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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
58220 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 http://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 

http://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 Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; and Steel Pickling—HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants.Sara Ayres, (202) 564–5391, 

ayres.sara@epa.gov.

Phil Mulrine, (919) 541–5289, 

mulrine.phil@epa.gov. 

aEPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

bEPA’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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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

Source category Number of 

affected plants 

Capital costs 

$ 

Annualized costs 

$/yr 

Emissions 

reductions 

lbs/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 facilities .................................. 1 100,000–200,000 11,419–22,837 30,000 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
58222 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 .........................................

Decorative Chromium Electroplating ............................

332813 

332813 

1607 

1610 

Hard Chromium Electroplating ..................................... 332813 1615 

Steel Pickling—HCl Process Facilities And Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants NESHAP, Subpart CCC ..... 3311, 3312 0310 

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: http://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 http://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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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, tarnishand 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 PFOSbased 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
58224 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.

html 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 °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 noncancer 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
58226 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 costeffectiveness 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

Option 

Emission 

reductions 

in lbs/yr 

Total emissions in 

lbs/yr 

MIR 1

(in-a-million) Incidence 

(cases/yr) 

Number of 

people 

with risk > 

1-in-1 million 

Number of 

people w/ 

risk > 10- 

in-1 million 

Annualized 

costs 

Cost-effectiveness 

(per lb) Actual Allowable 

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. 

2There 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-tosales 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 costeffectiveness 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 costeffectively, 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

Option 

Emission 

reductions 

in lbs/yr 

Total 

emissions 

in lbs/yr 

MIR 1

(in-a-million) Incidence 

(cases/yr) 

Number of 

people 

with risk 

> 1-in-1 

million 

Number of 

people 

with risk 

> 10-in-1 

million 

Annualized 

costs 

Cost-effectiveness 

(per lb) Actual Allowable 

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. 

2The 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 coststo-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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
58228 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 costeffectively, 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-in1 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

Option 

Emission 

reductions 

in lbs/yr 

Total 

emissions 

in lbs/yr 

MIR 1

(in-a-million) Incidence 

(cases/yr) 

Number of 

people 

with risk > 

1-in-1 

million 

Number of 

people 

with risk > 

10-in-1 

million 

Annualized 

costs 

Costeffectiveness 

Actual Allowable (per lb) 

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. 

2The 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 costeffectively 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

Option 

Emission 

reductions 

in lbs/yr 

Total 

emissions 

in 

lbs/yr 

MIR 1

(in-a-million) Incidence 

(cases/yr) 

Number 

people 

with risk > 

1-in-1 

million 

Number 

people 

with risk > 

10-in-1 

million 

Annualized 

costs 

Costeffectiveness Actual Allowable (per lb) 

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. 

2The 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-in1 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, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
58230 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonPFOS 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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. §§ 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
58232 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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, costeffectiveness, 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. 

§ 7412(h). The commenter pointed out 

that section 112(h) of the Act, id. 

§ 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 concentrationbased 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58233 

1Cal. 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), http://oehha.ca.gov/air/ 

hot_spots/SRP/index.html), http://oehha.ca.gov/air/ 

hot_spots/SRP/index.html; see also id. at E–12 tbl. 

E3 (describing exposure pathways for analysis). 

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. 

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 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/ 

risk_atra_main.html), was developed 

considering all of the available 

information on persistence and 

bioaccumulation. This list was peerreviewed 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
58234 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

2EPA, 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). 

3Cal. EPA OEHHA, Public Health Goal for 

Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water (July 

2011). 

4Cal. EPA, OEHHA, Evidence of the 

Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity of 

Chromium (Hexavalent Compounds) 3 (Aug. 2009), 

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/hazard_ident/ 

pdf_zip/chrome0908.pdf. 

5U.S. EPA, Child-Specific Exposure Factors 

Handbook (Sept. 2008), EPA/600/R–06/096F, 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ 

recordisplay.cfm?deid=199243. 

6The 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. 

7We 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—http://www.oehha.ca.gov/public_info/ 

public/kids/pdf/SchoolscreenFinal.pdf). 

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 http:// 

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 noncancer 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.234 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. 

The commenter noted that the EPA 

restricted its application of agedependent 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 childspecific exposure factors in this 

rulemaking, and follow the Science 

Advisory Board’s recommendations 

regarding the greater exposure and 

vulnerability of children.5

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 childhealth 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 preexisting 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 

http://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

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

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 facilityspecific 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-in1 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
58236 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58237 

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. 

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 nonPFOS 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 nonPFOS fume suppressants. The vendors 

who responded were confident that 

their non-PFOS fume suppressants 

could reach the proposed surface 

tension limits (see Information on NonPFOS 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 nonPFOS 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 nonPFOS fume suppressant reduced 

emissions just as effectively as the PFOS 

for about the same costs.8

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 nonPFOS 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 nonPFOS 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 nonPFOS 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 nonPFOS 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 sourcespecific 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
58238 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 sourcespecific 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 sourcespecific 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58239 

amending the MACT standard nor reassessing 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

Source category or subcategory Number of 

affected plants 

Capital costs 

(controls + 

WAFS + all 

testing) 

Annualized costs 

(controls + 

WAFS + all 

testing), $/yr 

Emissions 

reductions 

(lbs/yr) 

Cost 

effectiveness 

(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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
58240 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

9http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/data/ 

susb2002.html. 

10The SBREFA compliance guidance to EPA 

rulewriters regarding the types of small business 

analysis that should be considered can be found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/GuidanceRegFlexAct.pdf. See Table 2 on page 36 for 

guidance on interpretations of the magnitude of the 

cost-to-sales numbers. 

11U.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. 

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-torevenue 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

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58241 

12The 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. 

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. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
58242 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 lowincome, 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Amend § 63.341 by: 

■ 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’’; 

■ b. Revising in paragraph (a) the 

definition for ‘‘wetting agent’’; and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b)(10). 

The added and revised text reads as 

follows: 

§ 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

■ 3. Amend § 63.342 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(1); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i), 

(c)(1)(ii), and (c)(1)(iii); 

■ d. Adding paragraphs (c)(1)(iv) and 

(c)(1)(v); 

■ e. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i), 

(c)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(iii), and (c)(2)(iv); 

■ f. Adding paragraphs (c)(2)(vi), 

(c)(2)(vii), and (c)(2)(viii); 

■ g. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and 

(d)(2); 

■ h. Adding paragraphs (d)(3) and 

(d)(4); 

■ i. Revising paragraph (e)(1); 

■ j. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(2) and 

(e)(3) as paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4), and 

revising the newly designated paragraph 

(e)(4); 

■ k. Adding a new paragraph (e)(2); 

■ l. Adding paragraph (f)(3)(i)(F); and 

■ m. Adding Table 2 to read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 × 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
58244 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

exceed 0.015 mg/dscm (6.6 × 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 × 10¥3 pound-force per foot 

(lbf/ft)), as measured by a 

stalagmometer, or 33 dynes/cm (2.3 × 

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 × 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 × 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 × 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 × 10¥3 lbf/ft), 

as measured by a stalagmometer, or 33 

dynes/cm (2.3 × 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 § 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 × 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 

§ 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 × 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 (2.6×10¥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 × 10¥3 lbf/ft), 

as measured by a stalagmometer or 33 

dynes/cm (2.3 × 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 §§ 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 

§ 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 § 63.347(i)(3) and 

comply with the applicable emission 

limitation within the timeframe 

specified in § 63.343(a)(7). 

(f) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(F) The plan shall include 

housekeeping procedures, as specified 

in Table 2 of this section. 

* * * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58245 

TABLE 2 TO § 63.342—HOUSEKEEPING PRACTICES

For You must: At this minimum frequency 

1. Any substance used in an affected chromium 

electroplating or chromium anodizing tank 

that contains hexavalent chromium.

(a) Store the substance in a closed container 

in an enclosed storage area or building; 

AND 

(b) Use a closed container when transporting 

the substance from the enclosed storage 

area.

At all times, except when transferring the substance to and from the container. 

Whenever transporting substance, except 

when transferring the substance to and 

from the container. 

2. Each affected tank, to minimize spills of bath 

solution that result from dragout. Note: this 

measure does not require the return of contaminated bath solution to the tank. This requirement applies only as the parts are removed from the tank. Once away from the 

tank area, any spilled solution must be handled in accordance with Item 4 of these 

housekeeping measures.

(a) Install drip trays that collect and return to 

the tank any bath solution that drips or 

drains from parts as the parts are removed 

from the tank; OR 

(b) Contain and return to the tank any bath 

solution that drains or 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.

Prior to operating the tank. 

Whenever removing parts from an affected 

tank. 

Whenever removing parts from an affected 

tank. 

3. Each spraying operation for removing excess 

chromic acid from parts removed from, and 

occurring over, an affected tank.

Install a splash guard to minimize overspray 

during spraying operations and to ensure 

that any hexavalent chromium laden liquid 

captured by the splash guard is returned to 

the affected chromium electroplating or anodizing tank.

Prior to any such spraying operation. 

4. Each operation that involves the handling or 

use of any substance used in an affected 

chromium electroplating or chromium anodizing tank that contains hexavalent chromium.

Begin clean up, or otherwise contain, all spills 

of the substance. Note: substances that fall 

or flow into drip trays, pans, sumps, or 

other containment areas are not considered 

spills.

Within 1 hour of the spill. 

5. Surfaces within the enclosed storage area, 

open floor area, walkways around affected 

tanks contaminated with hexavalent chromium from an affected chromium electroplating or chromium anodizing tank.

(a) Clean the surfaces using one or more of 

the following methods: HEPA vacuuming; 

Hand-wiping with a damp cloth; Wet mopping; Hose down or rinse with potable water 

that is collected in a wastewater collection 

system; Other cleaning method approved 

by the permitting authority; OR 

(b) Apply a non-toxic chemical dust suppressant to the surfaces.

At least once every 7 days if one or more 

chromium electroplating or chromium anodizing tanks were used, or at least after 

every 40 hours of operating time of one or 

more affection chromium electroplating or 

chromium anodizing tank, whichever is 

later. 

According to manufacturer’s recommendations. 

6. All buffing, grinding, or polishing operations 

that are located in the same room as chromium electroplating or chromium anodizing 

operations.

Separate the operation from any affected 

electroplating or anodizing operation by installing a physical barrier; the barrier may 

take the form of plastic strip curtains.

Prior to beginning the buffing, grinding, or 

polishing operation. 

7. All chromium or chromium-containing wastes 

generated from housekeeping activities.

Store, dispose, recover, or recycle the wastes 

using practices that do not lead to fugitive 

dust and in accordance with hazardous 

waste requirements.

At all times. 

■ 4. Section 63.343 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), 

and (a)(4), and adding paragraph (a)(8); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(1); and 

■ 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: 

§ 63.343 Compliance provisions. 

(a)(1) The owner or operator of an 

existing affected source shall comply 

with the emission limitations in 

§ 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 

§ 63.342(c) or (d) shall implement the 

housekeeping procedures specified in 

Table 2 of § 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 § 63.7, using the 

procedures and test methods listed in 

§§ 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
58246 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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: 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 63.344 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Removing ‘‘and’’ from the end of 

paragraph (b)(1)(iii); 

■ c. Removing the period from the end 

of paragraph (b)(1)(iv) and adding ‘‘; 

and’’ in its place; 

■ d. Adding paragraphs (b)(1)(v) 

through (b)(1)(viii); 

■ e. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(b)(2); 

■ f. Revising paragraph (c)(1); 

■ g. Revising paragraphs (e)(3)(iii), 

(e)(3)(iv), and (e)(3)(v); 

■ h. Revising paragraphs (e)(4)(ii) and 

(e)(4)(iv); 

■ i. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(A) and 

(f)(1)(ii)(A); and 

■ j. Adding paragraph (f)(1)(iii). 

The added and revised text reads as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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: 

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; èIAtotal 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: 

where S VRinlet is the total ventilation rate in 

dscm/min from the affected sources, and EL 

is the applicable emission limitation from 

§ 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: 

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; èIAtotal 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: 

The allowable mass emission rate 

calculated from equation 8 should be 

equal to or more than the outlet threerun 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 

§ 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: 

* * * * * 

(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 

§ 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER19SE12.000</GPH> ER19SE12.001</GPH> ER19SE12.002</GPH> ER19SE12.003</GPH> ER19SE12.004</GPH>
58248 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

emission rate calculated using equation 

10: 

* * * * * 

(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 § 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: 

(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. 

■ 6. Amend § 63.346 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(2),(b)(4) and (b)(13) to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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; 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 63.347 by: 

■ a. Adding paragraph (f)(3); 

■ 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 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(i) 

introductory text and (h)(2)(i)(A) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.347 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3)(i) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test 

(defined in § 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 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ 

index.html). 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 § 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 § 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 § 63.343(c)) is 1 

percent or greater of the total operating 

time for the reporting period; or 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend Table 1 to Subpart N by: 

■ 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). 

■ 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). 

■ 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: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER19SE12.005</GPH> ER19SE12.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58249 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART N OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART N 

General provisions reference Applies to 

subpart 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 ..................... § 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 § 63.344(a). Any cross reference to § 63.7(e)(1) in any other general provision 

incorporated by reference shall be treated as a cross-reference to § 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] 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
58250 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART N OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART N—Continued 

General provisions reference Applies to 

subpart N Comment 

*******

Subpart CCC—[AMENDED] 

■ 9. Section 63.1155 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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. 

■ 10. Section 63.1156 is amended by 

adding in alphabetical order a definition 

for ‘‘affirmative defense’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 63.1157 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 12. Section 63.1159 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 13. Section 63.1160 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1160 Compliance dates and 

maintenance requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) Maintenance requirements. (1) The 

owner or operator shall prepare an 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

■ 14. Section 63.1161 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); and 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(c)(2). 

§ 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 § 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 15. Section 63.1164 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); and 

■ b. Revising paragraph (c). 

§ 63.1164 Reporting requirements. 

(a) Reporting results of performance 

tests. Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test 

(defined in § 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 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/

index.html). 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 § 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 

§ 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. 

■ 16. Section 63.1165 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(4); 

■ c. Removing paragraph (a)(5), and 

redesignating paragraphs (a)(6) through 

(a)(11) as (a)(5) through (a)(10). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 63.1165 Recordkeeping requirements. 

(a) * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
58252 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 § 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); 

* * * * * 

■ 17. Table 1 to Subpart CCC is 

amended by: 

■ a. Removing entry 63.6(a)–(g); 

■ b. Adding entry 63.6(a)–(d) in 

alphanumerical order; 

■ 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; 

■ d. Removing entry 63.7–63.9; 

■ 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; 

■ f. Removing entry 63.10(a)–(c); 

■ 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; 

■ h. Removing entry 63.10(d)(4)–(5); 

and 

■ 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 

Reference Applies to 

subpart CCC Explanation 

*******

63.6 (a)–(d) .............................................. Yes.

63.6(e)(1)(i) .............................................. No ..................... See § 63.1259(c) for general duty requirement. Any cross-reference to 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) in any other general provision incorporated by reference shall be 

treated as a cross-reference to § 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 § 63.1265(a)(1) for recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of malfunctions. 

See § 63.1265(a)(4) for recordkeeping of actions taken during malfunction. Any 

cross-reference to § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) in any other general provision incorporated 

by reference shall be treated as a cross-reference to § 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 § 63.1164(c) for reporting malfunctions. Any cross-reference to § 63.10(c)(10) 

in any other general provision incorporated by reference shall be treated as a 

cross-reference to § 63.1164(c). 

63.10(c)(11) .............................................. No ..................... See § 63.1164(c) for reporting malfunctions. Any cross-reference to § 63.10(c)(11) 

in any other general provision incorporated by reference shall be treated as a 

cross-reference to § 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.

*******

■ 18. Amend Appendix A to part 63, 

Method 306B by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph 1.2; 

■ b. Revising paragraph 6.1; 

■ c. Revising paragraphs 11.1 through 

11.1.3; and 

■ d. Revising paragraph 11.2.2. 

■ The added and revised text reads as 

follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2