
clarify that the method also applies to hard chromium electroplating 
tanks and include procedures for checking the accuracy of, and cleaning 
of, a stalagmometer (See 75 FR 65095 for a more detailed discussion of 
the proposed monitoring revisions).
    We also proposed to add a provision to provide an affirmative 
defense against civil penalties for violations of emission standards 
caused by malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing the 
affirmative defense, which is the same affirmative defense provision we 
have proposed or promulgated in several other recent MACT rules.
    In our 2010 proposal, we provided further explanation of the basis 
for proposing these amendments to the NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6). See 75 FR 65093. We proposed that existing sources could not 
use PFOS-based WAFS 3 years after publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register and that new sources cannot use PFOS-based WAFS as a 
method to meet the NESHAP requirements.
2. The February 8, 2012 Supplemental Proposal
    In response to the 2010 proposal, several commenters expressed 
concern that the data set used in the risk assessment was not 
sufficient and not

[[Page 58224]]

representative of the current chromium electroplating industry. 
Additional data were submitted during the comment period and we also 
worked with industry and states to gather additional data. Based on the 
new data, we performed a new risk and technology review for all three 
source categories.
    Our February 2012 supplemental proposal (77 FR 6628) presented the 
results of the new risk assessment. Based on that assessment, we 
proposed that risks due to HAP emissions from each of the three 
chromium electroplating and anodizing source categories were acceptable 
since the actual and allowable emissions of HAP pose cancer risks below 
100-in-1 million, and because a number of the other risk metrics did 
not indicate high risk concerns. For hard chromium electroplating, we 
estimated that the maximum individual cancer risk (MIR) was 20-in-1 
million based on actual emissions and that about 130,000 people were 
exposed to risks greater than 1-in-1 million, for decorative chromium 
electroplating we estimated that the MIR was 10-in-1 million based on 
actual emissions and that about 43,000 people were exposed to risks 
greater than 1-in-1 million, and for the chromic acid anodizing source 
category we estimated that the MIR was 5-in-1 million based on actual 
emissions and that about 5,000 people were exposed to risks greater 
than 1-in-1 million. Moreover, the potential risks due to allowable 
emissions were estimated to be up to 50-in-1 million for hard chromium 
electroplating, 70-in-1 million for decorative chromium electroplating, 
and 60-in-1 million for chromic acid anodizing. After proposing that 
the risks posed by each source category were acceptable, we evaluated 
potential control options under Section 112(f) for each source category 
to determine whether additional controls were necessary to provide an 
ample margin of safety or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. 
We identified cost-effective controls that would lower emissions and 
reduce risks. Therefore, in the February 8, 2012, supplemental 
proposal, we proposed pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) to tighten the 
emissions limits for affected sources. For existing large hard chromium 
electroplating tanks, we proposed tightening the emissions limit from 
0.015 mg/dscm to 0.011 mg/dscm. For existing small hard chromium 
electroplating sources, we proposed tightening the emissions limit from 
0.030 mg/dscm to 0.015 mg/dscm. For existing decorative chromium 
electroplating and chromium anodizing sources, we proposed tightening 
the emissions limit from 0.010 mg/dscm to 0.007 mg/dscm. For all new 
sources, we proposed tightening the emissions limit to 0.006 mg/dscm. 
We explained that these emission limits were cost effective.
    In our supplemental proposal, we also proposed to require under CAA 
section 112(d)(6) the same limits that we proposed would provide an 
ample margin of safety because the limits reflect developments in 
practices, processes or control technologies and are cost-effective. 
See 77 FR 6638-45.
    We also proposed under both CAA section 112(f)(2) and section 
112(d)(6) that sources could instead demonstrate compliance by 
maintaining surface tension limits of 40 dynes/cm, if measured using a 
stalagmometer, and 33 dynes/cm, if measured using a tensiometer. These 
limits are tighter than those currently in the NESHAP, which are 45 
dynes/cm, if measured using a stalagmometer, and 35 dynes/cm, if 
measured using a tensiometer. The proposed surface tension limits would 
ensure that the alternative compliance option is at least as stringent 
as the concentration based emissions limits described above. 77 FR at 
6644-45. For more information regarding the relationship between 
surface tension and emissions see the Development of Revised Surface 
Tension Limits for Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing Tanks 
Controlled with Wetting Agent Fume Suppressants document, which is 
available in the docket.
    We estimated that these proposed emissions limits and surface 
tension limits would reduce the cancer risks, cancer incidence, and the 
number of people exposed to risks greater than 1-in-1 million due to 
emissions of hexavalent chromium from this industry by 25 to 50 
percent. 77 FR at 6648-49.
    We proposed that existing sources would need to meet the limits no 
later than 2 years after the effective date of the final rule. Section 
112(f)(4) generally provides that a standard promulgated pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f)(2) applies 90 days after the effective date, but 
further provides for a compliance period of up to 2 years where the 
Administrator finds that such time is necessary for the installation of 
controls and that steps will be taken during that period to assure 
protection to health from imminent endangerment. In the supplemental 
proposal, we explained that a 2-year compliance period was necessary 
for facilities to determine if they meet the proposed emissions limits, 
schedule a compliance test, perform an engineering analysis to 
determine the control options, and install and test new emissions 
control equipment. We further proposed that new sources must comply 
with the emission limits or surface tension limits upon start-up. See 
77 FR 6649.
    As stated in the proposed preamble, the EPA is taking a step to 
increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data 
accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is requiring owners and operators 
of Chrome Electroplating/Steel Pickling facilities to submit electronic 
copies of required performance test reports.
    As mentioned in the proposed preamble, data will be collected 
through an electronic emissions test report structure called the 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). The ERT will generate an electronic 
report which will be submitted to the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) 
through the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). 
A description of the ERT can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ and CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web site: 
(www.epa.gov/cdx).
    The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to 
the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and will 
apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that 
are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods 
supported by the ERT is available at the previously mentioned ERT Web 
site. The EPA believes, through this approach, industry will save time 
in the performance test submittal process. Additionally this rulemaking 
benefits industry by cutting back on recordkeeping costs as the 
performance test reports that are submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are 
no longer required to be kept on site.
    As mentioned in the proposed preamble, State, local and tribal 
agencies will benefit from more streamlined and accurate review of 
electronic data that will be available on the EPA WebFIRE database. 
Additionally performance test data will become available to the public 
through WebFIRE. Having such data publicly available enhances 
transparency and accountability. The major advantages of electronic 
reporting are more fully explained in the proposed preamble.
    In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, 
control strategy development and other air pollution control 
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance 
test data will save industry, state, local, tribal agencies and the EPA 
significant time, money and effort while improving the quality of 
emission inventories and, as a result, air quality regulations. See

[[Page 58225]]

77 FR 6649-50. We proposed that the revised reporting requirements 
would apply upon promulgation of the final rule.

C. Overview of the Steel Pickling Source Category

    Steel pickling is a treatment process in which the heavy oxide 
crust or mill scale that develops on the steel surface during hot 
forming or heat treating is removed chemically in a bath of aqueous 
acid solution. There are two specific processes regulated under the 
Steel Pickling NESHAP. Pickling is a process applied to metallic 
substances that removes surface impurities, stains, or crusts to 
prepare the metal for subsequent plating (e.g., with chromium) or other 
treatment, such as galvanization or painting. A pickling line is 
defined in the rule as using an acid solution in any tank in which 
hydrochloric acid is at a concentration of 6 percent by weight or 
greater and has a temperature of 100 [deg]F or greater. An acid 
regeneration plant is defined in the rule as the equipment and 
processes that regenerate fresh hydrochloric acid (HCl) pickling 
solution from spent pickle liquor using a thermal treatment process. 
The HAP emission points from the steel pickling process include steel 
pickling baths, steel pickling sprays, and tank vents. The HAP emission 
point from acid regeneration plants is the spray roaster.
    We estimate that there are approximately 100 facilities subject to 
the Steel Pickling NESHAP. Many of these facilities are located 
adjacent to integrated iron and steel manufacturing plants or electric 
arc furnace steelmaking facilities (minimills) that produce steel from 
scrap. Acid Regeneration facilities may or may not be located at steel 
pickling operations.

D. Summary of the Proposed Amendments to the Steel Pickling Source 
Category

    In 2010, pursuant to section 112(f)(2) of the CAA, we evaluated the 
residual risk associated with the NESHAP. We also conducted a 
technology review, as required by section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. Based 
on our risk analysis, we determined that there were no cancer risks 
attributable to emissions from the steel pickling source category. We 
also estimated the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value to be 2 based 
on emissions of chlorine and the maximum off-facility-site acute Hazard 
Quotient (HQ) value could be up to 0.4, based on actual emission levels 
and the reference exposure level (REL) value for chlorine. 75 FR at 
65122-24. We proposed on October 21, 2010 that the risks were 
acceptable based on our determination that facilities in this source 
category emit no HAPs that are carcinogens and because the acute risks 
were low. While the chronic non-cancer TOSHI level for one facility 
exceeded the reference level, we noted that this facility has had 
compliance issues with the standard and that the actual emissions we 
relied on for this facility included emissions in excess of what is 
allowed under the MACT standard. We estimate that if emissions were 
maintained at levels equal to or lower than the level allowed by the 
MACT limit (6 ppm) then the TOSHI would be no higher than 1. The next 
highest HI from any facility in the source category is 0.1.
    We identified one development in practices, processes or control 
technologies for this source category, but determined that it was not 
technically feasible for the industry. 75 FR at 65124. Thus, we 
proposed that no amendments were necessary under both the second part 
of the section 112(f) review, determining whether the standard provides 
an ample margin of safety and prevents an adverse environmental effect, 
and for the 112(d)(6) review. 75 FR at 65124. However, under section 
112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3), we proposed to eliminate the startup, shutdown 
and malfunction (SSM) exemption in the Steel Pickling NESHAP in light 
of the court's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA (Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 
F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008) 130 S. Ct. 1735 (2010)). We proposed several 
revisions to the regulations regarding SSM, including:
     Revising Table 1 to indicate that the requirements in 40 
CFR 63.6(e) of the General Provisions, regarding the ``duty to 
minimize'' emissions do not apply and instead proposed to incorporate 
it in 40 CFR 63.1159(c).
     Removing the SSM Plan requirement requiring affected 
sources to calculate their emissions during startup and shutdown and to 
maintain records of the startup and shutdown emission calculations.
     Revising the SSM-associated monitoring, recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements to require reporting and recordkeeping for 
periods of malfunction.
     Adding provisions to provide an affirmative defense 
against civil penalties for violations of emission standards caused by 
malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing the affirmative 
defense.
    In the February 2012 supplemental proposal (77 FR 6628) we proposed 
two additional actions for the Steel Pickling source category. First, 
we proposed to remove a compliance alternative established in the 
original MACT rule. The alternative compliance option allowed existing 
HCl regeneration facilities to request approval for an alternative 
source-specific chlorine concentration standard from their permitting 
authority. We stated that we believe that this alternative compliance 
option was not appropriate under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) and 
that the option had been adopted inappropriately. Second, we proposed 
to require electronic reporting for the Steel Pickling and HCl Acid 
Regeneration source category similar to that described above for the 
chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing source categories and 
for the same reasons.

III. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What are the final rule amendments for the Chromium Electroplating 
and Chromium Anodizing source categories?

1. Risk and Technology Review
    For all three chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing source 
categories, we are finalizing the emission and surface tension limits 
as proposed in the supplemental proposal under Sections 112(d)(6) and 
112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act. However, as noted in the following 
paragraphs, we performed additional analyses based on issues raised and 
information submitted during the comment period, which add further 
support for this final action.
    Additional information on emissions and controls from chromium 
electroplating and chromic acid anodizing sources was submitted to EPA 
during the comment period, and we also obtained additional data and 
information from some States and industry shortly after the close of 
the comment period. The information supported the data and analyses we 
had performed to develop the emissions limits for the supplemental 
proposal. For example, we obtained data from two additional chromic 
acid anodizing plants that showed they had emissions well below the 
limits we are promulgating and that indicates the anodizing plants can 
easily meet the limits with readily available common control 
technologies. We also obtained additional data from hard chromium 
electroplating plants that shows even more plants than we estimated in 
the proposal are already meeting the lower emissions limits.
    We also performed new analyses of the costs of the proposed 
requirements and the emissions reductions that would be achieved based 
on the information that became available after we issued the 
supplemental proposal.

[[Page 58226]]

The revised costs and emissions reductions are similar to those 
presented at proposal (77 FR 6628). For example, the overall total 
estimated annualized cost in the supplemental proposal was $3,000,000 
and cost-effectiveness was estimated to be $14,900 per pound of 
hexavalent chromium emissions reductions and we estimated the proposed 
changes would reduce emissions by 208 pounds per year. We now estimate 
the overall total annualized cost of the final rule is $2,400,000, that 
the cost-effectiveness is approximately $11,000 per pound of hexavalent 
chromium emissions reductions, and that the final rule will achieve 224 
pounds per year of hexavalent chromium reductions. Our full analysis 
can be found in Revised Procedures for Determining Control Costs and 
Cost Effectiveness for Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing, which is 
available in the docket.
    With regard to our review under Section 112(f), we continue to 
conclude that risks are acceptable for all 3 source categories since 
the cancer MIRs for each of the source categories are below 100-in-1 
million, and because a number of the other risk metrics do not indicate 
high risk concerns. However, as explained below, we are promulgating 
standards under Section 112(f) to provide an ample margin of safety.
    Regarding the standards proposed under Section 112(f)(2), several 
commenters claimed that, as part of the ample margin of safety analysis 
included in the proposed rule, we did not evaluate the health impacts 
(e.g., reduced risk of cancer) of the various options we considered. 
The comments are summarized in Section IV of this notice and in the 
Responses to Comments (RTC) document, which is available in the docket.
    As set forth in the Benzene NESHAP, in the ample margin of safety 
decision process, the agency again considers all of the health risks 
and other health information considered in the first step 
(acceptability determination). Beyond that information, additional 
factors relating to the appropriate level of control are considered, 
including costs and economic impacts of controls, technological 
feasibility, uncertainties and any other relevant factors.
    In the supplemental proposal addressing our risk review for the 
chromium electroplating and anodizing source categories, under the 
ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated and presented various 
emission control options, and the costs and economic impacts associated 
with those options. While we summarized the risk reductions that would 
be achieved with the proposed limits, we did not provide information 
regarding the risk reductions that could be achieved by control options 
that we did not propose to adopt. In response to the comments we 
received, we also evaluated the risk reductions that would be achieved 
by each technically feasible option for each of the chromium 
electroplating and anodizing source categories and subcategories (i.e., 
large hard chromium electroplating, small hard chromium electroplating, 
decorative electroplating and chromic acid anodizing). The results are 
summarized below.
    Baseline Risks for Hard Chromium Electroplating. For the Hard 
Chromium Electroplating source category (including large and small hard 
chromium electroplating sources), the MIR due to actual emissions is 
estimated to be 20-in-1 million, and the cancer incidence is estimated 
to be 0.05 cases per year. The MIR due to allowable emissions is 
estimated to be 50-in-1 million, and the cancer incidence based on 
allowable emissions is estimated to be 0.2 cases per year. Based on 
actual emissions, approximately 1,100 people are estimated to have 
cancer risks at or above 10-in-1 million, and approximately 130,000 
people are estimated to have cancer risks at or above 1-in-1 million. 
We estimate that about two-thirds of the population risks are due to 
large hard chromium sources and the remainder of the population risks 
are due to small hard chromium sources. We also estimate that the 
potential is low for chronic and acute non-cancer health effects, and 
for multipathway risks. As discussed in the preamble to the 
supplemental proposed rule, we conclude that the risks from this source 
category are acceptable.
Large Hard Chromium Electroplating Emission Limits
    For the large hard chromium sources, we evaluated three control 
options in the supplemental proposal. The first option, which is the 
option we proposed and are finalizing today, would be to lower the 
chromium emissions limit for existing sources from 0.015 mg/dscm to 
0.011 mg/dscm. The second option was to lower the limit to 0.0075 mg/
dscm, and the third option was to lower the limit to 0.006 mg/dscm. The 
results of our cost and risk analyses for large hard chromium sources 
are summarized in Table 4.

                 Table 4--Summary of Costs and Risk Reductions for the Various Options Considered for Large Hard Chromium Electroplating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       MIR \1\  (in-a-                  Number of   Number of
                                            Emission      Total           million)                       people     people w/                  Cost-
                  Option                   reductions   emissions ------------------------  Incidence   with risk  risk > 10-  Annualized  effectiveness
                                            in lbs/yr   in lbs/yr                          (cases/yr)   > 1-in-1      in-1        costs       (per lb)
                                                                     Actual     Allowable                million     million
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline: current situation..............           0         454          20          50        0.03      88,000         740           0            NA
Option 1--Final: limit of 0.011 mg/dscm..         148         306      \2\ 20          40        0.02      59,000         500      $1.7 M       $11,000
Option 2: limit of 0.0075 mg/dscm........         169         285          10          30    \2\ 0.02      55,000         470      $4.1 M       $24,700
Option 3: limit of 0.006 mg/dscm.........         180         274           8          20    \2\ 0.02      53,000         450      $5.3 M       $29,900
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MIR estimates are derived from estimates of actual and allowable emissions. Population risk estimates are derived from estimates of actual
  emissions.
\2\ There are further risk reductions associated with this option compared to the previous option, but they are not large enough to change the risk
  values as presented to one significant figure.

    We also estimated impacts of Option 1 to small businesses, and 
found that most facilities would have a costs-to-sales ratio of less 
than 1 percent. However, we estimated that 6 plants could have costs-
to-sales ratios up to 9 percent. (See Economic Impact Analysis for Risk 
and Technology Review: Chromium Electroplating and Chromic Acid 
Anodizing Source Categories, which can be found in the docket for this 
action.) For the other two options (Options 2 and 3), we did not 
quantify the impacts to small businesses, however, they would both pose 
impacts to a larger number of small businesses since they would impose 
costs on more facilities and almost all facilities within this category 
are small businesses. As shown in Table 4, Option 1 also achieves 
meaningful reductions in risks associated with exposure to a known 
human carcinogen, including an estimated 30 percent reduction in the

[[Page 58227]]

MIR, cancer incidence, and the numbers of people with risks at or above 
1-in-1 million and 10-in-1 million. For the other two options (Options 
2 and 3), the estimated annualized costs and cost-effectiveness values 
were more than double those of Option 1 and a significantly greater 
number of small businesses would be impacted, with only small 
additional risk reductions achieved beyond Option 1. Although Options 2 
and 3 reduce the baseline MIR by 50 percent or more, the baseline MIR 
is already considerably below 100-in-1 million, and the options reduce 
incidence and population risks only slightly. Considering the cost, 
economic, and risk impacts discussed above, we conclude that Option 1 
provides an ample margin of safety.
    Furthermore, in the 2010 proposal (75 FR 65068), we considered the 
option of requiring controls similar to standards adopted in 
California, which would essentially require facilities to install high 
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters on all hard chromium plants. 
As described in the 2010 proposal, the overall costs for that option 
were significantly higher than the other options described above, and 
would have resulted in much greater economic impacts to small 
businesses. Furthermore, based on more recent analyses, we estimate 
that the cost effectiveness of requiring HEPA filters on all large hard 
chromium plants would be at least $27,000 per pound. (see Revised 
Procedures for Determining Control Costs and Cost Effectiveness for 
Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing, which is available in the 
docket). With regard to health factors, requirements similar to the 
California standards would likely reduce risks to below 1-in-1 million 
for all hard chromium plants. However, given the high overall costs and 
economic impacts, we have determined that it is not appropriate to 
require those controls in order to provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. 
Therefore, based on all our analyses and after weighing all the 
factors, we are promulgating the chromium emissions limit of 0.011 mg/
dscm, as proposed in February 2012 (77 FR 6628) for existing large hard 
chromium electroplating sources because we believe that limit will 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent 
an adverse environmental effect.
    With regard to new sources, we proposed a limit of 0.006 mg/dscm. 
The rationale for choosing 0.006 mg/dscm is described in detail in the 
supplemental proposal. After considering public comments and additional 
analyses, we are finalizing this limit of 0.006 mg/dscm for new large 
hard chromium plants because this is the lowest level that can be 
reliably achieved cost-effectively, such as allowing plants the 
flexibility to use add-on controls or WAFS to comply. This limit will 
ensure that the risks posed by any new sources will be acceptable and 
the standard will provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health and prevent an adverse environmental effect.
Small Hard Chromium Electroplating Emission Limits
    For small hard chromium electroplating sources, we also evaluated 
the costs and risk reductions that would be achieved for three main 
control options. The first option, which is the option we proposed and 
are finalizing today, would be to lower the chromium emissions limit 
for pre-1995 sources from 0.03 mg/dscm to 0.015 mg/dscm. The second 
option was to lower the limit to 0.01 mg/dscm, and the third option was 
to lower the limit to 0.006 mg/dscm. The basis for evaluating these 
options is explained further in the supplemental proposal. (77 FR 6628) 
The results are summarized in Table 5.

                 Table 5--Summary of Costs and Risk Reductions for the Various Options Considered for Small Hard Chromium Electroplating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       MIR \1\  (in-a-                  Number of   Number of
                                            Emission      Total           million)                       people      people                    Cost-
                  Option                   reductions   emissions ------------------------  Incidence   with risk   with risk  Annualized  effectiveness
                                            in lbs/yr   in lbs/yr                          (cases/yr)   > 1-in-1    > 10-in-1     costs       (per lb)
                                                                     Actual     Allowable                million     million
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline: current situation..............           0         223          20          50        0.02      43,300         360           0            NA
Option 1--Final (0.015 mg/dscm)..........          33         190          10          30        0.01      36,800         306      $0.5 M       $15,000
Option 2: 0.01 mg/dscm...................          71         152           7          20    \2\ 0.01      29,000         245      $1.5 M       $21,000
Option 3: 0.006 mg/dscm..................         116         107           4          10       0.008      22,500         190      $2.2 M       $19,300
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MIR estimates are derived from estimates of actual and allowable emissions. Population risk estimates are derived from estimates of actual
  emissions.
\2\ The incidence estimate under Option 2 is less than the incidence estimate under option 1, but the estimates are reported as the same when rounded to
  one significant figure.

    We also estimated the impacts of Option 1 to small businesses, and 
found that most facilities would have a costs-to-sales ratio of less 
than 1 percent. However, we estimated that 3 plants could have costs-
to-sales ratios of about three percent. For the other two options 
(Options 2 and 3), we did not quantify the impacts to small businesses; 
however, we know Options 2 and 3 would pose impacts to a larger number 
of small businesses.
    Option 1, as shown in Table 5, achieves approximately a 50 percent 
reduction in the MIR and cancer incidence associated with exposure to a 
known human carcinogen, and a 20 percent reduction in the numbers of 
people with risks at or above 1-in-1 million and 10-in-1 million, for 
$500,000 in annualized costs. Options 2 and 3 achieve similar 
reductions in incidence and population risks, but the annualized costs 
were three and four times higher, respectively, than those of Option 1, 
and substantially more small businesses would be impacted. Although 
Options 2 and 3 reduce the baseline MIR by more than half, the baseline 
MIR is already considerably below 100-in-1 million. Considering the 
cost, economic, and risk impacts discussed above, we conclude that 
Option 1 provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
    Furthermore, as explained in the 2010 proposal, we considered the 
option of requiring controls similar to the California standards, which 
would have essentially required all hard chromium electroplating 
facilities to install HEPA filters. As described in the 2010 proposal, 
the estimated total capital and annualized costs for that option were 
much higher than the other options described above and would have 
imposed much more significant economic impacts to small businesses. 
Furthermore, based on more recent analyses, we estimate that the cost 
effectiveness of requiring HEPA filters on all small hard chromium 
plants would be at least $42,700 per pound. (see Revised Procedures for 
Determining Control Costs and Cost Effectiveness for Chromium 
Electroplating and Anodizing, which is available in the

[[Page 58228]]

docket). With regard to health factors, requiring controls similar to 
the California standards would likely reduce risks to below 1-in-1 
million for all hard chromium plants. However, given the high overall 
costs, we have determined that it is not appropriate to require 
controls similar to those in California in the national rule.
    In summary, based on all our analyses and after weighing all the 
factors, we are promulgating the chromium emissions limit of 0.015 mg/
dscm, as proposed in the supplemental proposal notice (77 FR 6628) for 
existing small hard chromium electroplating sources.
    With regard to new sources, as described in detail in the 
supplemental proposal, we proposed a chromium emissions limit of 0.006 
mg/dscm. The rationale for choosing 0.006 mg/dscm is described in 
detail in the supplemental proposal. After considering public comments 
and additional analyses, we are finalizing this limit of 0.006 mg/dscm 
for new small hard chromium plants because this is the lowest level 
that can be reliably achieved cost-effectively, such as allowing plants 
the flexibility to use add-on controls or WAFS to comply. This limit 
will ensure that the risks posed by any new sources will be acceptable 
and the standard will provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect.
Decorative Chromium Electroplating Emission Limits
    For the Decorative Chromium Electroplating source category, the MIR 
due to actual emissions is estimated to be 10-in-1 million, and the 
cancer incidence is estimated to be 0.02 cases per year. The MIR due to 
allowable emissions is estimated to be 70-in-1 million, and the cancer 
incidence is estimated to be 0.08 cases per year. Based on actual 
emissions, approximately 100 people are estimated to have cancer risks 
at or above 10-in-1 million, and approximately 43,000 people are 
estimated to have cancer risks at or above 1-in-1 million. We also 
estimate that the potential is low for chronic and acute non-cancer 
health effects, and for multipathway risks. As discussed in the 
preamble to the supplemental proposed rule, we conclude that the risks 
from this source category are acceptable.
    With regard to control options, as explained in the preamble of the 
supplemental proposal, we evaluated possible limits within the range of 
0.006 to 0.01 mg/dscm under the technology review and risk reviews. The 
current standard is 0.01 mg/dscm, and we considered this as the upper 
limit to be considered. As described in the supplemental proposal, we 
decided that 0.006 mg/dscm should be the lower end of the range of 
limits considered because most plants rely on fume suppressants to 
limit emissions and 0.006 mg/dscm was the lowest concentration that we 
estimated could reliably be achieved by limiting surface tensions to 33 
dynes/cm (as measured with tensiometer) and 40 dynes/cm (as measured 
with a stalagmometer). However, a portion of the decorative plating 
sources rely on add-on controls to comply with the NESHAP. Therefore, 
we also evaluated the emissions levels being achieved by decorative 
electroplating plants that rely on add-on controls. Based on data we 
have for 20 tanks at 17 facilities, the emissions concentrations from 
these 20 tanks are all less than 0.007 mg/dscm. The highest value is 
0.0066 mg/dscm. Two of these tanks (about 11 percent) have emissions 
between 0.006 to 0.0066 mg/dscm. The other 15 tanks have emissions 
below 0.005 mg/dscm. After evaluating this range, as described in the 
proposal, we decided to propose an emissions limit of 0.007 mg/dscm, a 
limit slightly higher than the emissions being achieved by the highest 
emitting facilities in our data set to minimize the need for additional 
add-on controls in this source category. Based on the data we have, a 
limit of 0.006 mg/dscm could result in some plants needing to retrofit 
their add-on controls which would result in significantly higher costs 
for those facilities. With regard to reductions, we estimate this 
option would achieve reductions in overall emissions of far less than 
15 percent compared to the 0.007 mg/dscm limit. Therefore, we did not 
further evaluate the 0.006 mg/dscm limit for existing sources.
    As described above, for decorative chromium electroplating sources, 
we evaluated the costs and risk reductions that would be achieved under 
one control option for existing sources. That option, which we are 
finalizing today as proposed, is to lower the emissions limit for 
existing sources from 0.01 mg/dscm to 0.007 mg/dscm. The basis for 
evaluating this option is explained further in the supplemental 
proposal. The results of our cost and risk analyses for decorative 
chromium electroplating sources are summarized in Table 6.

                 Table 6--Summary of Costs and Risk Reductions for the Various Options Considered for Decorative Chromium Electroplating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   MIR \1\ (in-a-million)               Number of   Number of
                                            Emission      Total   ------------------------               people      people                    Cost-
                  Option                   reductions   emissions                           Incidence   with risk   with risk  Annualized  effectiveness
                                            in lbs/yr   in lbs/yr    Actual     Allowable  (cases/yr)   > 1-in-1    > 10-in-1     costs       (per lb)
                                                                                                         million     million
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline: Current situation..............           0         222          10          70        0.02      43,000         100           0            NA
Option 1 (0.007 mg/dscm).................          35         187           7          50    \2\ 0.02      36,000          80       $170K        $5,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MIR estimates are derived from estimates of actual and allowable emissions. Population risk estimates are derived from estimates of actual
  emissions.
\2\ The incidence estimate under Option 1 is less than the baseline estimate, but the estimates are reported as the same when rounded to one significant
  figure.

    With regard to the risk reductions achieved by the proposed lower 
limit of 0.007 mg/dscm, we estimate that the MIR based on actual 
emissions of hexavalent chromium, a known human carcinogen, would be 
reduced by about 30%, and the total estimated cancer incidence, the 
number of people estimated to have cancer risks at or above 10-in-1 
million and the number of people estimated to have risks at or above 1-
in-1 million would be reduced by about 15 percent. The MIR based on 
allowable emissions will be reduced from 70-in-1 million to 50-in-1 
million. We also considered a limit of 0.006 mg/dscm; however, reducing 
the limit from 0.007 to 0.006 mg/dscm would provide minimal additional 
risk reduction and would likely result in more sources needing to 
upgrade add-on controls which would result in significantly higher 
costs. Therefore, after considering all the costs, economic and health 
factors, and comments, we are promulgating an emissions limit of 0.007 
mg/dscm for decorative chromium sources, as proposed in the 
supplemental proposal (77 FR 6628).
    With regard to new sources, as described in detail in the 
supplemental proposal, we proposed a limit of 0.006 mg/dscm. The 
rationale for choosing

[[Page 58229]]

0.006 mg/dscm is described in detail in the supplemental proposal. 
After considering public comments and additional analyses, we are 
finalizing this limit of 0.006 mg/dscm for new decorative chromium 
electroplating plants because this is the lowest level that can be 
reliably achieved cost-effectively and while still allowing plants the 
flexibility to use add-on controls or WAFS to comply. This limit will 
ensure that the risks posed by any new sources will be acceptable and 
the standard will provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health and prevent an adverse environmental effect.
Chromic Acid Anodizing Emission Limits
    For the Chromic Acid Anodizing source category, the MIR due to 
actual emissions is estimated to be 5-in-1 million, and the cancer 
incidence is estimated to be 0.003 cases per year. The MIR due to 
allowable emissions is estimated to be 60-in-1 million, and the cancer 
incidence is estimated to be 0.08 cases per year. Based on actual 
emissions, no people are estimated to have cancer risks at or above 10-
in-1 million, and approximately 5,000 people are estimated to have 
cancer risks at or above 1-in-1 million. We also estimate that the 
potential is low for chronic and acute non-cancer health effects, and 
for multipathway risks. As discussed in the preamble to the 
supplemental proposed rule, we conclude that the risks from this source 
category are acceptable.
    For chromic acid anodizing sources, we evaluated the costs and risk 
reductions that would be achieved for one control option for existing 
sources. That option, which we are finalizing today as proposed, is to 
lower the emissions limit for existing sources from 0.01 mg/dscm to 
0.007 mg/dscm. The basis for evaluating this option is explained 
further in the supplemental proposal. The results of our cost and risk 
analyses for chromic acid anodizing sources are summarized in Table 7.

                         Table 7--Summary of Costs and Risk Reductions for the Various Options Considered for Chromium Anodizing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   MIR \1\ (in-a-million)                Number      Number
                                            Emission      Total   ------------------------               people      people                    Cost-
                  Option                   reductions   emissions                           Incidence   with risk   with risk  Annualized  effectiveness
                                            in lbs/yr   in lbs/yr    Actual     Allowable  (cases/yr)   > 1-in-1    > 10-in-1     costs       (per lb)
                                                                                                         million     million
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline: Current situation..............           0          57           5          60       0.003       5,000           0          NA            NA
Option 1 (0.007 mg/dscm).................           8          49           3          40   \2\ 0.003       4,000           0        $50K        $6,580
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MIR estimates are derived from estimates of actual and allowable emissions. Population risk estimates are derived from estimates of actual
  emissions.
\2\ The incidence estimate under Option 1 is less than the baseline incidence estimate, but the estimates are reported as the same when rounded to one
  significant figure.

    As explained in the supplemental proposal (77 FR 6628), we had less 
source data for anodizing plants; however, we determined that based on 
the similarities with decorative chromium sources, it was appropriate 
to evaluate the same options and also to propose the same limits for 
anodizing plants as proposed for decorative sources. With regard to the 
risk reductions achieved by the proposed limit of 0.007 mg/dscm, we 
estimate that the MIR based on actual emissions of hexavalent chromium, 
a known human carcinogen, would be reduced to about 3-in-1 million, the 
total estimated cancer incidence would be reduced by about 15%, and the 
number of people estimated to have risks at or above 1-in-1 million 
would be reduced from 5,000 to 4,000. As we did for the decorative 
chromium electroplating category, we also considered a limit of 0.006 
mg/dscm for the anodizing category, however the additional reduction in 
risk that would be achieved by going from 0.007 to 0.006 would be 
minimal, and this change would likely result in increased costs. After 
considering all the costs, economic and health factors, we are 
promulgating an emissions limit of 0.007 mg/dscm for chromic acid 
anodizing sources (77 FR 6628).
    With regard to new sources, as described in detail in the 
supplemental proposal, we proposed a limit of 0.006 mg/dscm. The 
rationale for choosing 0.006 mg/dscm is described in detail in the 
supplemental proposal. After considering public comments and additional 
analyses, we are finalizing this limit of 0.006 mg/dscm for new chromic 
acid anodizing plants because this is the lowest level that can be 
reliably achieved cost-effectively, such as allowing plants the 
flexibility to use add-on controls or WAFS to meet this level of 
emissions and this limit will ensure that the risks posed by any new 
sources will be acceptable and provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effects.
Conclusion--Emissions Limits
    The Agency has determined that the risks due to HAP emissions from 
these source categories are acceptable. Furthermore, after considering 
all the health and cost factors described above, the agency has 
determined that the NESHAP for the hard and decorative chromium 
electroplating and chromic acid anodizing source categories, with the 
promulgated changes in today's action (as explained above) will provide 
an ample margin of safety to protect the public health and will prevent 
an adverse environmental effect.
    We are also revising the standards pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6). Because it is cost effective to meet the limits we are 
promulgating under CAA section 112(f), described above, we have also 
determined it is necessary to revise the NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6) to require such limits.
Housekeeping Requirements
    We are also revising the standards pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6) to include several housekeeping requirements. However, in 
response to comments we received, we are making several minor revisions 
to the proposed housekeeping requirements to clarify and simplify those 
requirements. The revisions are summarized below and described in 
detail in the RTC document, which is available in the docket.
    The housekeeping procedures include storage requirements for any 
substance that contains hexavalent chromium as a primary ingredient; 
controls for the dripping of bath solution resulting from dragout; 
splash guards to minimize overspray and return bath solution to the 
electroplating or anodizing tank; a requirement to promptly clean up or 
contain all spills of any substance containing hexavalent chromium; 
requirements for the routine cleaning or stabilizing of storage and 
work surfaces, walkways, and other surfaces potentially contaminated 
with hexavalent chromium; a requirement to install a barrier between 
all buffing,

[[Page 58230]]

grinding, or polishing operations and electroplating or anodizing 
operations; and requirements for the storage, disposal, recovery, or 
recycling of chromium-containing wastes. The main changes that were 
made to the housekeeping requirements since the 2010 proposal based on 
public comments include removing routine housekeeping measures from 
recordkeeping, adding that cleanup must be initiated within one hour of 
the spill, and allowing facilities to collect dragout using other 
methods when drip trays are not practical. The compliance date for 
implementing the housekeeping procedures will be 6 months after 
promulgation of the final amendments. More details on the housekeeping 
requirements are explained in the 2010 proposal and in the RTC 
document.
Phase-Out of PFOS WAFS
    Also pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are specifying that PFOS 
WAFS cannot be added to any affected hard chromium electroplating tank, 
decorative chromium electroplating tank, or chromium anodizing tank as 
a method to meet the NESHAP requirements for these source categories. 
In response to public comments about the effectiveness and feasibility 
of non-PFOS WAFS, we collected information from several chromium 
electroplating plants in Minnesota that have been using non-PFOS WAFS 
for several years, and that information confirmed that the non-PFOS 
substitutes are effective and feasible alternatives to PFOS-based 
chemicals. See Information on non-PFOS Fume Suppressants in Minnesota 
Chromium Electroplating Facilities. Further details are also provided 
in the responses to comments provided in Section IV of this FR notice 
and in the RTC document.
Other Amendments
    We are finalizing the changes to the SSM requirements, electronic 
reporting requirements, test procedures, and monitoring requirements as 
proposed. We are also finalizing the addition of a provision to provide 
an affirmative defense against civil penalties for violations of 
emission standards caused by malfunctions, as well as criteria for 
establishing the affirmative defense.

B. What are the effective and compliance dates for the Chromium 
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing source category amendments?

    The effective date for the final rule amendments is September 19, 
2012. The compliance date for implementing the housekeeping 
requirements is March 19, 2013. The compliance date for the revised 
emission limits and surface tension limits is September 19, 2014. The 
compliance date for eliminating the use of PFOS-based fume suppressants 
is September 21, 2015.

C. What are the final rule amendments for the Steel Pickling source 
category?

1. Revisions Pursuant to CAA Section 112(d)(2) & (3)
    At the time we promulgated the original MACT standard, we also 
established an alternative compliance option for the steel pickling 
source category that allowed HCl regeneration facilities to apply for a 
site specific alternative chlorine concentration standard for existing 
acid regeneration plants. In this final rule, we are removing the 
alternative compliance option. After reviewing public comments and 
evaluating additional information received since proposal, we continue 
to believe that the alternative compliance option provided in the 
original rule was not appropriate and therefore should be removed from 
the rule because it allowed a source to establish a source specific 
limit which could be less stringent than the MACT Floor level of 
control. Based on our review and analysis of available information, EPA 
concludes that the emission limit for chlorine can be met using 
available control technologies such as alkaline scrubbers, and that 
this level of control is consistent with the MACT floor level of 
control established in the original NESHAP. We estimate that the 
amendment to remove the alternative compliance provision will reduce 
emissions of chlorine by 15 tons per year (tpy).
2. Risk and Technology Review
    As provided in the proposed rule, we are not revising the Steel 
Pickling NESHAP pursuant to CAA sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6). While 
the chronic non-cancer TOSHI level for one facility exceeded the 
reference level, we noted that this facility has had compliance issues 
with the standard and that the actual emissions we relied on for this 
facility included emissions in excess of what is allowed under the 
NESHAP.
    Given the amendment to remove the alternative compliance option 
under Section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3) as described above, and assuming 
that the one facility will apply the necessary controls to achieve 
compliance with the NESHAP, we estimate that the maximum chronic non-
cancer TOSHI for any facility in the category will be less than 1. 
Therefore, the maximum TOSHI allowed by the NESHAP will be no higher 
than 1.
    Based on consideration of all the risk assessment results, 
including the fact that the maximum TOSHI allowed by the rule will be 
no higher than 1, we conclude that risks are acceptable and that the 
NESHAP will provide an ample margin of safety given the amendments we 
are promulgating in this action.
    Therefore, we are not amending the NESHAP under Section 112(f) 
because risks are acceptable and the NESHAP, as revised pursuant to 
112(d)(2) and (d)(3), provides an ample margin of safety. We are also 
not amending the NESHAP under section 112(d)(6) because we have not 
identified new developments in practices, processes or control 
technologies. We have determined that the Steel Pickling NESHAP, given 
the amendments we are promulgating in this action, provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse 
environmental effect, and that there have been no advances in 
practices, processes, and control technologies feasible for this source 
category.
3. Electronic Reporting
    The final rule amendments require owners and operators of affected 
facilities to submit electronic copies of required performance test 
reports to EPA's WebFIRE database through an electronic emissions test 
report structure called the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). The ERT 
generates an electronic report which would be submitted using the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The 
submitted report will be transmitted through EPA's Central Data 
Exchange (CDX) network for storage in the WebFIRE database making 
submittal of data very straightforward and easy. The requirement to 
submit performance test data electronically to EPA applies only to 
those performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported 
by the ERT.

D. What are the effective and compliance dates for the Steel Pickling 
source category amendments?

    The effective and compliance date for the final rule amendments is 
September 19, 2012.

IV. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

A. Comments and Responses Associated With the Chromium Electroplating 
and Chromium Anodizing Source Categories

    Many of the significant comments and our responses are summarized 
in this preamble. A summary of the public

[[Page 58231]]

comments on the proposal not presented in the preamble, and the EPA's 
responses to those comments, is available in the Responses to Comments 
(RTC) document which is available in the Docket for this rulemaking, 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600.
1. Technology Review
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA made the decision to 
consider more stringent emissions limits primarily because the revised 
data set indicated that most facilities were operating well below the 
current emissions limit. The commenter explained that the fact that 
some facilities operate below the existing standard does not warrant 
the establishment of revised standards under section 112(d)(6). The 
commenter added that EPA should expect that some facilities will decide 
to reduce emissions below the existing standard in order to ensure a 
compliance buffer. The commenter emphasized that EPA should not set the 
precedent that an industry that operates with a compliance buffer will 
be subject to ratcheting down of the standards, since that would create 
a disincentive for industry sectors to reduce their emissions below the 
existing MACT standards. The commenter also noted that section 
112(d)(6) does not allow EPA to change standards simply because 
portions of the industry are operating below existing standards or 
because compliance with new limits may not be cost prohibitive.
    The same commenter also stated that EPA has not identified any 
additional ``practices, processes, [or] control technologies'' that 
were not identified and considered during the development of the 
original MACT or the 2010 proposed rulemaking that warrant stricter 
standards. The commenter explained that EPA's technology analysis 
stopped when the Agency concluded that facilities are achieving better 
emissions results than the current standard and once EPA reached that 
conclusion, the Agency turned to creating options for combining 
existing technologies to achieve those reduced emission results. The 
commenter stated that EPA used the emission results to drive the 
identification of possible combinations of existing technologies and 
that EPA's basis for revising emissions standards under section 
112(d)(6) is not appropriate since section 112(d)(6) requires that any 
changes in the standards be driven by changes in ``practices, 
processes, [or] control technologies.'' The commenter added that EPA 
has not based the proposed emission limit reduction on evidence that 
new technology has been introduced that can be linked to achieving 
these new limits (i.e., under section 112 (d)(6)), nor is there ongoing 
residual risk associated with chromium emissions from these source 
categories that justifies the stricter standards (i.e., under section 
112(f)(2)). Therefore, there is neither a legal nor factual basis for 
the proposed changes.
    Response: We believe the language in section 112(d)(6) provides 
broad authority for EPA to consider the practices, processes and 
technologies available at the time we are performing our review. We 
agree that the fact that some facilities are meeting a limit below the 
level of the current standard is not alone sufficient to justify 
revising the existing standard. Rather, we evaluate what practices, 
processes and technologies are available and consider whether they are 
cost effective and technologically feasible. If a more stringent 
standard can be met through cost effective and technologically feasible 
practices, processes or control technologies, we believe it is 
necessary within the meaning of section 112(d)(6) to revise the 
existing 112 standard. We also note that, when developing standards, we 
take into account the uncertainty associated with measuring emissions 
and we assume that plants operate with a compliance buffer to minimize 
the likelihood of exceeding the standard.
    Regarding the issue that EPA has not identified any additional 
``practices, processes, [or] control technologies'' that were not 
identified and considered during the development of the NESHAP, the 
commenter's interpretation of section 112(d)(6) is too narrow. In the 
112(d)(6) review, we are not limited to reviewing practices, processes 
or control technologies that the Agency has never considered. Rather, 
section 112(d)(6) requires us to take into account developments in 
practices, processes and control technologies, which include not only 
new practices, processes and control technologies, but also 
improvements in efficiency, reduced costs or other changes that 
indicate that a previously considered option for reducing emissions may 
now be cost effective or technologically feasible. We also reiterate 
that improvements in control technology performance over time can 
provide the basis for revising standards under section 112(d)(6). As 
explained in the supplemental proposal, many existing facilities have 
emissions levels more than 10 times below the current emissions limits.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA is legally required by 
section 112(d) to set standards based on the best performing sources in 
California. The commenter stated that current practices and 
technologies used by the industry in California to comply with rules 
set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), 17 Cal. Code Regs. 
Sec. Sec.  93101-93102.16, and the South Coast Air Quality Management 
District (SCAQMD), Rule 1469, represent the type of significant 
developments that make an update necessary. The commenter pointed out 
that California standards have achieved greater emission reductions 
than EPA's existing standard and that EPA may not completely ignore the 
best-performing similar sources when deciding what limit to set under 
section 112(d). The commenter listed some of California`s standards and 
stated they are more stringent because they require greater protection 
for facilities located nearest to sensitive receptors, such as people 
who attend, work at, or visit schools and daycare centers. In addition, 
certain facilities are required to use add-on controls, and they 
require HEPA filters for new sources. The commenter noted that CARB 
rules limit hexavalent chromium directly, instead of setting limits on 
total chromium, as under EPA's proposed rule. The commenter stated that 
EPA should require additional protective measures including siting, 
monitoring (including continuous emission monitoring), inspection and 
compliance, public reporting of emissions, community outreach near 
these facilities to protect public health, systems for community 
reporting of suspected emission exceedances, enforcement, an 8-year 
deadline to review and revisit its residual risk analysis for this 
source category, and similar requirements. For the provisions that 
require funding, EPA should either allocate or seek this funding, or 
require registration of each of the chromium electroplating facilities 
and set a fee for this registration that will pay for these activities. 
The commenter stated that EPA has not analyzed the ways in which these 
rules are stronger or provided any discussion of this in the record, as 
it must do to consider all developments under section 112(d)(6). The 
commenter stated that EPA has failed to provide any explanation for not 
considering the California reductions as a regulatory option or explain 
why EPA`s proposed level of the standards for each subcategory is 
appropriate. The commenter added that California's standards undermine 
EPA's determination that the existing standards provide an ample margin 
of safety. Once California demonstrated that it is feasible to require 
much more

[[Page 58232]]

stringent standards than are currently required by the NESHAP, EPA must 
provide a rational explanation as to why it should not require at least 
the same level of protection. The fact that California has required 
HEPA filters for the vast majority of these facilities, while also 
requiring specific fume suppressants for the smallest facilities, 
belies EPA's conclusion that its existing MACT meets the test for an 
ample margin of safety.
    Response: We proposed that the existing standards reduce risk to an 
acceptable level based on our review of health factors such as the 
maximum individual risk and the number of persons exposed to a cancer 
risk greater than 1-in-1 million. As part of our technology review and 
our ample margin of safety analyses, we considered the requirements of 
California's Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Chromium Plating 
and Chromic Acid Anodizing Facilities (title 17, California Code of 
Regulations sections 93102.1 to 93102.16) and of the South Coast Air 
Quality Management District (SC AQMD) (Rule 1469, Hexavalent Chromium 
Emissions from Chromium Electroplating and Chromic Acid Anodizing 
Operations). Specifically, as part of our October 2010 proposal, we 
evaluated requiring all facilities to install HEPA filters and 
requiring all facilities that use less efficient controls, such as 
packed bed scrubbers, to install CMP systems (75 FR at 65092-94); See 
Emissions Reductions and Cost Effectiveness of HEPA Filter Retrofits 
for Chromium Electroplating, and Emissions Reductions and Cost 
Effectiveness of Composite Mesh Pads for Chromium Electroplating, which 
are available in the docket for this rulemaking. These devices, alone 
or in combination with fume suppressants or other add-on devices, are 
the controls used to comply with the standards in California. As 
explained in the 2010 proposal (75 FR 65068) we evaluated the capital 
costs, annualized costs, cost-effectiveness, and number of plants 
impacted. Based on those analyses, we concluded that requiring these 
controls throughout the industry was not appropriate under either 
section 112(d)(6) or 112(f)(2).
    Furthermore, we disagree with the comment that EPA should follow 
the California example for people who attend or visit schools and 
daycare centers, or other sensitive receptors that are located close to 
these sources. Based on our analyses, we conclude that this NESHAP, 
with the changes being promulgated today, will provide an ample margin 
of safety for all populations and subpopulations regardless of the 
location of sensitive receptors and therefore we disagree that a 
special provision is needed with regard to location of these receptors. 
With regard to siting requirements, community reporting, community 
outreach and registration fees, we believe these items are not 
appropriate or necessary for this National rulemaking.
    With regard to the comment that CARB rules limit hexavalent 
chromium directly (instead of setting limits on total chromium), we 
believe it is appropriate to regulate chromium compounds (rather than 
hexavalent chromium) under the national standards developed pursuant to 
the CAA because section 112(b) of the CAA lists chromium compounds as 
the HAP which the EPA is to regulate. Nevertheless, because the 
emissions of total chromium are estimated to be 98 percent hexavalent 
chromium, a total chromium emissions limit is effectively a hexavalent 
chromium limit for these source categories. The NESHAP established 
emission limits in terms of total chromium, as measured by Methods 306 
or 306A. Both of these methods measure the total amount of chromium 
present in the exhaust stream, regardless of the form of the emissions 
(hexavalent or trivalent chromium).
    Comment: A commenter claimed that EPA may not lawfully set surface 
tension limits as an alternative to an emission standard because doing 
so violates section 112(h), 42 U.S.C. Sec.  7412(h). The commenter 
pointed out that section 112(h) of the Act, id. Sec.  7412(h), requires 
EPA to set a numerical standard for control of HAPs whenever it is 
feasible to promulgate and enforce a standard in such terms. The 
commenter acknowledged that EPA may promulgate work practice standards 
instead of numerical standards only if measuring emission levels is 
technologically or economically impracticable and that EPA may 
substitute work practice standards for emission limits only if doing so 
is consistent with the provisions of subsection (d) or (f). The 
commenter stated that EPA has not satisfied section 112(h)(1), which is 
required to set an alternative work practice standard in lieu of an 
emission standard and added that EPA may not set a section 112(d) 
emission standard based solely on one type of technology (fume 
suppressants), when other methods are available to achieve greater 
reductions. The commenter also said that EPA must set surface tension 
limits not as an alternative, but in addition to the concentration-
based limits. The emission concentration-based limits must apply at all 
times. The commenter suggested that EPA update and strengthen the 
proposed surface tension limits so that they are at least as stringent 
as the emission concentration-based standards, and to require these 
limits to apply in addition to, but not in lieu of, emission limits.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter that it is unlawful to set 
an alternative to a numerical emissions limit. The CAA allows us to 
establish alternatives to numerical emissions limits if we can 
demonstrate that the alternative limit (in this case, the surface 
tension limit) is at least as stringent as the numerical emissions 
limit. For the reasons described below, we also reject the commenter's 
assertion that the proposed surface tension limits are not as stringent 
as the proposed emission limits. Our analysis shows that maintaining 
the surface tension at the proposed levels is at least as stringent as 
the proposed emission limits, both for existing and for new sources. 
The data demonstrate that, when surface tension is no greater than 40 
dynes/cm (when measured using a stalagmometer) or 33 dynes/cm (when 
measured using a tensiometer), emissions will be no greater than 0.006 
mg/dscm. The proposed chromium emission limits for existing sources 
(0.011 mg/dscm for large hard chromium electroplating, 0.015 mg/dscm 
for small hard chromium electroplating, and 0.007 mg/dscm for 
decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing), all exceed 
the 0.006 mg/dscm concentration associated with the proposed surface 
tension limits and the emissions limit for all new sources (0.006 mg/
dscm) is equivalent to the level achieved with these surface tension 
limits. We also disagree that the proposed surface tension limits 
constitute establishing an emission standard based solely on one type 
of technology (i.e., fume suppressants). The NESHAP sets numerical 
emission standards for all of the affected chromium electroplating and 
anodizing sources. However, plants can elect to comply with the 
standard by meeting the surface tension limits through the use of fume 
suppressants. Section 112(h)(1) addresses setting an alternative work 
practice standard when a numerical emission standard is not feasible, 
but that is not the case for the chromium electroplating NESHAP because 
the existing NESHAP includes both a numerical emission limit and an 
alternative surface tension limit that will ensure that the emission 
limit is met at all times by sources that choose

[[Page 58233]]

to use the surface tension limit compliance alternative.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA reviewed data from only 17 
decorative chromium facilities and one anodizing facility, and 
concluded that all decorative and anodizing facilities already comply 
with the new proposed emissions limits (77 FR at 6642-6644.) The 
commenter goes on to say that EPA acknowledged that 8 decorative 
facilities may need to make adjustments and achieve reductions to meet 
the new emissions limits, but dismissed these data by claiming that 
these facilities would choose to comply with the new NESHAP with the 
surface tension levels rather than the new emissions limits. The 
commenter noted that EPA admitted that it did not perform any detailed 
analysis for anodizing facilities. Rather, EPA concluded that anodizing 
processes are similar enough to decorative processes so the proposed 
limits would also be appropriate. The commenter stated that EPA had 
limited data and had weak scientific and technical basis to support or 
justify the proposed limits for decorative and anodizing facilities.
    Response: In evaluating the impacts of the proposed requirements on 
the existing decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing 
facilities that comply with emissions limits (as opposed to those 
plants that comply with the surface tension limits), we reviewed the 
available data. For the 17 decorative tanks in our data set, all of 
these tanks have emissions below 0.007 mg/dscm and many have emissions 
more than 10 times below this level. Although all of the emissions data 
indicated that existing facilities would meet the more stringent 
emissions limit of 0.007 mg/dscm, we conservatively assumed that at 
least some facilities would not meet this limit and would require 
further controls. The commenter is not correct that we assumed the 8 
facilities would choose to comply with the surface tension levels 
rather than the new emissions limits. However, we did assume those 
facilities would choose to use fume suppressants to achieve some 
emissions reductions to comply with the more stringent emissions 
limits, but we disagree that this assumption means that we dismissed 
those plants. Using fume suppressant in combination with add-on 
controls is a relatively common practice for meeting emissions limits 
in the chromium electroplating industry.
    Regarding the data on chromium anodizing, we have obtained emission 
test data for two additional chromium anodizing plants, one of which is 
located in Connecticut that reported emissions as 0.0007 mg/dscm, and 
the other located in Massachusetts that reported a concentration of 
0.001 mg/dscm. In addition, we reviewed emission test data we had 
previously received for three chromium anodizing plants located in 
California. The data show emissions for tanks controlled with HEPA 
filters to range from 0.0000097 to 0.00056 mg/dscm. Based on the 
control efficiencies reported by California, we estimate that, if these 
tanks were controlled with CMPs instead of HEPA filters, emissions 
would range from 0.000097 to 0.0056 mg/dscm. As shown in the cost 
analysis technical memo, we already had data for a plant in Oklahoma 
with reported emissions of 0.0016 mg/dscm.
    With regard to add-on controls, based on available information we 
conclude that the CMP is a readily available control technology that 
can be applied to anodizing plants and can easily meet a limit of 0.007 
mg/dscm for these type of plants. Other technologies can also likely 
meet this limit. For example, the Connecticut and Massachusetts plants 
have chromium mist eliminators (and have emissions of 0.0007 mg/dscm, 
and 0.001 mg/dscm, respectively) and the plant from Oklahoma, which has 
emissions of 0.0016 mg/dscm, is controlled with a wet scrubber. The 
data from the Connecticut plant, Massachusetts plant, Oklahoma plant, 
and the plants in California all support our assumption that most 
existing chromium anodizing plants that are currently complying with 
the existing emission limit could easily meet the revised emissions 
limit of 0.007 mg/dscm without additional controls. We received no data 
for any decorative or anodizing plants that would not be able to meet 
these lower limits.
2. Risk Assessment
    Comment: One commenter contended that EPA did not assess 
multipathway health risk for chrome plating because hexavalent chromium 
is not on the outdated list of 14 PB-HAPs that EPA has used for this 
risk assessment. The commenter noted EPA's statement that, ``PB-HAP 
emissions were not identified from the chromium anodizing, decorative 
chromium electroplating, and hard chromium electroplating source 
categories, indicating that exposures due to non-inhalation routes of 
exposure are not significant.'' The commenter argued that this is 
unlawful, arbitrary and capricious because the science demonstrates 
this pollutant can indeed cause health effects when a person is exposed 
through a pathway other than inhalation. Evolving research continues to 
show risk to animals and thus, potentially, both to the environment and 
to human health, from oral and systemic exposure through water-based 
ingestion, rather than just inhalation. EPA therefore must assess the 
multipathway health risk.
    The commenter supported this argument by referring to California 
EPA's Office of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)'s recent revisions to 
Risk Assessment Guidelines, which, according to the commenter, provide 
evidence that under some environmental conditions hexavalent chromium 
contamination can persist in soil presenting an exposure risk via 
ingestion and dermal exposure to contaminated soils, creating a cancer 
risk.\1\ The commenter noted that EPA's failure to consider cancer risk 
from ingestion in its analysis is unlawful, arbitrary and capricious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cal. EPA, OEHHA, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk 
Assessment Guidelines, Technical Support, Document for Exposure 
Assessment and Stochastic Analysis, Scientific Review Panel Draft at 
F-27, E-5 (Feb. 2012), https://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/SRP/), https://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/SRP/; see 
also id. at E-12 tbl. E3 (describing exposure pathways for 
analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter recommended that the EPA perform a multipathway 
analysis for this source category that fully accounts for exposure that 
can occur to a child in an urban or residential setting. The commenter 
suggested that the EPA assess multipathway risk based on the allowable 
emissions, as it has done for inhalation risk. Further, the commenter 
reported that the OEHHA's scientists found that there is the potential 
for hexavalent chromium uptake in plants and fish and concluded that to 
protect public health, exposure via ingestion of contaminated crops and 
fish must also be considered.
    Response: The current persistent and bioaccumulative HAP (PB-HAP) 
list in the Air Toxics Assessment Library (see https://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_main.html), was developed considering all of the 
available information on persistence and bioaccumulation. This list was 
peer-reviewed by the SAB, and it is reasonable to use it in the RTR 
program. In addition, the Agency does not have information, nor did the 
commenter provide information, that would enable the EPA to determine 
whether the deposition of airborne hexavalent chromium from chromium 
electroplaters and the subsequent movement of the hexavalent chromium 
in the environment would result in human exposures that could be of 
concern. With regard to the environment, the limited available

[[Page 58234]]

information on the persistence and bioaccumulation of hexavalent 
chromium suggests that there is no indication of the biomagnifications 
of hexavalent chromium along the aquatic food chain, and that chromium 
has low mobility for translocation from roots to aboveground parts of 
plants. (ATSDRs Tox profile 2008 https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp7.pdf).
    Comment: One commenter stated that the residual risk assessment 
underestimates risk to the developing child and fetus. The commenter 
observed that biological differences in the developing child and fetus 
can result in increased cancer and non-cancer risk due to both 
increased exposure and increased vulnerability, and emphasizes that the 
EPA must account for the increased susceptibility of children to HAP 
emissions from this source category in the risk assessment. The 
commenter noted that according to OEHHA, there is an increased risk 
indicated from early life exposures and asserted that EPA's failure to 
include an adequate evaluation of increased early life susceptibility 
to HAP emissions systematically underestimates risk from hexavalent 
chromium emissions of this source category. The commenter stated that 
the EPA must follow the lead of OEHHA and include additional factors to 
address early life exposure in its risk assessment. The commenter also 
cited a recent EPA toxicological review and cancer toxicity reviews 
from California EPA (CalEPA) that provide evidence for the mutagenic 
activity of hexavalent chromium compounds, and developmental, female 
reproductive and male reproductive toxicity.2 3 4 The 
commenter suggested that under the 2005 Guidance, risk assessments of 
exposure to hexavalent chromium should include adjustment for early 
life exposures and the estimates included in the residual risk 
assessment fail to include the full health risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA, IRIS, Draft, Technological Review of Hexavalent 
Chromium (CAS No. 18540-29-9), In Support of Summary Information on 
the Integrated Risk Information System at 238 (Sept. 2010).
    \3\ Cal. EPA OEHHA, Public Health Goal for Hexavalent Chromium 
in Drinking Water (July 2011).
    \4\ Cal. EPA, OEHHA, Evidence of the Developmental and 
Reproductive Toxicity of Chromium (Hexavalent Compounds) 3 (Aug. 
2009), https://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/hazard_ident/pdf_zip/chrome0908.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter noted that the EPA restricted its application of age-
dependent adjustment factors to those HAPs included in EPA's 2006 list 
of carcinogenic HAPs that act by a mutagenic mode of action, and did 
not apply age-dependent adjustment factors to assess cancer risk from 
chromium. The commenter recommended that the EPA update both its 2005 
Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life 
Exposure to Carcinogens (attached to comment letter), and EPA's 2006 
list of carcinogenic HAPs that act by a mutagenic mode of action to use 
age-dependent adjustment factors for hexavalent chromium in the 
Supplemental Guidance and incorporate more recent evaluations of 
carcinogenic modes of action in the list of carcinogenic HAPs. The 
commenter also suggested that the EPA should consult with multiple 
scientific bodies on the scientific basis of the proposed rulemaking: 
National Academy of Sciences, the Office of Children's Health 
Protection, the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee, and 
scientists in the Office of Research and Development who focus on 
children's and community health (such as experts in the National Center 
for Environmental Research). The commenter asked the EPA to consider 
and follow its 2008 handbook on child-specific exposure factors in this 
rulemaking, and follow the Science Advisory Board's recommendations 
regarding the greater exposure and vulnerability of children.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ U.S. EPA, Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook (Sept. 
2008), EPA/600/R-06/096F, https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=199243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also pointed out that Congress recognized this 
science in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) for pesticide 
chemical residue, where Congress used a ten-fold margin of safety for 
infants and children. The commenter also provided a table of 
comparisons between OEHHA child-health reference values and those of 
EPA.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that the 
risk assessment underestimates risk to children and lacks consideration 
of early-life susceptibility. The EPA agrees that biological 
differences across lifestages may lead to differences in the 
susceptibility to HAP, as can differences among population groups due 
to pre-existing disease states or other factors. Accordingly, the 
methods we use in risk assessments have taken this into account. For 
the dose-response component of HAP assessments for RTR, the EPA uses 
exposure reference concentrations and unit risk estimates (UREs) that 
are expressly derived with the objective of protecting sensitive 
populations and lifestages, including children (see U.S. EPA, 2002). A 
Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes. 
EPA/630/P-02/002F. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington DC. Available 
online at https://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/rfd-final.pdf). For 
example, a review of the chronic reference value process concluded that 
the Agency's reference concentration (RfC) derivation process 
adequately considers potential susceptibility of different subgroups 
with specific consideration of children, such that the resultant RfC 
values pertain to the full human population including ``sensitive 
subgroups,'' inclusive of childhood. With respect to cancer risk 
assessments, assessments are performed in accordance with EPA's 
Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-life 
Exposure to Carcinogens (US EPA, 2005). This Guidance recommends the 
application of age-dependent adjustment factors for assessing cancer 
risk from carcinogenic pollutants concluded to act via a mutagenic mode 
of action and for which information on early-life susceptibility is 
lacking. The basis for this methodology is provided in the 2005 
Supplemental Guidance. With regard to other carcinogenic pollutants for 
which early-life susceptibility data are lacking, it is the Agency's 
long-standing science policy position that use of the linear low-dose 
extrapolation approach (without further adjustment) provides adequate 
public health conservatism in the absence of chemical-specific data 
indicating differential early-life susceptibility or when the mode of 
action is not mutagenicity (U.S. EPA, 2005).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The EPA has not yet determined whether hexavalent chromium 
poses disproportionate risks to children, but is currently 
developing an assessment of hexavalent chromium which likely will 
address that issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA should use California 
EPA's child-specific reference doses for school site risk assessments 
\7\ in order to address the potential for early-life susceptibility. 
EPA methods for assessing hazard and dose-response relationships for 
HAPs and developing RfCs and cancer risk estimates, as noted above, 
specifically address the potential for early-life susceptibility. 
Whenever data indicate increased susceptibility of a developmental 
lifestage or of a population group, those data are

[[Page 58235]]

factored into the analysis. When data are inadequate to understand the 
effects of a specific pollutant on sensitive subpopulations, which, for 
some pollutants, may include children, the Agency's risk assessment 
methods take that into account to ensure that resulting assessments 
address the possibility that such subpopulations might be more or less 
sensitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ We note that California EPA's use of these numerical values, 
which do not exist for inhalation exposures, is limited to the 
context of risk assessment at proposed or existing California school 
sites and does not extend to their Air Hot Spots Risk Assessment 
program. Further the guidance for the California EPA school site 
assessment program specifies the use of California OEHHA or U.S. EPA 
IRIS values in the absence of the school site risk assessment child-
specific values (Cal OEHHA, 2004--https://www.oehha.ca.gov/public_info/public/kids/pdf/SchoolscreenFinal.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Environmental Justice
    Comment: One commenter questioned why EPA's risk assessment did not 
consider all of the factors recommended in EPA's own Environmental 
Justice Strategic Enforcement Assessment Tool (EJSEAT) and why EPA did 
not propose stricter controls in light of the demographic risk results 
for hard chromium electroplaters. The commenter also stated that, as 
specified in the EPA's Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental 
Justice during the Development of an Action, EPA should consider 
addressing existing disproportionate impacts on minority, low-income or 
indigenous populations during this rulemaking. The commenter requested 
that a full evaluation of disproportionate impacts be conducted 
following guidance in EJSEAT and an evaluation of how this assessment 
could reduce impacts to those communities. The commenter noted that the 
Online Tracking Information System (OTIS) database appears to do this 
already at the facility-specific level and can be incorporated into the 
assessment to more accurately define the number of the individuals 
impacted by the emissions and the demographics of the impacted 
community. The commenter recommended that EPA work with the Office of 
Environmental Justice to adequately evaluate the proposed rulemaking 
with regard to communities experiencing disproportionate impacts.
    Another commenter stated that CARB has created a draft methodology 
to screen for cumulative impacts in communities. EPA should use this or 
a similar tool to find and provide greater protection for the local 
communities most affected by this source category. EPA has even 
developed a draft version of this type of tool for enforcement and 
compliance purposes, specifically the EJSEAT that, without explanation, 
it has not used in this rulemaking.
    Response: The EPA's ``Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental 
Justice During the Development of an Action,'' encourages rule writers 
and policy makers to look at the whole range of relevant factors that 
impact communities and population groups when crafting rules. The EPA 
is continuing to discuss and pilot approaches for conducting its 
analyses that are consistent with the agency's responsibilities 
regarding EJ as outlined in Executive Order (EO) 12898.
    We believe these NESHAP, with the amendments being promulgated in 
today's action, will provide an ample margin of safety to protect the 
health of all population groups. As stated in the Benzene NESHAP, in 
determining the need for residual risk standards, we strive to limit to 
no higher than approximately 1-in-10 thousand (100-in-1 million) the 
estimated cancer risk that a person living near a plant would have if 
he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 
years and, in the ample of safety decision, to protect the greatest 
number of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk level of no 
higher than approximately 1-in-1 million. These considerations are made 
for all people regardless of racial or socioeconomic status. However, 
in determining whether to require additional standards under Section 
112(f), these levels are not considered rigid lines, and we weigh the 
cancer risk values with a series of other health measures and factors 
in both the decision regarding risk acceptability and in the ample 
margin of safety determination. We also consider cost of controls in 
the ample margin of safety determination.
    The results of our demographic analyses for hard and decorative 
chromium electroplating indicate that certain minority groups and low-
income populations may be disproportionately exposed to emissions from 
these categories and to any risks that may result due to these 
emissions because the communities most proximate to facilities within 
these categories have a higher proportion of these groups than the 
national demographic profile. We did not identify any vulnerability or 
susceptibility to risks particular to minority and low income 
populations from pollutants emitted from this source category. The 
Agency has determined that the existing NESHAP for these source 
categories reduce risk to an acceptable level for all proximate 
populations, including minority and low-income populations.
    We agree with the commenter on the importance of working closely 
with the EPA's Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ), as well as other 
offices across the agency, to develop criteria and specific guidance on 
how to interpret and apply the outcome of our analyses in the 
rulemaking process. While the EJSEAT and OTIS database are general 
tools that can be used in considering environmental justice issues, the 
demographic analyses we performed are more appropriate for this source 
category-specific rulemaking. We are working with the OEJ, the Office 
of Research and Development and other Agency offices in an ongoing 
effort to assess ways to address cumulative risk and develop new tools 
for considering environmental justice in rulemakings.
    In addition, as addressed more fully in the RTC, while we 
understand that some communities are exposed to multiple pollutants 
emitted by many different types of sources, EPA under Plan 2014 is 
assessing ways to address these exposures through a cumulative impact 
analysis.
4. Emissions Estimates
    Comment: In response to the 2012 supplemental proposal, one 
commenter contacted approximately 300 of the facilities that EPA 
identified as having the highest emissions and received information 
from 181 plants. The commenter stated that out of the plants that 
responded, 62 plants were closed, 24 plants do not use chromium, 39 
plants have lower emissions than reported by EPA, and 7 plants have 
emissions estimates consistent with that relied on by EPA. The 
commenter also claimed the data for several other plants were 
incorrect. If revisions were made to emissions estimates for these 181 
plants based on this information, the resulting overall emissions would 
be 73% lower than the EPA's estimates for these 181 plants. The 
commenter recognized that estimates found for the higher-emitting, 
higher-risk facilities could in part be counterbalanced by emissions 
estimates for lower risk facilities the commenter did not investigate, 
but the commenter believes that EPA's analysis would still not account 
for the 73% reduction in emissions for this set of facilities resulting 
from facility closures and switches to non-hexavalent chromium 
processes.
    Response: We reviewed the data provided by the commenter and we 
created a separate source category emissions dataset that reflects most 
of the changes suggested by the commenter. Specifically, we excluded 
all plants reported by the commenter to be closed or to not use 
hexavalent chromium. We also included revised emissions estimates for 
several plants. We conducted risk modeling with this dataset, and the 
results were not significantly different from the assessment conducted 
for the supplemental proposal. The MIR, HI, and incidence estimates for 
all source categories were essentially unchanged, and the population 
risk differences were

[[Page 58236]]

not significantly different. For example, for the hard chromium 
electroplating source category, the number of people estimated to be at 
cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is 120,000 based on 
the new dataset, and 130,000 in the previous assessment. Because of the 
very small differences in risk results based on this modeling, we 
decided that the data do not warrant revising the overall risk 
assessment we conducted for the supplemental proposed rule. Regardless, 
the data do not change the decisions set forth in the supplemental 
proposal.
5. Costs and Economic Impacts of Proposed Limits
    Comment: One commenter believes that EPA has under-estimated the 
costs associated with using non-PFOS fume suppressants and questions 
whether EPA evaluated comparable products when coming up with costs for 
fume suppressants. The commenter noted that fume suppressants are 
available in a number of different formulations that contain non-PFOS 
and PFOS in various concentrations. The commenter stated that EPA has 
not included all of the additional costs associated with the use of 
non-PFOS fume suppressants, such as the differences in the frequency 
that suppressants need to be added to plating baths, and the increased 
surface tension monitoring and maintenance associated with use of non-
PFOS fume suppressants. The commenter further explained that several 
facilities have reported that costs for converting to non-PFOS fume 
suppressant may be more than 30 percent higher than using PFOS fume 
suppressants. The commenter stated that one facility estimated that its 
annual costs for fume suppressants would increase by approximately 
$100,000 with the switch to non-PFOS fume suppressants.
    Response: To support the supplemental proposal, EPA contacted 
several fume suppressant vendors in order to calculate the costs of 
both PFOS and non-PFOS based fume suppressants. After reviewing the 
information from vendors, we concluded costs for the non-FOS 
suppressants would be similar to the costs for PFOS suppressants or 
slightly higher. To be conservative (more likely to overestimate rather 
than underestimate the costs), we estimated that the cost of non-PFOS 
fume suppressants was 15% higher than that of PFOS fume suppressants 
(see Procedures for Determining Control Costs and Cost Effectiveness 
for Chromium Electroplating Supplemental Proposal memorandum, which is 
available in the docket for this action). After receiving comment on 
the supplemental proposal, EPA contacted several facilities in 
Minnesota that have switched from a PFOS-based fume suppressant to a 
non-PFOS-based fume suppressant and asked for information on the price 
differences between the two products. Three facilities contacted agreed 
that the price of non-PFOS was slightly higher, but were not aware of 
how much higher, while three other facilities stated they did not 
consider the products to have a significant difference in price. 
Additionally, EPA asked facilities about any changes in fume 
suppressant consumption that may have occurred after switching to a 
non-PFOS fume suppressant. One facility stated that they consume less 
fume suppressant after switching to a non-PFOS fume suppressant and 
therefore overall costs were similar or perhaps have decreased since 
switching to the non-PFOS suppressant. All other facilities stated they 
did not notice any difference in effectiveness, consumption, or 
required maintenance of the non-PFOS fume suppressant (see Information 
on non-PFOS Fume Suppressants in Minnesota Chromium Electroplating 
Facilities memorandum, which is available in the docket for this 
action). While the commenters raise general concerns about potential 
higher costs, they did not provide any specific details about why costs 
would be higher for any specific facility or group of facilities. Based 
on the best information available to us, we believe that the price and 
cost methodology we are relying on for this rule provide reasonable 
estimates of the costs associated with using non-PFOS fume 
suppressants.
6. Non-PFOS Fume Suppressants
    Comment: Two commenters stated that EPA has not demonstrated that 
the proposed surface tension limits can be met using non-PFOS fume 
suppressants. One commenter pointed out that the data used by EPA to 
support the proposed surface tension limits are based on chromium 
electroplating tanks controlled with WAFS that contain PFOS. The 
commenter recognized that EPA proposed a 3-year compliance date for the 
limit on the use of WAFS containing PFOS. The commenter believes that 
EPA has not demonstrated that the proposed surface tension limits can 
be met using non-PFOS WAFS.
    One commenter stated that EPA has provided no data in the record 
that shows non-PFOS fume suppressants can achieve the proposed new 
surface tension levels and that EPA merely assumes non-PFOS fume 
suppressants are equivalent in performance to PFOS fume suppressants 
without presenting any scientific proof or supporting data. The 
commenter believes that EPA ignored the fact that fume suppressants can 
perform differently in decorative chromium and chromium anodizing 
plating baths. The commenter explained that the data that EPA 
references to support its claim that fume suppressants effectively 
reduce emissions to meet the proposed limits is flawed and provides no 
scientific evidence that fume suppressants can be used to achieve the 
proposed emissions limits. The commenter added that EPA cannot claim, 
in the absence of any credible data in the record, that non-PFOS fume 
suppressants can reduce emissions as effectively as PFOS fume 
suppressants. Due to the challenges facing chromium electroplating and 
anodizing operations in using the new technology to meet the current 
surface tension levels and the lack of any data in the record to 
demonstrate that non-PFOS fume suppressants can consistently achieve 
the proposed surface tension levels, the commenter recommended EPA 
forego the proposed revisions to the surface tension levels. The 
commenter also suggested that the burdens of the proposed changes 
clearly outweigh any perceived benefits. The commenter believes PFOS is 
a very effective fume suppressant because of its persistent and bio-
accumulative nature and acknowledged that PFOS and other long-chain 
perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) are being phased out by EPA and by 
other regulatory agencies globally because of the environmental impacts 
that may result from the use of PFOS. The commenter, however, feels 
that the biggest challenge in meeting the revised surface tension 
levels stems from the phase-out of PFOS. The commenter stated that 
facilities that have switched to non-PFOS fume suppressants have 
achieved moderate success in meeting the current surface tension 
levels, but many challenges and problems persist. The commenter 
believes the switch to non-PFOS fume suppressants diminishes a 
facility's margin of compliance in meeting the current surface tension 
levels. The commenter goes on to say that where non-PFOS has shown 
promise in lowering surface tension levels, it requires more frequent 
additions, more frequent monitoring, and more labor to maintain surface 
tension levels compared to the use of PFOS fume suppressants.
    Response: Fume suppressants are used to lower the surface tension 
of electroplating baths, which in turn, reduces the size of gas bubbles 
generated during electrolysis. These smaller bubbles travel more slowly

[[Page 58237]]

through the solution and have less energy when they arrive at the 
solution's surface. The lower surface tension also reduces the energy 
with which the resulting droplets are ejected into the air. Together, 
both of these effects can reduce the emission of droplets, which in 
turn reduces the amount of chromium emitted by the tank. It is our 
understanding that this relationship between surface tension and 
chromium emissions is dependent primarily on the surface tension of the 
tank and not on the product used to reduce surface tension.
    We acknowledge that there may be differences in the performance of 
non-PFOS based fume suppressants in different types of chromium 
electroplating tanks, but this is also true of PFOS based fume 
suppressants. The performance of any type of fume suppressant can 
depend on the characteristics of the chemical and tank (i.e., 
temperature, contaminants present, etc.), but EPA has found no evidence 
that supports the idea that non-PFOS based fume suppressants are unable 
to reach the surface tension limits being finalized in this rulemaking. 
EPA contacted several fume suppressant vendors to request information 
on non-PFOS fume suppressants. The vendors who responded were confident 
that their non-PFOS fume suppressants could reach the proposed surface 
tension limits (see Information on Non-PFOS Fume Suppressants for 
Chromium Electroplating Supplemental Proposal memorandum). It has been 
reported that there are now suitable, successful and well proven non-
PFOS fume suppressants for hard and decorative chromium electroplating, 
and that the surface tension can be reduced to as low as 20 dynes/cm in 
baths, but are commonly maintained at about 30 dynes/cm. At this level, 
consumption of the suppressant is minimized and emissions are 
controlled (Barlowe, G. and Patton, N., 2011). For example, surface 
tension data from one decorative chromium electroplating plant in 
Minnesota that has been using non-PFOS fume suppressant for years show 
they had an average surface tension of 28.7 dynes/cm over the first 6 
months of 2012, and their highest reading was 32.4 dynes/cm. They had 
several readings below 23 dynes/cm, and some values were as low as 18.5 
dynes/cm. These data indicate that 33 dynes/cm is quite feasible, 
especially for decorative chromium electroplating sources. Furthermore, 
a study by the Danish EPA (Danish EPA, 2011) found that the non-PFOS 
fume suppressant reduced emissions just as effectively as the PFOS for 
about the same costs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Danish, EPA. 2011. Substitution of PFOS for use in non-
decorative hard chrome plating. Pia Brunn Poulsen, Lars K. Gram and 
Allan Astrup Jensen. Danish Environmental Protection Agency. 
Environmental Project No. 1371 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a separate meeting, the EPA discussed the effectiveness of non-
PFOS fume suppressants with a major distributer of both PFOS and non-
PFOS fume suppressant. The distributor discussed issues that arise when 
using any type of fume suppressant and stated that, worldwide, they 
have experienced issues with the switch to non-PFOS based fume 
suppressants with only a couple of companies. The distributor was 
confident that their non-PFOS based products could reach the proposed 
limits and noted that the phase-out of PFOS fume suppressants in Europe 
and Japan occurred seamlessly (See Summary of EPA Meeting with Atotech 
March 1, 2012, in the docket for this rulemaking).
    EPA also contacted several facilities in Minnesota that have 
switched from a PFOS-based fume suppressant to a non-PFOS fume 
suppressant and asked them to describe any changes in the effectiveness 
or consumption of the fume suppressant. All facilities stated that the 
non-PFOS based fume suppressant was equally effective as the PFOS-based 
fume suppressant, with one facility noting the non-PFOS based fume 
suppressant performed more effectively. In terms of consumption, all 
facilities stated they have not noticed any increase in fume 
suppressant consumption since the switch, with one facility stating 
they consume less fume suppressant per operating hour since switching 
to the non-PFOS fume suppressant. The facilities that responded also 
reported no issues with maintaining surface tension levels consistent 
with the limits we are establishing in the final rule, with one 
facility stating that since the switch they have seen less surface 
tension fluctuations in their tank. The responses of Minnesota 
facilities are summarized in the Information on Non-PFOS Fume 
Suppressant Use at Minnesota Chromium Electroplating Facilities 
memorandum located in the docket of this rulemaking. Also industry 
representatives submitted comments supporting the PFOS phase-out.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the phase-out of PFOS is being 
proposed without adequate study of the non-PFOS materials ability to 
perform as well as PFOS and meet the proposed lower emission limits (as 
measured by surface tension). The commenter indicated that neither the 
2010 proposal docket nor the docket for the supplemental proposal 
included the reference materials needed to substantiate EPA's 
conclusions on the availability and feasibility of using non-PFOS fume 
suppressants to meet the proposed surface tension or emission limits. 
The commenter is also concerned with the lack of information on how 
these alternate materials may affect the parts being plated and noted 
that the procedures followed for their aircraft maintenance are very 
tightly controlled with extensive testing done prior to implementation 
of any new procedures. The commenter stated that until adequate testing 
is completed, which can take longer than the proposed three year 
timetable for the PFOS phase-out, they will be unable to change to an 
alternate fume suppressant. The commenter recommended additional study 
of the available alternatives for aeronautics plating and a process by 
which industry may petition for additional time to complete the 
transition to non-PFOS fume suppressants.
    Response: EPA has included several documents on the performance of 
non-PFOS based fume suppressants in the docket to this rule-making (see 
previous responses). EPA agrees that some electroplaters of highly 
specialized products may need to perform additional testing in order to 
integrate the use of non-PFOS fume suppressants and that this testing 
may require a longer time commitment compared to other products. 
Nevertheless, we believe that this testing can be accomplished by the 
compliance date, which is 3 years after the date of publication of this 
Federal Register notice. Additionally, the Clean Air Act allows 
facilities to apply for an extra year if needed for compliance. 
Therefore, facilities could have up to 4 years to comply, which should 
be adequate time to resolve any remaining issues associated with the 
switch to non-PFOS suppressants.

B. Comments and Responses Associated With the Steel Pickling Source 
Category

    Comment: One commenter opposed the proposed removal of the source-
specific alternative concentration standard for chlorine 
(Cl2) at HCl acid regeneration facilities. The commenter 
stated that the current regulation was specifically written to allow 
for the production of iron oxide of acceptable quality, and that 
removing the ``alternative concentration standard'' may have the 
unintended consequence of reducing the quality of the iron oxide 
produced and negatively impact the marketability of the material. The 
commenter noted that there are a

[[Page 58238]]

number of operational variables, including temperature and excess air, 
that must be manipulated to produce product to particular 
specifications. The commenter stated, ``HCl regeneration plants have 
had to regularly modify and adapt operational parameters such as burner 
temperatures and nozzle types and pressures in order to meet the 
changing product specifications of the marketplace. The current 
regulation accounts for such variability by allowing for the setting of 
`alternative concentration standards' due to the impact that such 
operational adjustments may have on Cl2 emissions. The 
existing regulation demonstrates EPA's intent to allow HCl regeneration 
plants the ability to produce marketable products in changing markets 
and changing operational conditions. The proposed revision would 
undermine that intent and remove the operational flexibility that is 
necessary for HCl regeneration facilities to adapt to changing 
markets.''
    Response: We agree with the commenter to the extent the commenter 
suggests that the basis for the alternative compliance standard in the 
original MACT was for the purpose of allowing sources to ``produce iron 
oxide of acceptable quality.'' However, section 112(d)(2) provides that 
EPA must establish a standard that ensures the maximum reductions of 
air pollutants subject to section 112, taking into consideration 
several factors. For existing sources that standard may not be less 
than the average emission limit achieved by the best performing 12 
percent of existing sources or the average emission limitation achieved 
by the best performing five sources for which EPA could reasonably 
obtain information where the source category contains fewer than 30 
sources. This is referred to as the MACT floor. Section 112 makes no 
allowance for establishing a standard less stringent than the floor for 
sources to which the floor applies. (72 FR 61060). For that reason, we 
believe that we inappropriately promulgated the alternative compliance 
limit at the time we promulgated the initial MACT standard. While it is 
true that the changing operational conditions have an effect on 
Cl2 emissions, EPA believes there are available techniques 
for controlling Cl2 emissions other than the modification of 
the operational parameters mentioned by the commenter. EPA believes 
that both a marketable product can be produced and the Cl2 
emission limit can be met. If a facility is unable to meet the 
Cl2 emission limit and produce a marketable product by 
adjusting their operational parameters, our review and analysis of 
available information indicate that the emission limit for chlorine can 
be met using available control technologies such as alkaline scrubbers.
    Comment: One commenter noted that while EPA asserts that the 
source-specific alternative concentration provision does not meet the 
requirements in section 112(d)(2) and (3) of the CAA because MACT 
standards for existing sources cannot be less stringent than the 
average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent 
of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-
performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 
30 sources), EPA previously promulgated a regulation which allowed an 
alternative concentration standard. The commenter also stated that the 
CAA allows EPA the regulatory flexibility to set source-specific 
concentration standards for particular pollutants.
    The commenter also noted that despite recently concluding that no 
new technology has been developed since the promulgation of the current 
regulation, and despite no new interpretation of the data supporting 
the promulgation of the current regulation, EPA has proposed to remove 
the ``alternative concentration standard'' provision. The commenter 
claims such a deletion is not merited by the facts nor required by the 
Clean Air Act, and that the current rule is lawful. The commenter also 
noted that the existing NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect.
    Response: EPA believes that the alternate source specific provision 
does not meet the requirements in section 112(d)(2) and (3) of the CAA, 
and the CAA does not allow the regulatory flexibility to set source-
specific concentration standards for particular pollutants. We disagree 
to the extent the commenter is suggesting that because EPA previously 
promulgated the alternative, it therefore must be consistent with the 
CAA. Neither the proposed nor final MACT rule provided the legal basis 
for the alternative and, since that time, the courts have rejected 
similar provisions in other standards. (72 FR 61060). The commenter 
cites no specific authority for the statement that the CAA allows EPA 
to set source-specific concentration standards for particular 
pollutants.
    We also disagree with the commenters statement that in the original 
MACT rulemaking we concluded that we could set a numerical emission 
standard for Cl2 ``so long as there was also the option to 
set alternative source-specific limits in order to ensure that 
facilities could actually produce marketable products.'' We drew no 
such linkage in that rulemaking. We agree with the commenter that we 
have not identified any new technology to provide further control of 
chlorine emissions. However, we are not basing this revision on section 
the 112(d)(6) review of developments in processes and control 
technologies. Rather, we are making this correction under CAA sections 
112(d)(2) & (3) because we believe that the alternative compliance 
option was improperly promulgated at the time we promulgated the 
initial MACT standard. Although not relevant to the decision that a 
less stringent alternative compliance is not appropriate under section 
112(d)(2) & (3), we note that the commenter has not claimed that it 
cannot meet the MACT standard through the use of alkaline scrubbers. 
The final rule based the standard for chlorine emission control on the 
use of single stage water scrubbing and the limit of 6 parts per 
million by volume (ppmv) is based on test data from facilities using 
that technology. However, if a facility cannot meet the limit using 
water scrubbing, they still have the option of using an alkaline 
scrubber to achieve compliance. The EPA stated in 62 FR 49063, ``Wet 
scrubbing systems that do not use alkaline solution as the collection 
medium do not effectively control Cl2 emissions.''
    Comment: One commenter stated that, ``EPA must look to the 
emissions in the industry to determine the MACT floor at the time EPA 
proposes to amend the rule.'' The commenter also noted that it does not 
appear that EPA has considered any new data in making the decision to 
do away with the ``alternative concentration standards.'' The commenter 
argued that the MACT floor is more than the existing standard of 6 
ppmv, and in addition, EPA has the authority under the CAA to account 
for variability in emissions or operational factors in setting such 
standards, and cites Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 
855 (DC Cir. 2001).
    The commenter would like to know how EPA proposes to address such 
facilities' requests for alternative concentration standards, and how 
EPA proposes to regulate any facilities with alternative concentration 
standards.
    Response: During the development of the original rule, EPA 
calculated the MACT floor for existing sources to be 6 ppmv and EPA 
does not believe the MACT floor would currently be any higher. In this 
rulemaking, we are not

[[Page 58239]]

amending the MACT standard nor re-assessing the MACT floor. Rather, we 
are removing the provision in the regulation allowing sources to seek a 
less stringent emission limit than the floor limit. Thus, we do not 
agree that we need to recalculate the MACT floor. However, we note that 
the commenter did not provide, and we are not aware of, any information 
that would indicate that a MACT floor determined 10 years after the 
original MACT was promulgated would be less stringent, particularly in 
light of the fact that 3 out of the 5 sources subject to the MACT 
standard have never indicated that there are compliance issues with 
that standard. The elimination of the alternative standard from the 
rule means the rule will no longer allow facilities to request 
alternative concentration standards.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's conclusion that the 
proposed removal of the ``alternative concentration standard'' 
provision will have a capital cost in the range of $100,000 to 
$200,000, cannot be supported by fact. The commenter also noted that in 
its description of the proposed revision, EPA states that there is no 
control technology available that is more effective in removing 
Cl2 than existing technology already used by HCl 
regeneration facilities. The commenter stated that EPA's two statements 
are irreconcilable; how can a facility spend $100,000 to $200,000 to 
upgrade control equipment with new technology that does not exist? The 
commenter would like to know what EPA proposes existing facilities do 
that already have state of the art control technology.
    Response: As noted in previous responses, alkaline scrubbers 
constitute an existing technology that is effective at controlling 
Cl2 emissions. We are not suggesting that facilities upgrade 
to ``new technology'' but rather that they convert at least one of 
their existing water scrubbers to an alkaline scrubber. The cost range 
presented in the proposed rule represents the estimated capital cost to 
upgrade a scrubber from using water to using an alkaline solution, if 
necessary to meet the emission limit. Based on available information, 
EPA believes sources can achieve the MACT standard with readily 
available control technologies (e.g., alkaline scrubbers) at reasonable 
cost and still produce a marketable product.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

1. Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing
    For the amendments to the Chromium Electroplating NESHAP, the 
affected sources are each hard chromium electroplating tank, each 
decorative chromium electroplating tank, and each chromium anodizing 
tank located at a facility that performs hard chromium electroplating, 
decorative chromium electroplating, or chromium anodizing.
2. Steel Pickling
    For the amendments to the Steel Pickling NESHAP, the affected 
sources are steel pickling and hydrochloric acid regeneration plants 
that are major sources of HAP.

B. What are the emission reductions?

1. Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing
    Overall, the amendments to the Chromium Electroplating NESHAP will 
reduce nationwide emissions of chromium compounds by an estimated 224 
pounds per year (lbs/yr) from the current levels of 956 lbs/yr down to 
732 lbs/yr. For large hard chromium electroplating, the amendments will 
reduce chromium compound emissions by about 148 lbs/yr from 454 lbs/yr 
down to 306 pounds. For small hard chromium electroplating, the 
amendments will reduce chromium compound emissions by an estimated 33 
lbs/yr from 223 lbs/yr to 190 lbs/yr. For decorative chromium 
electroplating, the amendments will reduce chromium compound emissions 
by an estimated 35 lbs/yr from 222 lbs/yr down to 187 lbs/yr. For 
chromium anodizing, the amendments will reduce chromium compound 
emissions by an estimated 8 lbs/yr from 57 lbs/yr down to 49 lbs/yr. 
The amendments will have negligible impacts on secondary emissions 
because the additional control equipment that would be required will 
not significantly impact energy use by the affected facilities.
2. Steel Pickling
    We estimate that the amendment to remove the alternative compliance 
provision for hydrochloric acid regeneration facilities will reduce 
emissions of chlorine by 15 tpy.

C. What are the cost impacts?

1. Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing
    We estimate that these amendments will achieve 224 pounds 
reductions in hexavalent chromium emissions, and that the total capital 
and total annualized cost for these amendments is $8.2 million and $2.4 
million, respectively. The overall cost effectiveness is $10,600 per 
pound of hexavalent chromium emissions reductions. A summary of the 
estimated costs and reductions of hexavalent chromium emissions are 
shown in Table 8.

       Table 8--Summary of Cost Impacts for Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing Associated With Surface Tension and Emission Limit Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Annualized costs
                                                               Number of        Capital costs     (controls + WAFS      Emissions             Cost
              Source category or subcategory                affected plants    (controls + WAFS  + all testing), $/  reductions (lbs/    effectiveness
                                                                                + all testing)           yr                yr)              (per lb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Hard Chromium Electroplating.......................                 57         $6,377,000         $1,686,000                148            $11,400
Small Hard Chromium Electroplating.......................                 91          1,424,000            476,000                 33             14,600
Decorative Chromium Electroplating.......................                313            163,000            166,000                 35              4,800
Chromic Acid Anodizing...................................                 74            235,000             51,000                  8              6,600
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total................................................                535          8,200,000          2,380,000                224             10,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, the total estimated capital and annualized cost for the 
housekeeping requirements of these amendments is $934,000 and $228,000, 
respectively.
2. Steel Pickling
    For HCl acid regeneration plants, we estimate that the total 
capital cost for the amendments is between $100,000

[[Page 58240]]

and $200,000, depending on whether the existing equipment can be 
upgraded or will need to be replaced. The annualized costs are 
estimated to be between $11,419 and $22,837 per year. The estimated 
cost effectiveness is $761 to $1,522 per ton of HAP (mainly chlorine).

D. What are the economic impacts?

1. Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing
    EPA performed a screening analysis for impacts on affected small 
entities by comparing compliance costs to average sales revenues by 
employment size category.\9\ This is known as the cost-to-revenue or 
cost-to-sales ratio, or the ``sales test.'' The ``sales test'' is the 
impact methodology EPA primarily employs in analyzing small entity 
impacts as opposed to a ``profits test,'' in which annualized 
compliance costs are calculated as a share of profits. The sales test 
is frequently used because revenues or sales data are commonly 
available for entities impacted by EPA regulations, and profits data 
normally made available are often not the true profit earned by firms 
because of accounting and tax considerations. The use of a ``sales 
test'' for estimating small business impacts for a rulemaking is 
consistent with guidance offered by EPA on compliance with SBREFA \10\ 
and is consistent with guidance published by the U.S. SBA's Office of 
Advocacy that suggests that cost as a percentage of total revenues is a 
metric for evaluating cost increases on small entities in relation to 
increases on large entities (U.S. SBA, 2010).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ https://www.census.gov/econ/susb/data/susb2002.html.
    \10\ The SBREFA compliance guidance to EPA rulewriters regarding 
the types of small business analysis that should be considered can 
be found at: https://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/Guidance-RegFlexAct.pdf. See Table 2 on page 36 for guidance on 
interpretations of the magnitude of the cost-to-sales numbers.
    \11\ U.S. SBA, Office of Advocacy. A Guide for Government 
Agencies, How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
Implementing the President's Small Business Agenda and Executive 
Order 13272, June 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the analysis, we estimate that approximately 97 percent of 
all affected facilities have a cost-to-sales ratio of less than 1 
percent. In addition, for approximately 1 percent of all affected 
facilities, or 9 facilities with fewer than 20 employees, the potential 
for cost-to-sales impacts may be between 3 and 9 percent. All of these 
facilities are in the hard chromium electroplating category, with 3 of 
the facilities in the small hard chromium electroplating category and 6 
in the large hard chromium electroplating category. For these 
categories, because the average sales receipts used for the analysis 
may understate sales for some facilities and because these facilities 
are likely to be able to pass cost increases through to their 
customers, we do not anticipate the final rule to result in firm 
closures, significant price increases, or substantial profit loss. We 
conclude that this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. More information and 
details of this analysis are provided in the technical document 
``Economic Impact Analysis for Risk and Technology Review: Chromium 
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Source Categories,'' which is 
available in the docket for this final rule.
2. Steel Pickling
    Because only one of the approximately 100 facilities incurs any 
cost for controls and that cost is estimated to be less than 1 percent 
of sales, no significant price or productivity impacts are anticipated 
due to these amendments.

E. What are the benefits?

1. Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing
    The estimated reductions in chromium emissions that will be 
achieved by this rule will provide benefits to public health. The 
limits will result in significant reductions in the actual and 
allowable emissions of hexavalent chromium therefore will reduce the 
actual and potential cancer risks due to emissions of chromium from 
this source category.
2. Steel Pickling
    The estimated reductions in chlorine emissions that will result 
from this action will provide benefits to public health. The limits 
will result in reductions in the potential for noncancer health effects 
due to emissions of these HAP.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is a significant regulatory action because it raises novel legal 
and policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 
and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in 
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for 
this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection 
requirements related to the Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and 
Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants MACT standards. However, the OMB 
has previously approved the information collection requirements 
contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCC under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq 
and assigned OMB Control Number 2060-0419.
    The information collection requirements in this rule for the Hard 
and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks 
NESHAP have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Information Collection 
Request (ICR) document prepared was assigned EPA ICR number 1611.10. 
Burden changes associated with these amendments would result from the 
emission testing requirements and compliance demonstrations being 
promulgated with today's action. The estimated average burden per 
response is 9 hours; the frequency of response is one-time for all 
respondents that must comply with the rule's reporting requirements and 
the estimated average number of likely respondents per year is 485. The 
cost burden to respondents resulting from the collection of information 
includes the total capital cost annualized over the equipment's 
expected useful life ($100,958), a total operation and maintenance 
component ($0 per year), and a labor cost component (about $152,116 per 
year). 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 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 (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the

[[Page 58241]]

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency 
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a 
small industrial entity as defined by the Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (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 impact 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 rule 
imposes more stringent emissions limits and lower surface tension 
requirements. These new requirements and restrictions to the hard and 
decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks MACT 
standard will impact small entities, but those impacts have been 
estimated to be nominal. The emissions limits reflect the level of 
performance currently being achieved by most facilities, and many 
facilities currently have emissions that are far below the limits. With 
regard to the remaining facilities (those that will need to achieve 
emissions reductions), most of these facilities can achieve the limits 
at low costs (e.g., by using additional fume suppressants).
    The EPA's analysis estimated that 97 percent of the affected 
entities will have an annualized cost of less than 1 percent of sales. 
In addition, approximately 1 percent of affected entities, or 9 
facilities with fewer than 20 employees, may have cost-to-sales ratios 
between 3 to 9 percent. All of these facilities are in the hard 
chromium electroplating category, with 3 of the facilities in the small 
hard chromium electroplating category and 6 in the large hard chromium 
electroplating category.
    Since our analysis indicates that a small subset of facilities 
(about 1 percent) may have cost-to-sales ratios greater than 3 percent, 
we have conducted additional economic impact analyses on this small 
subset of facilities to better understand the potential economic 
impacts for these facilities. The additional analyses indicate the 
estimates of costs-to-sales ratios in the initial analyses are more 
likely to be overstated rather than understated because the additional 
analyses indicate that sales are typically higher for these sources 
than the average value used in the initial analysis.
    Moreover, because of the nature of the market, these facilities are 
likely to be able to pass cost increases through to their customers. As 
such, we do not anticipate the rule to result in firm closures, or 
substantial profit loss. More information and details of this analysis 
are provided in the technical document ``Economic Impact Analysis for 
Risk and Technology Review: Chromium Electroplating,'' which is 
available in the docket for this final rule.
    Although this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to 
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate under the provisions 
of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private 
sector. The rule will not result in expenditures of $100 million or 
more for State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year. The rule imposes no enforceable duties on 
any State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, 
this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 
the UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action 
contains no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it 
impose obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This 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. None of the facilities subject to 
this action are owned or operated by State governments and do not 
impose significant economic costs on state or local governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

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

    This rule will not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have 
substantial direct effect on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined 
in Executive Order 12866. However, some of the pollutants addressed by 
this action may present a disproportionate risk to children.\12\ The 
phase-out of PFOS fume suppressants will help to reduce a 
disproportionate risk to children. This action will not relax the 
control measures on existing regulated sources and will result in 
reductions in cancer risks due to chromium emissions for people of all 
ages, including children. The EPA's risk assessments (included in the 
docket for this rule) demonstrate that these regulations, with the 
amendments being promulgated in today's action, will be health 
protective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The EPA has not yet determined whether hexavalent chromium 
poses disproportionate risks to children by acting as a mutagenic 
carcinogen. The EPA is currently developing an IRIS assessment of 
hexavalent chromium which likely will address that issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined under 
Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not 
likely to have significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, 
or use of energy. This action will not create any new requirements for 
sources in the energy supply, distribution, or use sectors.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory

[[Page 58242]]

activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA 
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the 
Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, 
EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.

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.
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with two of the source categories associated with 
today's rule (Hard Chromium Electroplaters and Decorative Chromium 
Electroplaters), we evaluated the percentages of various social, 
demographic, and economic groups within the at-risk populations living 
near the facilities where these source categories are located and 
compared them to national averages. We did not conduct this type of 
analysis for the chromic acid anodizing or steel pickling categories 
because the numbers of people for whom cancer risks were greater than 
1-in-1 million due to HAP emissions from these source categories were 
low.
    The analysis indicated that certain minority groups and low-income 
populations may be disproportionately exposed to emissions from these 
categories and to any risks that may result due to these emissions 
because the communities most proximate to facilities within these 
categories have a higher proportion of these groups than the national 
demographic profile. We did not, however, identify any vulnerability or 
susceptibility to risks particular to minority and low income 
populations from pollutants emitted from this source category.
    We determined that this rule will not have disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-
income populations because it maintains or 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 low-income, or 
indigenous populations. Further, after implementation of the provisions 
of this rule, the public health of all demographic groups will be 
protected with an ample margin of safety.
    The development of demographic analyses to inform the consideration 
of environmental justice issues in EPA rulemakings is an evolving 
process. The EPA offers the demographic analyses in this rulemaking as 
examples of how such analyses might be developed to inform such 
consideration, with the hope that this will support the refinement and 
improve utility of such analyses for future rulemakings.
    Our analysis of the demographics of the population with estimated 
risks greater than 1-in-1 million indicates potential disparities in 
risks between demographic groups, including the African American, Other 
and Multiracial, Hispanic, Below the Poverty Level, and the Over 25 
without a High School Diploma groups. These groups stand to benefit the 
most from the emission reductions achieved by this rulemaking.
    EPA defines ``Environmental Justice'' to include meaningful 
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, 
or income with respect to the development, implementation, and 
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and polices. To promote 
meaningful involvement, after the rule was proposed, EPA conducted a 
webinar to inform the public about the rule and to outline how to 
submit written comments to the docket. Further stakeholder and public 
input occurred through public comment and follow-up meetings with 
interested stakeholders.

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 the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing 
this final rule and other required information to the United States 
Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller 
General of the United States prior to publication of the final rule 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). The final rules will be 
effective on September 19, 2012.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 15, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 40, 
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

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


0
2. Amend Sec.  63.341 by:
0
a. Adding, in alphabetical order, in paragraph (a), definitions for 
``affirmative defense,'' ``contains hexavalent chromium,'' ``existing 
affected source,'' ``new affected source,'' and ``perfluorooctane 
sulfonic acid (PFOS)-based fume suppressant'';
0
b. Revising in paragraph (a) the definition for ``wetting agent''; and
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(10).
    The added and revised text reads as follows:


Sec.  63.341  Definitions and nomenclature.

    (a) * * *
    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 
proceeding, a response or a defense put forward by a defendant, 
regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits 
of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding.
* * * * *
    Contains hexavalent chromium means, the substance consists of, or 
contains 0.1 percent or greater by weight, chromium trioxide, chromium 
(VI) oxide, chromic acid, or chromic anhydride.
* * * * *
    Existing affected source means an affected hard chromium 
electroplating tank, decorative chromium electroplating tank, or 
chromium anodizing tank, the construction or

[[Page 58243]]

reconstruction of which commenced on or before February 8, 2012.
* * * * *
    New affected source means an affected hard chromium electroplating 
tank, decorative chromium electroplating tank, or chromium anodizing 
tank, the construction or reconstruction of which commenced after 
February 8, 2012.
* * * * *
    Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)-based fume suppressant means a 
fume suppressant that contains 1 percent or greater PFOS by weight.
* * * * *
    Wetting agent means the type of commercially available chemical 
fume suppressant that materially reduces the surface tension of a 
liquid.
    (b) * * *
    (10) VRtot = the average total ventilation rate for the 
three test runs as determined at the outlet by means of the Method 306 
or 306A testing specified in appendix A of this part in dscm/min.

0
3. Amend Sec.  63.342 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), and (c)(1)(iii);
0
d. Adding paragraphs (c)(1)(iv) and (c)(1)(v);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(iii), and 
(c)(2)(iv);
0
f. Adding paragraphs (c)(2)(vi), (c)(2)(vii), and (c)(2)(viii);
0
g. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2);
0
h. Adding paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4);
0
i. Revising paragraph (e)(1);
0
j. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) as paragraphs (e)(3) and 
(e)(4), and revising the newly designated paragraph (e)(4);
0
k. Adding a new paragraph (e)(2);
0
l. Adding paragraph (f)(3)(i)(F); and
0
m. Adding Table 2 to read as follows:


Sec.  63.342  Standards.

    (a)(1) At all times, each owner or operator must operate and 
maintain any affected source subject to the requirements of this 
subpart, including associated air pollution control equipment and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty 
to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make 
any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by this 
standard have been achieved. Determination of whether such operation 
and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information 
available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited 
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, 
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the 
source.
    (2) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to the 
provisions of this subpart shall comply with these requirements in this 
section on and after the compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.343(a). 
All affected sources are regulated by applying maximum achievable 
control technology.
    (b) * * *
    (1) The emission limitations in this section apply during tank 
operation as defined in Sec.  63.341, and during periods of startup and 
shutdown as these are routine occurrences for affected sources subject 
to this subpart. In response to an action to enforce the standards set 
forth in this subpart, the owner or operator may assert a defense to a 
claim for civil penalties for violations of such standards that are 
caused by a malfunction, as defined in 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate 
penalties may be assessed, however, if the owner or operator fails to 
meet the burden of proving all the requirements in the affirmative 
defense. The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for 
injunctive relief.
    (i) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce 
such a standard, the owner or operator must timely meet the reporting 
requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, and must prove by 
a preponderance of evidence that:
    (A) The violation was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 
unavoidable failure of air pollution control equipment, process 
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal and usual manner; and 
could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper design 
or better operation and maintenance practices; and did not stem from 
any activity or event that could have been foreseen and avoided, or 
planned for; and was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of 
inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (B) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when exceeded 
violation occurred. Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to the 
extent practicable to make these repairs; and
    (C) The frequency, amount and duration of the violation (including 
any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable; and
    (D) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment or 
a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 
personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (E) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
violation on ambient air quality, the environment, and human health; 
and
    (F) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices; and
    (G) All of the actions in response to the violation were documented 
by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (H) At all times, the affected sources were operated in a manner 
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (I) A written root cause analysis was prepared, the purpose of 
which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the 
malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the malfunction 
event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using the best 
monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess 
emissions that were the result of the malfunction.
    (ii) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative 
defense shall submit a written report to the Administrator with all 
necessary supporting documentation, that it has met the requirements 
set forth in paragraph (i) of this section. This affirmative defense 
report shall be included in the first periodic compliance, deviation 
report or excess emission report otherwise required after the initial 
occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard (which may be the 
end of any applicable averaging period). If such compliance, deviation 
report or excess emission report is due less than 45 days after the 
initial occurrence of the violation, the affirmation defense report may 
be included in the second compliance, deviation report or excess 
emission report due after the initial occurrence of the violation of 
the relevant standard.
    (c)(1) * * *
    (i) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the exhaust 
gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.011 milligrams of 
total chromium per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) of ventilation 
air (4.8 x 10-6 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/
dscf)) for all open surface hard chromium electroplating tanks that are 
existing affected sources and are located at large hard chromium 
electroplating facilities; or
    (ii) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the 
exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to

[[Page 58244]]

exceed 0.015 mg/dscm (6.6 x 10-6 gr/dscf) for all open 
surface hard chromium electroplating tanks that are existing affected 
sources and are located at small, hard chromium electroplating 
facilities; or
    (iii) If a chemical fume suppressant containing a wetting agent is 
used, not allowing the surface tension of the electroplating or 
anodizing bath contained within the affected tank to exceed 40 dynes 
per centimeter (dynes/cm) (2.8 x 10-3 pound-force per foot 
(lbf/ft)), as measured by a stalagmometer, or 33 dynes/cm (2.3 x 
10-3 lbf/ft), as measured by a tensiometer at any time 
during tank operation; or
    (iv) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the 
exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.006 mg/dscm 
of ventilation air (2.6 x 10-6 gr/dscf) for all open surface 
hard chromium electroplating tanks that are new affected sources; or
    (v) After September 21, 2015, the owner or operator of an affected 
open surface hard chromium electroplating tank shall not add PFOS-based 
fume suppressants to any affected open surface hard chromium 
electroplating tank.
    (2) * * *
    (i) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the exhaust 
gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.011 mg/dscm of 
ventilation air (4.8 x 10-6 gr/dscf) for all enclosed hard 
chromium electroplating tanks that are existing affected sources and 
are located at large hard chromium electroplating facilities; or
    (ii) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the 
exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.015 mg/dscm 
(6.6 x 10-6 gr/dscf) for all enclosed hard chromium 
electroplating tanks that are existing affected sources and are located 
at small, hard chromium electroplating facilities; or
    (iii) If a chemical fume suppressant containing a wetting agent is 
used, not allowing the surface tension of the electroplating or 
anodizing bath contained within the affected tank to exceed 40 dynes/cm 
(2.8 x 10-3 lbf/ft), as measured by a stalagmometer, or 33 
dynes/cm (2.3 x 10-3 lbf/ft), as measured by a tensiometer 
at any time during tank operation; or
    (iv) Not allowing the mass rate of total chromium in the exhaust 
gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed the maximum allowable 
mass emission rate determined by using the calculation procedure in 
Sec.  63.344(f)(1)(i) for all enclosed hard chromium electroplating 
tanks that are existing affected sources and are located at large hard 
chromium electroplating facilities; or
* * * * *
    (vi) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the 
exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.006 mg/dscm 
of ventilation air (2.6 x 10-6 gr/dscf) for all enclosed 
hard chromium electroplating tanks that are new affected sources; or
    (vii) Not allowing the mass rate of total chromium in the exhaust 
gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed the maximum allowable 
mass emission rate determined by using the calculation procedure in 
Sec.  63.344(f)(1)(iii) if the enclosed hard chromium electroplating 
tank is a new affected source.
    (viii) After September 21, 2015, the owner or operator of an 
affected enclosed hard chromium electroplating tank shall not add PFOS-
based fume suppressants to any affected enclosed hard chromium 
electroplating tank.
    (d) * * *
    (1) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the exhaust 
gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.007 mg/dscm (3.1 x 
10-6 gr/dscf) for all existing decorative chromium 
electroplating tanks using a chromic acid bath and all existing 
chromium anodizing tanks; or
    (2) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the exhaust 
gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.006 mg/dscm 
(2.6x10-6 gr/dscf) for all new or reconstructed decorative 
chromium electroplating tanks using a chromic acid bath and all new or 
reconstructed chromium anodizing tanks; or
    (3) If a chemical fume suppressant containing a wetting agent is 
used, not allowing the surface tension of the electroplating or 
anodizing bath contained within the affected tank to exceed 40 dynes/cm 
(2.8 x 10-3 lbf/ft), as measured by a stalagmometer or 33 
dynes/cm (2.3 x 10-3 lbf/ft), as measured by a tensiometer 
at any time during tank operation, for all existing, new, or 
reconstructed decorative chromium electroplating tanks using a chromic 
acid bath and all existing, new, or reconstructed chromium anodizing 
tanks; or
    (4) After September 21, 2015, the owner or operator of an affected 
decorative chromium electroplating tank or an affected chromium 
anodizing tank shall not add PFOS-based fume suppressants to any 
affected decorative chromium electroplating tank or chromium anodizing 
tank.
    (e) * * *
    (1) Each owner or operator of an existing, new, or reconstructed 
decorative chromium electroplating tank that uses a trivalent chromium 
bath that incorporates a wetting agent as a bath ingredient is subject 
to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Sec. Sec.  
63.346(b)(14) and 63.347(i), but are not subject to the work practice 
requirements of paragraph (f) of this section, or the continuous 
compliance monitoring requirements in Sec.  63.343(c). The wetting 
agent must be an ingredient in the trivalent chromium bath components 
purchased as a package.
    (2) After September 21, 2015, the owner or operator of an affected 
decorative chromium electroplating tank using a trivalent chromium bath 
shall not add PFOS-based fume suppressants to any affected decorative 
chromium electroplating tank.
* * * * *
    (4) Each owner or operator of an existing, new, or reconstructed 
decorative chromium electroplating tank that had been using a trivalent 
chromium bath that incorporated a wetting agent and ceases using this 
type of bath must fulfill the reporting requirements of Sec.  
63.347(i)(3) and comply with the applicable emission limitation within 
the timeframe specified in Sec.  63.343(a)(7).
    (f) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (F) The plan shall include housekeeping procedures, as specified in 
Table 2 of this section.
* * * * *

[[Page 58245]]



            Table 2 to Sec.   63.342--Housekeeping Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       At this minimum
             For                    You must:             frequency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Any substance used in an   (a) Store the         At all times, except
 affected chromium             substance in a        when transferring
 electroplating or chromium    closed container in   the substance to
 anodizing tank that           an enclosed storage   and from the
 contains hexavalent           area or building;     container.
 chromium.                     AND                  Whenever
                              (b) Use a closed       transporting
                               container when        substance, except
                               transporting the      when transferring
                               substance from the    the substance to
                               enclosed storage      and from the
                               area.                 container.
2. Each affected tank, to     (a) Install drip      Prior to operating
 minimize spills of bath       trays that collect    the tank.
 solution that result from     and return to the    Whenever removing
 dragout. Note: this measure   tank any bath         parts from an
 does not require the return   solution that drips   affected tank.
 of contaminated bath          or drains from       Whenever removing
 solution to the tank. This    parts as the parts    parts from an
 requirement applies only as   are removed from      affected tank.
 the parts are removed from    the tank; OR
 the tank. Once away from     (b) Contain and
 the tank area, any spilled    return to the tank
 solution must be handled in   any bath solution
 accordance with Item 4 of     that drains or
 these housekeeping measures.  drips from parts as
                               the parts are
                               removed from the
                               tank; OR.
                              (c) Collect and
                               treat in an onsite
                               wastewater
                               treatment plant any
                               bath solution that
                               drains or drips
                               from parts as the
                               parts are removed
                               from the tank.
3. Each spraying operation    Install a splash      Prior to any such
 for removing excess chromic   guard to minimize     spraying operation.
 acid from parts removed       overspray during
 from, and occurring over,     spraying operations
 an affected tank.             and to ensure that
                               any hexavalent
                               chromium laden
                               liquid captured by
                               the splash guard is
                               returned to the
                               affected chromium
                               electroplating or
                               anodizing tank.
4. Each operation that        Begin clean up, or    Within 1 hour of the
 involves the handling or      otherwise contain,    spill.
 use of any substance used     all spills of the
 in an affected chromium       substance. Note:
 electroplating or chromium    substances that
 anodizing tank that           fall or flow into
 contains hexavalent           drip trays, pans,
 chromium.                     sumps, or other
                               containment areas
                               are not considered
                               spills.
5. Surfaces within the        (a) Clean the         At least once every
 enclosed storage area, open   surfaces using one    7 days if one or
 floor area, walkways around   or more of the        more chromium
 affected tanks contaminated   following methods:    electroplating or
 with hexavalent chromium      HEPA vacuuming;       chromium anodizing
 from an affected chromium     Hand-wiping with a    tanks were used, or
 electroplating or chromium    damp cloth; Wet       at least after
 anodizing tank.               mopping; Hose down    every 40 hours of
                               or rinse with         operating time of
                               potable water that    one or more
                               is collected in a     affection chromium
                               wastewater            electroplating or
                               collection system;    chromium anodizing
                               Other cleaning        tank, whichever is
                               method approved by    later.
                               the permitting       According to
                               authority; OR         manufacturer's
                              (b) Apply a non-       recommendations.
                               toxic chemical dust
                               suppressant to the
                               surfaces.
6. All buffing, grinding, or  Separate the          Prior to beginning
 polishing operations that     operation from any    the buffing,
 are located in the same       affected              grinding, or
 room as chromium              electroplating or     polishing
 electroplating or chromium    anodizing operation   operation.
 anodizing operations.         by installing a
                               physical barrier;
                               the barrier may
                               take the form of
                               plastic strip
                               curtains.
7. All chromium or chromium-  Store, dispose,       At all times.
 containing wastes generated   recover, or recycle
 from housekeeping             the wastes using
 activities.                   practices that do
                               not lead to
                               fugitive dust and
                               in accordance with
                               hazardous waste
                               requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
4. Section 63.343 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(4), and adding paragraph 
(a)(8);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(ii), 
(c)(4)(ii), (c)(5)(i), (c)(5)(ii), and (c)(6)(ii).
    The added and revised text reads as follows:


Sec.  63.343  Compliance provisions.

    (a)(1) The owner or operator of an existing affected source shall 
comply with the emission limitations in Sec.  63.342 no later than 
September 19, 2014.
    (2) The owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected source 
that has an initial startup after September 19, 2012, shall comply 
immediately upon startup of the source.
* * * * *
    (4) The owner or operator of a new area source (i.e., an area 
source for which construction or reconstruction was commenced after 
February 8, 2012, that increases actual or potential emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants such that the area source becomes a major 
source must comply with the provisions for new major sources, 
immediately upon becoming a major source.
* * * * *
    (8) After March 19, 2013, the owner or operator of an affected 
source that is subject to the standards in paragraphs Sec.  63.342(c) 
or (d) shall implement the housekeeping procedures specified in Table 2 
of Sec.  63.342.
    (b) Methods to demonstrate initial compliance. (1) Except as 
provided in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section, an owner or 
operator of an affected source subject to the requirements of this 
subpart is required to conduct an initial performance test as required 
under Sec.  63.7, using the procedures and test methods listed in 
Sec. Sec.  63.7 and 63.344.
* * * * *
    (c) Monitoring to demonstrate continuous compliance. The owner or 
operator of an affected source subject to the emission limitations of 
this subpart shall conduct monitoring according to the type of air 
pollution control technique that is used to comply with the emission 
limitation. The monitoring required to demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the emission limitations is identified in this section 
for the air pollution control techniques expected to be used by the 
owners or

[[Page 58246]]

operators of affected sources. As an alternative to the daily 
monitoring, the owner or operator of an affected source may install a 
continuous pressure monitoring system.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is 
required to be completed under Sec.  63.7, the owner or operator of an 
affected source, or group of affected sources under common control, 
shall monitor and record the pressure drop across the composite mesh-
pad system once each day that any affected source is operating. To be 
in compliance with the standards, the composite mesh-pad system shall 
be operated within 2 inches of water column of the pressure 
drop value established during the initial performance test, or shall be 
operated within the range of compliant values for pressure drop 
established during multiple performance tests.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is 
required to be completed under Sec.  63.7, the owner or operator of an 
affected source, or group of affected sources under common control, 
shall monitor and record the velocity pressure at the inlet to the 
packed-bed system and the pressure drop across the scrubber system once 
each day that any affected source is operating. To be in compliance 
with the standards, the scrubber system shall be operated within 10 percent of the velocity pressure value established during the 
initial performance test, and within 1 inch of water column 
of the pressure drop value established during the initial performance 
test, or within the range of compliant operating parameter values 
established during multiple performance tests.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is 
required to be completed under Sec.  63.7, the owner or operator of an 
affected source, or group of affected sources under common control, 
shall monitor and record the pressure drop across the fiber-bed mist 
eliminator, and the control device installed upstream of the fiber bed 
to prevent plugging, once each day that any affected source is 
operating. To be in compliance with the standards, the fiber-bed mist 
eliminator and the upstream control device shall be operated within 
1 inch of water column of the pressure drop value 
established during the initial performance test, or shall be operated 
within the range of compliant values for pressure drop established 
during multiple performance tests.
* * * * *
    (5) Wetting agent-type or combination wetting agent-type/foam 
blanket fume suppressants. (i) During the initial performance test, the 
owner or operator of an affected source complying with the emission 
limitations in Sec.  63.342 through the use of a wetting agent in the 
electroplating or anodizing bath shall determine the outlet chromium 
concentration using the procedures in Sec.  63.344(c). The owner or 
operator shall establish as the site-specific operating parameter the 
surface tension of the bath using Method 306B, appendix A of this part, 
setting the maximum value that corresponds to compliance with the 
applicable emission limitation. In lieu of establishing the maximum 
surface tension during the performance test, the owner or operator may 
accept 40 dynes/cm, as measured by a stalagmometer, or 33 dynes/cm, as 
measured by a tensiometer, as the maximum surface tension value that 
corresponds to compliance with the applicable emission limitation. 
However, the owner or operator is exempt from conducting a performance 
test only if the criteria of paragraph (b)(1) of this section are met.
    (ii) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is 
required to be completed under Sec.  63.7, the owner or operator of an 
affected source shall monitor the surface tension of the electroplating 
or anodizing bath. Operation of the affected source at a surface 
tension greater than the value established during the performance test, 
or greater than 40 dynes/cm, as measured by a stalagmometer, or 33 
dynes/cm, as measured by a tensiometer, if the owner or operator is 
using this value in accordance with paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this 
section, shall constitute noncompliance with the standards. The surface 
tension shall be monitored according to the following schedule:
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is 
required to be completed under Sec.  63.7, the owner or operator of an 
affected source shall monitor the foam blanket thickness of the 
electroplating or anodizing bath. Operation of the affected source at a 
foam blanket thickness less than the value established during the 
performance test, or less than 2.54 cm (1 inch) if the owner or 
operator is using this value in accordance with paragraph (c)(6)(i) of 
this section, shall constitute noncompliance with the standards. The 
foam blanket thickness shall be measured according to the following 
schedule:
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.344 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Removing ``and'' from the end of paragraph (b)(1)(iii);
0
c. Removing the period from the end of paragraph (b)(1)(iv) and adding 
``; and'' in its place;
0
d. Adding paragraphs (b)(1)(v) through (b)(1)(viii);
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(2);
0
f. Revising paragraph (c)(1);
0
g. Revising paragraphs (e)(3)(iii), (e)(3)(iv), and (e)(3)(v);
0
h. Revising paragraphs (e)(4)(ii) and (e)(4)(iv);
0
i. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(A) and (f)(1)(ii)(A); and
0
j. Adding paragraph (f)(1)(iii).
    The added and revised text reads as follows:


Sec.  63.344  Performance test requirements and test methods.

    (a) Performance test requirements. Performance tests shall be 
conducted using the test methods and procedures in this section. 
Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as the 
Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on 
representative performance of the affected source for the period being 
tested. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the 
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests. Performance test results shall be 
documented in complete test reports that contain the information 
required by paragraphs (a)(1) through (9) of this section. The test 
plan to be followed shall be made available to the Administrator prior 
to the testing, if requested.
* * * * *
    (b)(1) * * *
    (v) The performance test was conducted after January 25, 1995;
    (vi) As of September 19, 2012 the source was using the same 
emissions controls that were used during the compliance test;
    (vii) As of September 19, 2012, the source was operating under 
conditions that are representative of the conditions under which the 
source was operating during the compliance test; and
    (viii) Based on approval from the permitting authority.
* * * * *

[[Page 58247]]

    (c) * * *
    (1) Method 306 or Method 306A, ``Determination of Chromium 
Emissions From Decorative and Hard Chromium Electroplating and 
Anodizing Operations,'' appendix A of this part shall be used to 
determine the chromium concentration from hard or decorative chromium 
electroplating tanks or chromium anodizing tanks. The sampling time and 
sample volume for each run of Methods 306 and 306A, appendix A of this 
part shall be at least 120 minutes and 1.70 dscm (60 dscf), 
respectively. Methods 306 and 306A, appendix A of this part allow the 
measurement of either total chromium or hexavalent chromium emissions. 
For the purposes of this standard, sources using chromic acid baths 
must demonstrate compliance with the emission limits of Sec.  63.342 by 
measuring the total chromium.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) Perform Method 306 or 306A testing and calculate an outlet 
mass emission rate.
    (iv) Determine the total ventilation rate from the affected sources 
(VRinlet) by using equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19SE12.000

where VRtot is the average total ventilation rate in 
dscm/min for the three test runs as determined at the outlet by 
means of the Method 306 or 306A testing; IDAi is the 
total inlet area for all ducts associated with affected sources; 
[sum]IAtotal is the sum of all inlet duct areas from both 
affected and nonaffected sources; and VRinlet is the 
total ventilation rate from all inlet ducts associated with affected 
sources.

    (v) Establish the allowable mass emission rate of the system 
(AMRsys) in milligrams of total chromium per hour (mg/hr) 
using equation 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19SE12.001

where [Sigma] VRinlet is the total ventilation rate in 
dscm/min from the affected sources, and EL is the applicable 
emission limitation from Sec.  63.342 in mg/dscm. The allowable mass 
emission rate (AMRsys) calculated from equation 2 should 
be equal to or more than the outlet three-run average mass emission 
rate determined from Method 306 or 306A testing in order for the 
source to be in compliance with the standard.
    (4) * * *
    (ii) Determine the total ventilation rate for each type of affected 
source (VRinlet,a) using equation 3:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19SE12.002

where VRtot is the average total ventilation rate in 
dscm/min for the three test runs as determined at the outlet by 
means of the Method 306 or 306A testing; IDAi,a is the 
total inlet duct area for all ducts conveying chromic acid from each 
type of affected source performing the same operation, or each type 
of affected source subject to the same emission limitation; 
[sum]IAtotal is the sum of all duct areas from both 
affected and nonaffected sources; and VRinlet,a is the 
total ventilation rate from all inlet ducts conveying chromic acid 
from each type of affected source performing the same operation, or 
each type of affected source subject to the same emission 
limitation.
* * * * *
    (iv) Establish the allowable mass emission rate of the system 
(AMRsys) in milligrams of total chromium per hour (mg/hr) 
using equation 8, including each type of affected source as 
appropriate:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19SE12.003

    The allowable mass emission rate calculated from equation 8 should 
be equal to or more than the outlet three-run average mass emission 
rate determined from Method 306 or 306A testing in order for the source 
to be in compliance with the standards.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i)(A) The owner or operator of an enclosed hard chromium 
electroplating tank that is an existing affected source and is located 
at a large hard chromium electroplating facility who chooses to meet 
the mass emission rate standard in Sec.  63.342(c)(2)(iv) shall 
determine compliance by not allowing the mass rate of total chromium in 
the exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed the 
maximum allowable mass emission rate calculated using equation 9:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19SE12.004

* * * * *
    (ii)(A) The owner or operator of an enclosed hard chromium 
electroplating tank that is an existing affected source located at a 
small hard chromium electroplating facility who chooses to meet the 
mass emission rate standard in Sec.  63.342(c)(2)(v) shall determine 
compliance by not allowing the mass rate of total chromium in the 
exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed the maximum 
allowable mass

[[Page 58248]]

emission rate calculated using equation 10:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19SE12.005

* * * * *
    (iii)(A) The owner or operator of an enclosed hard chromium 
electroplating tank that is a new source who chooses to meet the mass 
emission rate standard in Sec.  63.342(c)(2)(vii) shall determine 
compliance by not allowing the mass rate of total chromium in the 
exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed the maximum 
allowable mass emission rate calculated using equation 11:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19SE12.006

    (B) Compliance with the alternative mass emission limit is 
demonstrated if the three-run average mass emission rate determined 
from testing using Method 306 or 306A of appendix A to part 63 is less 
than or equal to the maximum allowable mass emission rate calculated 
from equation 11.

0
6. Amend Sec.  63.346 by revising paragraphs (b)(2),(b)(4) and (b)(13) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  63.346  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Records of all maintenance performed on the affected source, 
the add-on air pollution control device, and monitoring equipment, 
except routine housekeeping practices;
* * * * *
    (4) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to 
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.342(a)(1), including 
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution 
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of 
operation;
* * * * *
    (13) For sources using fume suppressants to comply with the 
standards, records of the date and time that fume suppressants are 
added to the electroplating or anodizing bath and records of the fume 
suppressant manufacturer and product name;
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  63.347 by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (f)(3);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (g)(3)(xii) and (g)(3)(xiii) as 
(g)(3)(xiii) and (g)(3)(xiv), respectively, and adding a new paragraph 
(g)(3)(xii); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(i) introductory text and (h)(2)(i)(A) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.347  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3)(i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test (defined in Sec.  63.2) as required by this subpart, you must 
submit the results of the performance tests, including any associated 
fuel analyses, required by this subpart to the EPA's WebFIRE database 
by using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) 
that is accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) 
(www.epa.gov/cdx). Performance test data must be submitted in the file 
format generated through use of the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool 
(ERT) (see https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/). Only data 
collected using test methods on the ERT Web site are subject to this 
requirement for submitting reports electronically to WebFIRE. Owners or 
operators who claim that some of the information being submitted for 
performance tests is confidential business information (CBI) must 
submit a complete ERT file including information claimed to be CBI on a 
compact disk, flash drive or other commonly used electronic storage 
media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI 
and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE 
Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The 
same ERT file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via CDX 
as described earlier in this paragraph. At the discretion of the 
delegated authority, you must also submit these reports, including the 
confidential business information, to the delegated authority in the 
format specified by the delegated authority. For any performance test 
conducted using test methods that are not listed on the ERT Web site, 
the owner or operator shall submit the results of the performance test 
to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (xii) The number, duration, and a brief description for each type 
of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which 
caused or may have caused any applicable emission limitation to be 
exceeded. The report must also include a description of actions taken 
by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an affected source to 
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.342(a)(1), including 
actions taken to correct a malfunction.
    (xiii) The name, title, and signature of the responsible official 
who is certifying the accuracy of the report; and
    (xiv) The date of the report.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) If either of the following conditions is met, semiannual 
reports shall be prepared and submitted to the Administrator:
    (A) The total duration of excess emissions (as indicated by the 
monitoring data collected by the owner or operator of the affected 
source in accordance with Sec.  63.343(c)) is 1 percent or greater of 
the total operating time for the reporting period; or
* * * * *

0
8. Amend Table 1 to Subpart N by:
0
a. Adding in alphanumerical order entries 63.1(a)(5), 63.1(a)(7)-(9), 
63.1(a)(12), 63.1(c)(3)-(4), 63.4(a)(1)-(2), 63.4(a)(3)-(5), 63.4(b)-
(c), 63.5(b)(2), 63.5(c), 63.6(c)(3)-(4), 63.6(d), 63.6(e)(1)-(3), 
63.6(h)(1), 63.6(h)(2), 63.6(i)(15), 63.7(a)(2)(i)-(viii), 63.7(a)(4), 
63.7(e)(1), 63.7(e)(2)-(4), 63.7(g)(2), 63.8(a)(3), and 63.9(h)(4).
0
b. Removing entries 63.1(a)(7) and 63.1 (a)(8), 63.1(a)(12)--(a)(14), 
63.1(c)(4), 63.4, 63.6(e), 63.6(h), 63.7(a)(2)(i)-(vi), and 63.7(e).
0
c. Revising entries 63.1(b)(2), 63.5(b)(5), 63.6(b)(6), and 63.9(b)(3),
    The added and revised text reads as follows:

[[Page 58249]]



  Table 1 to Subpart N of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
                                Subpart N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Applies to  subpart
General provisions reference            N                  Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.1(a)(5)..................  No..................  [Reserved]
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.1(a)(7)-(9)..............  No..................  [Reserved]
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.1(a)(12).................  Yes.................  ....................
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.1(b)(2)..................  No..................  [Reserved]
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.1(c)(3)-(4)..............  No..................  [Reserved]
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.4(a)(1)-(2)..............  Yes.................
63.4(a)(3)-(5)..............  No..................  [Reserved]
63.4(b)-(c).................  Yes.................
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.5(b)(2)..................  No..................  [Reserved]
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.5(b)(5)..................  No..................  [Reserved]
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.5(c).....................  No..................  [Reserved]
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.6(b)(6)..................  No..................  [Reserved]
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.6(c)(3)-(4)..............  No..................  [Reserved]
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.6(d).....................  No..................  [Reserved]
63.6(e)(1)-(3)..............  No..................  Sec.   63.342(f) of
                                                     subpart N contains
                                                     work practice
                                                     standards
                                                     (operation and
                                                     maintenance
                                                     requirements) that
                                                     override these
                                                     provisions.
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.6(h)(1)..................  No..................  SSM Exception
63.6(h)(2)..................  No..................  Subpart N does not
                                                     contain any opacity
                                                     or visible emission
                                                     standards.
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.6(i)(15).................  No..................  [Reserved]
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.7(a)(2)(i)-(viii)........  No..................  [Reserved]
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.7(a)(4)..................  Yes.................  ....................
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.7(e)(1)..................  No..................  See Sec.
                                                     63.344(a). Any
                                                     cross reference to
                                                     Sec.   63.7(e)(1)
                                                     in any other
                                                     general provision
                                                     incorporated by
                                                     reference shall be
                                                     treated as a cross-
                                                     reference to Sec.
                                                     63.344(a).
63.7(e)(2)-(4)..............  Yes.................  Subpart N also
                                                     contains test
                                                     methods specific to
                                                     affected sources
                                                     covered by that
                                                     subpart.
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.7(g)(2)..................  No..................  [Reserved]
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.8(a)(3)..................  No..................  [Reserved]
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.9(b)(3)..................  No..................  [Reserved]
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.9(h)(4)..................  No..................  [Reserved]

[[Page 58250]]

 
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart CCC--[AMENDED]

0
9. Section 63.1155 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.1155  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (d) In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in 
this subpart, the owner or operator may assert an affirmative defense 
to a claim for civil penalties for violations of such standards that 
are caused by a malfunction, as defined in Sec.  63.2. Appropriate 
penalties may be assessed, however, if the owner or operator fails to 
meet the burden of proving all the requirements in the affirmative 
defense. The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for 
injunctive relief.
    (1) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce 
such a standard, the owner or operator must timely meet the reporting 
requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of this section, and must prove by a 
preponderance of evidence that:
    (i) The violation was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 
unavoidable failure of air pollution control equipment, process 
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal and usual manner; and 
could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper design, 
or better operation and maintenance practices; and did not stem from 
any activity or event that could have been foreseen and avoided, or 
planned for; and was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of 
inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when exceeded 
violation occurred. Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to the 
extent practicable to make these repairs; and
    (iii) The frequency, amount, and duration of the violation 
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent 
practicable; and
    (iv) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment 
or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 
personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
violation on ambient air quality, the environment, and human health; 
and
    (vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices; and
    (vii) All of the actions in response to the violation were 
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (viii) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner 
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose 
of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of 
the malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event 
at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using the best monitoring 
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that 
were the result of the malfunction.
    (2) Report. The owner of operator seeking to assert an affirmative 
defense shall submit a written report to the Administrator with all 
necessary supporting documentation, that it has met the requirements 
set forth in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. This affirmative defense 
report shall be included in the first periodic compliance, deviation 
report or excess emission report otherwise required after the initial 
occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard (which may be the 
end of any applicable averaging period). If such compliance, deviation 
report or excess emission report is due less than 45 days after the 
initial occurrence of the violation, the affirmation defense report may 
be included in the second compliance, deviation report or excess 
emission report due after the initial occurrence of the violation of 
the relevant standard.

0
10. Section 63.1156 is amended by adding in alphabetical order a 
definition for ``affirmative defense'' to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1156  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 
proceeding, a response or a defense put forward by a defendant, 
regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits 
of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding.
* * * * *

0
11. Section 63.1157 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.1157  Emission standards for existing sources.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) In addition to the requirement of paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section, no owner or operator of an existing plant shall cause or allow 
to be discharged into the atmosphere from the affected plant any gases 
that contain chlorine (Cl2) in a concentration in excess of 
6 ppmv.

0
12. Section 63.1159 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.1159  Operational and equipment standards for existing, new, 
or reconstructed sources.

* * * * *
    (c) General duty to minimize emissions. At all times, each owner or 
operator must operate and maintain any affected source subject to the 
requirements of this subpart, including associated air pollution 
control equipment and monitoring equipment in a manner consistent with 
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the 
owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if 
levels required by this standard have been achieved. Determination of 
whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will 
be based on information available to the Administrator which may 
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation 
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance 
records, and inspection of the source.

0
13. Section 63.1160 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.1160  Compliance dates and maintenance requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) Maintenance requirements. (1) The owner or operator shall 
prepare an

[[Page 58251]]

operation and maintenance plan for each emission control device to be 
implemented no later than the compliance date. The plan shall be 
incorporated by reference into the source's title V permit. All such 
plans must be consistent with good maintenance practices, and, for a 
scrubber emission control device, must at a minimum:
    (i) Require monitoring and recording the pressure drop across the 
scrubber once per shift while the scrubber is operating in order to 
identify changes that may indicate a need for maintenance;
    (ii) Require the manufacturer's recommended maintenance at the 
recommended intervals on fresh solvent pumps, recirculating pumps, 
discharge pumps, and other liquid pumps, in addition to exhaust system 
and scrubber fans and motors associated with those pumps and fans;
    (iii) Require cleaning of the scrubber internals and mist 
eliminators at intervals sufficient to prevent buildup of solids or 
other fouling;
    (iv) Require an inspection of each scrubber at intervals of no less 
than 3 months with:
    (A) Cleaning or replacement of any plugged spray nozzles or other 
liquid delivery devices;
    (B) Repair or replacement of missing, misaligned, or damaged 
baffles, trays, or other internal components;
    (C) Repair or replacement of droplet eliminator elements as needed;
    (D) Repair or replacement of heat exchanger elements used to 
control the temperature of fluids entering or leaving the scrubber; and
    (E) Adjustment of damper settings for consistency with the required 
air flow.
    (v) If the scrubber is not equipped with a viewport or access hatch 
allowing visual inspection, alternate means of inspection approved by 
the Administrator may be used.
    (vi) The owner or operator shall initiate procedures for corrective 
action within 1 working day of detection of an operating problem and 
complete all corrective actions as soon as practicable. Procedures to 
be initiated are the applicable actions that are specified in the 
maintenance plan. Failure to initiate or provide appropriate repair, 
replacement, or other corrective action is a violation of the 
maintenance requirement of this subpart.
    (vii) The owner or operator shall maintain a record of each 
inspection, including each item identified in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of 
this section, that is signed by the responsible maintenance official 
and that shows the date of each inspection, the problem identified, a 
description of the repair, replacement, or other corrective action 
taken, and the date of the repair, replacement, or other corrective 
action taken.
    (2) The owner or operator of each hydrochloric acid regeneration 
plant shall develop and implement a written maintenance program. The 
program shall require:
    (i) Performance of the manufacturer's recommended maintenance at 
the recommended intervals on all required systems and components;
    (ii) Initiation of procedures for appropriate and timely repair, 
replacement, or other corrective action within 1 working day of 
detection; and
    (iii) Maintenance of a daily record, signed by a responsible 
maintenance official, showing the date of each inspection for each 
requirement, the problems found, a description of the repair, 
replacement, or other action taken, and the date of repair or 
replacement.

0
14. Section 63.1161 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a); and
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(2).


Sec.  63.1161  Performance testing and test methods.

    (a) Demonstration of compliance. The owner or operator shall 
conduct an initial performance test for each process or emission 
control device to determine and demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable emission limitation according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.7 of subpart A of this part and in this section. Performance tests 
shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies 
to the owner or operator based on representative performance of the 
affected source for the period being tested. Upon request, the owner or 
operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may 
be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *

0
15. Section 63.1164 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a); and
0
b. Revising paragraph (c).


Sec.  63.1164  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Reporting results of performance tests. Within 60 days after 
the date of completing each performance test (defined in Sec.  63.2), 
as required by this subpart you must submit the results of the 
performance tests, including any associated fuel analyses, required by 
this subpart to the EPA's WebFIRE database by using the Compliance and 
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed through the 
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (www.epa.gov/;cdx). Performance test 
data must be submitted in the file format generated through use of the 
EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/). Only data collected using test methods on the 
ERT Web site are subject to this requirement for submitting reports 
electronically to WebFIRE. Owners or operators who claim that some of 
the information being submitted for performance tests is confidential 
business information (CBI) must submit a complete ERT file including 
information claimed to be CBI on a compact disk, flash drive or other 
commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media 
must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI 
Office, Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page 
Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file with the CBI omitted must be 
submitted to the EPA via CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. At 
the discretion of the delegated authority, you must also submit these 
reports, including the confidential business information, to the 
delegated authority in the format specified by the delegated authority. 
For any performance test conducted using test methods that are not 
listed on the ERT Web site, the owner or operator shall submit the 
results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate 
address listed in Sec.  63.13.
* * * * *
    (c) Reporting malfunctions. The number, duration, and a brief 
description for each type of malfunction which occurred during the 
reporting period and which caused or may have caused any applicable 
emission limitation to be exceeded shall be stated in a semiannual 
report. The report must also include a description of actions taken by 
an owner or operator during a malfunction of an affected source to 
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.1159(c), including 
actions taken to correct a malfunction. The report, to be certified by 
the owner or operator or other responsible official, shall be submitted 
semiannually and delivered or postmarked by the 30th day following the 
end of each calendar half.

0
16. Section 63.1165 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(4);
0
c. Removing paragraph (a)(5), and redesignating paragraphs (a)(6) 
through (a)(11) as (a)(5) through (a)(10).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1165  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) * * *

[[Page 58252]]

    (1) The occurrence and duration of each malfunction of operation 
(i.e., process equipment);
* * * * *
    (4) Actions taken during periods of malfunction to minimize 
emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.1259(c) and the dates of such 
actions (including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process 
and air pollution control equipment to its normal or usual manner of 
operation);
* * * * *

0
17. Table 1 to Subpart CCC is amended by:
0
a. Removing entry 63.6(a)-(g);
0
b. Adding entry 63.6(a)-(d) in alphanumerical order;
0
c. Adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 63.6(e)(1)(iii), 
63.6(e)(2), 63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1), 63.6(f)(2)-(3), and 63.6(g) in 
alphanumerical order;
0
d. Removing entry 63.7-63.9;
0
e. Adding entries 63.7, 63.8(a)-(c), 63.8(d)(1)-(2), 63.8(d)(3), and 
63.8(e)-(f) in alphanumerical order;
0
f. Removing entry 63.10(a)-(c);
0
g. Adding entries 63.10(a), 63.10(b)(1), 63.10(b)(2)(i), 
63.10(b)(2)(ii), 63.10(b)(2)(iii), 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v), 
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xiv), 63.10(b)(3), 63.10(c)(1)-(9), 63.10(c)(10), 
63.10(c)(11), 63.10(c)(12)-(14), and 63.10(c)(15) in alphanumerical 
order;
0
h. Removing entry 63.10(d)(4)-(5); and
0
i. Adding entries 63.10(d)(4) and 63.10(d)(5) in alphanumerical order.
    The additions read as follows:

 Table 1 to Subpart CCC of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
               (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart CCC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Applies to  subpart
          Reference                    CCC               Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.6 (a)-(d)................  Yes.................
63.6(e)(1)(i)...............  No..................  See Sec.
                                                     63.1259(c) for
                                                     general duty
                                                     requirement. Any
                                                     cross-reference to
                                                     Sec.
                                                     63.6(e)(1)(i) in
                                                     any other general
                                                     provision
                                                     incorporated by
                                                     reference shall be
                                                     treated as a cross-
                                                     reference to Sec.
                                                     63.1259(c).
63.6(e)(1)(ii)..............  No..................
63.6(e)(1)(iii).............  Yes.................
63.6(e)(2)..................  No..................  Section reserved.
63.6(e)(3)..................  No..................
63.6(f)(1)..................  No..................
63.6(f)(2)-(3)..............  Yes.................
63.6(g).....................  Yes.................
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.7........................  Yes.................
63.8(a)-(c).................  Yes.................
63.8(d)(1)-(2)..............  Yes.................
63.8(d)(3)..................  Yes, except for last
                               sentence.
63.8(e)-(f).................  Yes.................
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.10(a)....................  Yes.................
63.10(b)(1).................  Yes.................
63.10(b)(2)(i)..............  No..................
63.10(b)(2)(ii).............  No..................  See Sec.
                                                     63.1265(a)(1) for
                                                     recordkeeping of
                                                     occurrence and
                                                     duration of
                                                     malfunctions. See
                                                     Sec.
                                                     63.1265(a)(4) for
                                                     recordkeeping of
                                                     actions taken
                                                     during malfunction.
                                                     Any cross-reference
                                                     to Sec.
                                                     63.10(b)(2)(ii) in
                                                     any other general
                                                     provision
                                                     incorporated by
                                                     reference shall be
                                                     treated as a cross-
                                                     reference to Sec.
                                                     63.1265(a)(1).
63.10(b)(2)(iii)............  Yes.................
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v)...  No..................
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(xiv).  Yes.................
63.10(b)(3).................  Yes.................
63.10(c)(1)-(9).............  Yes.................
63.10(c)(10)................  No..................  See Sec.
                                                     63.1164(c) for
                                                     reporting
                                                     malfunctions. Any
                                                     cross-reference to
                                                     Sec.   63.10(c)(10)
                                                     in any other
                                                     general provision
                                                     incorporated by
                                                     reference shall be
                                                     treated as a cross-
                                                     reference to Sec.
                                                     63.1164(c).
63.10(c)(11)................  No..................  See Sec.
                                                     63.1164(c) for
                                                     reporting
                                                     malfunctions. Any
                                                     cross-reference to
                                                     Sec.   63.10(c)(11)
                                                     in any other
                                                     general provision
                                                     incorporated by
                                                     reference shall be
                                                     treated as a cross-
                                                     reference to Sec.
                                                     63.1164(c).
63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14)........  Yes.................
63.10(c)(15)................  No..................
63.10(d)(4).................  Yes.................
63.10(d)(5).................  No..................
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
18. Amend Appendix A to part 63, Method 306B by:
0
a. Revising paragraph 1.2;
0
b. Revising paragraph 6.1;
0
c. Revising paragraphs 11.1 through 11.1.3; and
0
d. Revising paragraph 11.2.2.
0
The added and revised text reads as follows:

[[Page 58253]]

Appendix A to Part 63--Test Methods Pollutant Measurement Methods From 
Various Waste Media

* * * * *

METHOD 306B--SURFACE TENSION MEASUREMENT FOR TANKS USED AT DECORATIVE 
CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING AND CHROMIUM ANODIZING FACILITIES

* * * * *

1.0 Scope and Application

* * * * *
    1.2 Applicability. This method is applicable to all chromium 
electroplating and chromium anodizing operations, and continuous 
chromium plating at iron and steel facilities where a wetting agent 
is used in the tank as the primary mechanism for reducing emissions 
from the surface of the plating solution.
* * * * *

6.0 Equipment and Supplies

    6.1 Stalagmometer. Any commercially available stalagmometer or 
equivalent surface tension measuring device may be used to measure 
the surface tension of the plating or anodizing tank liquid provided 
the procedures specified in Section 11.1.2 are followed.
* * * * *

11.0 Analytical Procedure

    11.1 Procedure. The surface tension of the tank bath may be 
measured using a tensiometer, stalagmometer, or any other equivalent 
surface tension measuring device for measuring surface tension in 
dynes per centimeter.
    11.1.1 If a tensiometer is used, the procedures specified in 
ASTM Method D 1331-89 must be followed.
    11.1.2 If a stalagmometer is used, the procedures specified in 
Sections 11.1.2.1 through 11.1.2.3 must be followed.
    11.1.2.1 Check the stalagmometer for visual signs of damage. If 
the stalagmometer appears to be chipped, cracked, or otherwise in 
disrepair, the instrument shall not be used.
    11.1.2.2 Using distilled or deionized water and following the 
procedures provided by the manufacturer, count the number of drops 
corresponding to the distilled/deionized water liquid volume between 
the upper and lower etched marks on the stalagmometer. If the number 
of drops for the distilled/deionized water is not within 1 drop of the number indicated on the instrument, the 
stalagmometer must be cleaned, using the procedures specified in 
Section 11.1.3 of this method, before using the instrument to 
measure the surface tension of the tank liquid.
    11.1.2.2.1 If the stalagmometer must be cleaned, as indicated in 
Section 11.1.2.2, repeat the procedure specified in Section 11.1.2.2 
before proceeding.
    11.1.2.2.2 If, after cleaning and performing the procedure in 
Section 11.1.2.2, the number of drops indicated for the distilled/
deionized water is not within 1 drop of the number 
indicated on the instrument, either use the number of drops 
corresponding to the distilled/deionized water volume as the 
reference number of drops, or replace the instrument.
    11.1.2.3 Determine the surface tension of the tank liquid using 
the procedures specified by the manufacturer of the stalagmometer.
    11.1.3 Stalagmometer cleaning procedures. The procedures 
specified in Sections 11.1.3.1 through 11.1.3.10 shall be used for 
cleaning a stalagmometer, as required by Section 11.1.2.2.
    11.1.3.1 Set up the stalagmometer on its stand in a fume hood.
    11.1.3.2 Place a clean 150 (mL) beaker underneath the 
stalagmometer and fill the beaker with reagent grade concentrated 
nitric acid.
    11.1.3.3 Immerse the bottom tip of the stalagmometer 
(approximately 1 centimeter (0.5 inches)) into the beaker.
    11.1.3.4 Squeeze the rubber bulb and pinch at the arrow up (1) 
position to collapse.
    11.1.3.5 Place the bulb end securely on top end of stalagmometer 
and carefully draw the nitric acid by pinching the arrow up (1) 
position until the level is above the top etched line.
    11.1.3.6 Allow the nitric acid to remain in stalagmometer for 5 
minutes, then carefully remove the bulb, allowing the acid to 
completely drain.
    11.1.3.7 Fill a clean 150 mL beaker with distilled or deionized 
water.
    11.1.3.8 Using the rubber bulb per the instructions in Sections 
11.1.3.4 and 11.1.3.5, rinse and drain stalagmometer with deionized 
or distilled water.
    11.1.3.9 Fill a clean 150 mL beaker with isopropyl alcohol.
    11.1.3.10 Again using the rubber bulb per the instructions in 
Sections 11.1.3.4 and 11.1.3.5, rinse and drain stalagmometer twice 
with isopropyl alcohol and allow the stalagmometer to dry 
completely.
    11.2 * * *
* * * * *
    11.2.2 If a measurement of the surface tension of the solution 
is above the 40 dynes per centimeter limit when measured using a 
stalagmometer, above 33 dynes per centimeter when measured using a 
tensiometer, or above an alternate surface tension limit established 
during the performance test, the time interval shall revert back to 
the original monitoring schedule of once every 4 hours. A subsequent 
decrease in frequency would then be allowed according to Section 
11.2.1.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-20642 Filed 9-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P