***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

6560-50-P

E.O. 12866 Chromium Electroplating/Steel Pickling 2060-AQ60 

Promulgation 20120713

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 (75 FR 65068). On 

February 8, 2012, EPA published a supplemental proposal with new 

analyses and results (77 FR 6628). For hard and decorative 

chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks these final 

amendments addressing Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 112(d)(6) and 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 2 of 166

(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. 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). 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 [INSERT THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

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 website. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 3 of 166

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 4 of 166

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 Contacta OAQPS Contactb

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

a EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

b EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble 

is organized as follows:

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

B. Does this action apply to me?

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

information?

D. Judicial Review

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: A

Deleted: Does this action apply to 

me?

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: B

Deleted: C
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 5 of 166

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 Chromium 

Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing source categories? 

B. What are the compliance dates for the Chromium 

Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing source category 

amendments?

C. What are the final rule amendments for 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 Chromium 

Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Source Categories

B. Comments and Responses Associated With the Steel Pickling 

Source Category

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-
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 6 of 166

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 7 of 166

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), 

Deleted: ¶
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 8 of 166

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. 

TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF THE COSTS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR THE 

FINAL CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING NESHAP AMENDMENTS
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 9 of 166

Source Category Capital Costs,$

Annualized 

Costs,$/yr

Emissions 

Reductions, lbs/yr

Large hard chromium 

electroplating $6,377,000 $1,686,000 148

Small hard chromium 

electroplating $1,424, 000 $476,000 33

Decorative chromium 

electroplating $163,000 $166,000 35

Total $8,340,000 $2,390,000 224

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 2 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 code1 MACT code2

Chromium 

Electroplating

NESHAP, 

Subpart N

Chromium Anodizing 

Tanks 332813 1607

Decorative Chromium 

Electroplating 332813 1610

Hard Chromium 

Electroplating 332813 1615

Steel Pickling – HCl Process 3311, 3312 0310

Deleted: A

Comment [A1]: Interagency Comment: 

Before this section, in a new “A” 

section, can you please add an 

executive summary? 

Guidance was given to agencies on 

1/2/2012 on drafting an executive 

summary, which I’ve pasted in 

below. 

Suggested Template for Executive 

Summaries (generally 3-4 pages of a 

double-spaced Word document 

maximum, although unusually complex 

or lengthy regulatory actions may 

require longer executive summaries) 

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

a. The need for the regulatory 

action and how the action will meet 

that need 

b. Succinct statement of legal 

authority for the regulatory action 

(explaining, in brief, the legal 

authority laid out later in the 

preamble) 

II. Summary of the Major Provisions 

of the Regulatory Action In 

Question 

(Each major provision should be 

described clearly and separately, 

along with a brief 

justification) 

III. Costs and Benefits 

(For economically significant 

regulatory actions, please include 

a table summarizing the assessment 

of costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative I )\

For an example of a sample executive summary 

that follows the above guidance, see: 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilan

dgas/pdfs/20120417finalrule.pdf

Comment [MR2]: EPA response: 

Executive Summary added.

Deleted: 2

Deleted: 2
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 10 of 166

Facilities And Hydrochloric Acid 

Regeneration Plants NESHAP, 

Subpart CCC 1 North American Industry Classification System 2 Maximum Achievable Control Technology

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

information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic 

copy of this final action will also be available on the World 

Wide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this 

final action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and guidance 

page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following 

address: 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 

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: B

Deleted: C
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 11 of 166

Circuit by [INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 12 of 166

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 13 of 166

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 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. Alternatively, these sources have the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 14 of 166

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. 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.

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 15 of 166

bright, tarnish- and wear-resistant surface. Decorative chromium 

electroplating is used for items such as automotive trim, metal 

furniture, bicycles, hand tools, and plumbing fixtures. We 

estimate that there currently are approximately 423 decorative 

chromium electroplating plants in operation. The 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 140 chromium anodizing plants in 

operation. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 16 of 166

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 FR 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 

Deleted: and cancer health benefits 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 17 of 166

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 was that 

PFOS-based WAFS are part of a chemical family that have been 

demonstrated to be persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic and are 

a particular concern for children’s health and there were 

alternatives that did not have known adverse health effects. We 

explained that alternatives to PFOS-based WAFS had been 

successfully used in the hard and decorative chrome source 

categories and stated that while alternatives had not been used 

extensively in chromium anodizing, we were unaware of any 

technical reason that precluded such use. We specifically 

solicited comment on this issue. 

Deleted: yl

Deleted: ates
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 18 of 166

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 also 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).

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 Deleted: 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 19 of 166

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 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

Deleted: as

Deleted: 

Deleted: we did not identify any 

significant noncancer risks
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 20 of 166

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 

Deleted: the 

Deleted: cancer 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 21 of 166

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

Comment [A3]: added for clarity
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 22 of 166

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. 

In the supplemental proposal, we also proposed to revise 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 23 of 166

the reporting requirements in the NESHAP to require electronic 

reporting of required performance test reports, which would 

allow us to develop improved emission factors, make fewer 

information requests, and ultimately promulgate better 

regulations. We indicated our belief that industry would benefit 

from this approach to test data submission. See 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. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 24 of 166

point from acid regeneration plants is the spray roaster.

We estimate that there are approximately 80 facilities

subject to the Steel Pickling NESHAP. Many of these facilities 

are located adjacent to integrated iron and steel manufacturing 

plants or electric arc furnace steelmaking facilities 

(minimills) that produce steel from scrap. Acid Regeneration 

facilities may or may not be located at steel pickling 

operations.

D. Summary of the Proposed Amendments to the Steel Pickling 

Source Category

In 2010, pursuant to section 112(f)(2) of the CAA, we 

evaluated the residual risk associated with the NESHAP. We also 

conducted a technology review, as required by section 112(d)(6) 

of the CAA. Based on our risk analysis, we determined that there 

were no cancer risks attributable to emissions from the steel 

pickling source category. We also estimated the maximum chronic 

non-cancer TOSHI value to be 2 based on emissions of chlorine 

and the maximum off-facility-site acute Hazard Quotient (HQ)

value could be up to 0.4, based on actual emission levels and 

the reference exposure level (REL) value for chlorine. 75 FR at 

65122-24. We proposed on October 21, 2010 that the risks were 

acceptable based on our determination that facilities in this 

source category emit no HAPs that are carcinogens and because 

Deleted: determined that

Deleted: could 

Deleted: up to

Deleted: as high as 

Deleted: as high as

Deleted: p

Comment [c4]: [A3]: Interagency 

Comment: Consistent with edits made 

to other RTR packages – up to is 

neutral language.

Deleted: The risks based on allowable 

emissions would be about the same 

since actual emissions are 

approximately the same as allowable 

emissions for this source category. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 25 of 166

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: 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 26 of 166

• 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 HCl regeneration facilities to 

establish an alternative chlorine concentration standard for 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 27 of 166

existing acid regeneration plants. 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 as described above for the chromium 

electroplating and chromium anodizing source category 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 28 of 166

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. 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 

Deleted: 

Comment [A5]: Interagency Comment: 

This should be cited in the 

executive summary

Comment [MR6]: EPA response: O.K. 

We inserted it in Exec. Summary.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 29 of 166

$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 because the cancer MIRs for each of the source 

categories are below 100-in-1 million, population cancer risks 

are not substantial, and there are no significant non-cancer 

risks. 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 

Deleted: 

Comment [A7]: Interagency Comment: I 

thought that the less than 100-ina-million was sufficient for 

finding risks acceptable. Has 

this justification been used 

before? What if only two of these 

conditions were met – does EPA hava 

bright line? 

Comment [MAM8]: EPA response: The 

Benzene NESHAP states: “...rather 

than a rigid line for 

acceptability, the Agency intends 

to weigh it [MIR] with a series of 

other health measures...”

Deleted: 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 30 of 166

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 various 

emission control options, and the costs and economic impacts 

associated with those options. In the supplemental proposal we 

presented the costs and economic impacts of various 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 31 of 166

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 noncancer 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 32 of 166

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

MIR1

(in-amillion)

Incidence 

(cases/

yr)

# 

people 

with 

risk > 

1-in-1

million

# 

people 

w/ risk 

> 10-

in-1

million

Annual

-ized 

costs

Costeffectiveness 

(per 

lb)

Actu

al

Allo

wabl

e

Baseline:

current 

situation

0 454 20 50 0.03 88,000 740 0 NA

Option 1

– Final: 

limit of 

0.011 

mg/dscm

148 306 202 40 0.02 59,000 500 $1.7 M $11,000

Option 2:

limit of 

0.0075 

mg/dscm

169 285 10 30 0.022 55,000 470 $4.1 M $24,700 

Option 3:

limit of 

0.006 

mg/dscm

180 274 8 20 0.022 53,000 450 $5.3 M $29,900 

1 MIR estimates are derived from estimates of actual and allowable 

emissions. Population risk estimates are derived from estimates of actual 

emissions. 2 There are further risk reductions associated with this option compared 

to option 1, but they are not large enough to change the risk values as 

presented to one significant figure.

We also estimated impacts of Option 1 to small businesses, 

and found that most facilities would have a costs-to-sales ratio 

of less than 1 percent. However, we estimated that 6 plants 

could have costs-to-sales ratios up to 9 percent. (See Economic 

Impact Analysis for Risk and Technology Review: Chromium 

Deleted: 3

Deleted: 3

Deleted: 2

Comment [A9]: Is the footnote 

appropriate here?

Comment [MAM10]: Good question. We 

believe it is not relevant here.

So, we deleted it.

Deleted: 2

Comment [A11]: Interagency comment: 

What are these differences – how 

far out are they –one decimal 

place, two , or more?

Comment [CLF12]: EPA response: We 

estimate that Options 2 and 3 would 

achieve slightly more reductions in 

incidence compared to Option 1. 

However, the results round off to 

0.02 cases per year. We do not 

think it is appropriate to present 

results in more than 1 single 

figure. We added this statement to 

answer the reader’s obvious 

question of why there are no 

apparent risk reductions when there 

are emissions reductions.

Comment [A13]: Where can the reader 

find this analysis?

Comment [MR14]: Reference added.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 33 of 166

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 3, Option 

1 also achieves meaningful reductions in risks associated with 

exposure to a known human carcinogen, including an estimated 30

percent reduction in the MIR, cancer incidence, and the numbers

of people with risks at or above 1-in-1 million and 10-in-1

million. For the other two options (Options 2 and 3), the 

estimated annualized costs and cost-effectiveness values were 

more than double those of Option 1 and a significantly greater

number of small businesses would be impacted, with only small 

additional risk reductions achieved beyond Option 1. Although 

Options 2 and 3 reduce the baseline MIR by 50 percent or more, 

the baseline MIR is already considerably below 100-in-1 million, 

and the options reduce incidence and population risks only 

slightly. Considering the cost, economic, and risk impacts 

discussed above, we conclude that Option 1 provides an ample 

margin of safety.

Furthermore, in the 2010 proposal (75 FR 65068), we 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 34 of 166

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 35 of 166

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 addon 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 

Deleted: while still 

Comment [A15]: Interagency comment:

Is this limit being set under 

112(d) or 112(f)? Seems strange to 

discuss the risks from new sources 

being acceptable, since the risk 

review only occurs once. 

Comment [MR16]: EPA response: This 

comment was addressed during the 

8/2/12 conference call. As we 

discussed, Section 112(f) applies 

to existing and new sources and EPA 

needs to determine if the standards 

(for existing and new sources) 

provide an ample margin of safety. 

The new source limits are being 

promulgated under both 112(f) and 

112(d)(6).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 36 of 166

is explained further in the supplemental proposal. 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 (inamillion) 1Incidence 

(case

s/ 

yr)

# 

people 

with 

risk > 

1-in-1 

million

# 

people 

with 

risk > 

10-in-1 

million

Annualized 

costs

Costeffectiveness 

(per lb)

Act

ual

All

owa

ble

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 0.012 29,000 245 $1.5 M $21,000

Option 3:

0.006 

mg/dscm

116 107 4 10 0.008 22,500 190 $2.2 M $19,300

1 MIR estimates are derived from estimates of actual and allowable 

emissions. Population risk estimates are derived from estimates of actual 

emissions. 2 The incidence estimate under Option 2 is less than the incidence 

estimate under option 1, but the estimates are reported as the same when 

rounded to one significant figure. 

We also estimated the impacts of Option 1 to small 

businesses, and found that most facilities would have a 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 

Deleted: 4

Deleted: 4
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 37 of 166

Options 2 and 3 would pose impacts to a larger number of small 

businesses. 

Option 1, as shown in Table 4, 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 

facilities to install HEPA filters on all hard chromium plants. 

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 

Deleted: e
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 38 of 166

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 39 of 166

chromium plants because this is the lowest level that can be 

reliably achieved cost-effectively, such as allowing plants the 

flexibility to use add-on controls or WAFS to comply. This limit 

will ensure that the risks posed by any new sources will be 

acceptable and the standard will provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse 

environmental effect.

Decorative Chromium Electroplating Emission Limits.

For the Decorative Chromium Electroplating source category, 

the MIR due to actual emissions is estimated to be 10-in-1 

million, and the cancer incidence is estimated to be 0.02 cases 

per year. The MIR due to allowable emissions is estimated to be 

70-in-1 million, and the cancer incidence is estimated to be 

0.08 cases per year. Based on actual emissions, approximately 

100 people are estimated to have cancer risks at or above 10-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 

Deleted: while still 

Comment [A17]: Same comment as 

above.

Comment [MR18]: See response 

above.

Deleted: 50

Deleted: decided to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 40 of 166

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 

Deleted: therefore 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 41 of 166

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, yet 

reducing the limit from 0.007 to 0.006 mg/dscm would provide 

minimal additional risk reduction. 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 (inamillion) 1Incidence 

(case

s/ 

yr)

# 

people 

with 

risk > 

1-in-1 

million

# people 

with 

risk > 

10-in-1 

million

Annualized 

costs

Costeffectiveness 

(per lb)

Act

ual

All

owa

ble

Baseline: 

current 

situation

0 222 10 70 0.02 43,000 100 0 NA

Option 1 

(0.007

mg/dscm)

35 187 7 50 0.022 36,000 80 $170K $5,000

Deleted: 

Comment [A19]: Interagency Comment: 

What is this risk reduction? 

Consider adding it in parentheses. 

Comment [MR20]: EPA response: 

Cannot really quantify; would not 

reduce the MIR, and the reductions 

in population exposed would likely 

be at most a few percent.

Deleted: 5

Deleted: 5

Deleted: 84
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 42 of 166 1 MIR estimates are derived from estimates of actual and allowable 

emissions. Population risk estimates are derived from estimates of actual 

emissions. 2 The incidence estimate under Option 1 is less than the baseline 

estimate, but the estimates are reported as the same when rounded to one 

significant figure. 

With regard to the risk reductions achieved by the proposed 

lower limit of 0.007 mg/dscm, we estimate that the MIR based on 

actual emissions of hexavalent chromium, a known human 

carcinogen, would be reduced by about 30%, and the total 

estimated cancer incidence, the number of people estimated to 

have cancer risks at or above 10-in-1 million and the number of 

people estimated to have risks at or above 1-in-1 million would 

be reduced by about 15 percent. The MIR based on allowable 

emissions will be reduced from 70-in-1 million to 50-in-1

million. We also considered a limit of 0.006 mg/dscm; however,

reducing the limit from 0.007 to 0.006 mg/dscm would provide

minimal additional risk reduction and would likely result in 

more sources needing to upgrade add-on controls which would 

result in significantly higher costs. Therefore, after 

considering all the costs, economic and health factors, and 

comments, we are promulgating an emissions limit of 0.007 

mg/dscm for decorative chromium sources, as proposed in the 

supplemental proposal (77 FR 6628).

With regard to new sources, as described in detail in the 

supplemental proposal, we proposed a limit of 0.006 mg/dscm. The 

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: would be reduced by about 

15%

Deleted: would be reduced from 100 to 

80, 

Deleted: from 43,000 to 36,000
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 43 of 166

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 decorative chromium electroplating plants 

because this is the lowest level that can be reliably achieved 

cost-effectively and while still allowing plants the flexibility 

to use add-on controls or WAFS to comply. This limit will ensure 

that the risks posed by any new sources will be acceptable and 

the standard will provide an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. 

Chromic Acid Anodizing Emission Limits. 

For the Chromic Acid Anodizing source category, the MIR due 

to actual emissions is estimated to be 5-in-1 million, and the 

cancer incidence is estimated to be 0.003 cases per year. The 

MIR due to allowable emissions is estimated to be 60-in-1 

million, and the cancer incidence is estimated to be 0.08 cases 

per year. Based on actual emissions, no people are estimated to 

have cancer risks at or above 10-in-1 million, and approximately 

5,000 people are estimated to have cancer risks at or above 1-

in-1 million. We also estimate that the potential is low for 

chronic and acute non-cancer health effects, and for 

multipathway risks. As discussed in the preamble to the 

supplemental proposed rule, we conclude that the risks from this 

Comment [A21]: Same comment as 

above.

Comment [MR22]: See response 

above.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 44 of 166

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 (in1-

million) 1

Incidence 

(cases

/ yr)

# 

people 

with 

risk > 

1-in-1 

million

# 

people 

with 

risk > 

10-in-1 

million

Annualized 

costs

Costeffectiveness 

(per lb)

Ac

tu

al

Allo

wabl

es

Baseline: 

current 

situation

0 57 5 60 0.003 5,000 0 NA NA

Option 1 

(0.007

mg/dscm)

8 49 3 40

0.0032

4,000 0 $50K $6,580

1 MIR estimates are derived from estimates of actual and allowable 

emissions. Population risk estimates are derived from estimates of actual 

emissions. 2 The incidence estimate under Option 1 is less than the baseline 

incidence estimate, but the estimates are reported as the same when rounded 

to one significant figure. 

As explained in the proposal, we had less source data for 

anodizing plants; however, we determined that based on the 

similarities with decorative chromium sources, it was 

Deleted: 6

Deleted: 6

Deleted: a

Deleted: ¶
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 45 of 166

appropriate to evaluate the same options and also to propose the 

same limits for anodizing plants as proposed for decorative 

sources. With regard to the risk reductions achieved by the 

proposed limit of 0.007 mg/dscm, we estimate that the MIR based 

on actual emissions of hexavalent chromium, a known human 

carcinogen, would be reduced to about 3-in-1 million, the total 

estimated cancer incidence would be reduced by about 15%, and 

the number of people estimated to have risks at or above 1-in-1

million would be reduced from 5,000 to 4,000. As we did for the 

decorative chromium electroplating category, we also considered 

a limit of 0.006 mg/dscm for the anodizing category, however the 

additional reduction in risk that would be achieved by going 

from 0.007 to 0.006 would be minimal, and this change would 

likely result in increased costs. After considering all the 

costs, economic and health factors, we are promulgating an 

emissions limit of 0.007 mg/dscm for chromic acid anodizing 

sources (77 FR 6628).

With regard to new sources, as described in detail in the 

supplemental proposal, we proposed a limit of 0.006 mg/dscm. The 

rationale for choosing 0.006 mg/dscm is described in detail in 

the supplemental proposal. After considering public comments and 

additional analyses, we are finalizing this limit of 0.006 

mg/dscm for new chromic acid anodizing plants because this is 

Comment [A23]: Interagency Comment: 

Did you receive comment on this? 

It seems that the baseline impacts 

are risks are acceptable with an 

adequate margin of safety, and thus 

there’s no need to change the 

limit. 

How many facilities are affected by 

this change? 

Comment [MR24]: This comment was 

addressed during 8/2/12 conference 

call. 

 As we discussed, based on the 

limited data we have, we are not 

aware of any facilities that cannot 

meet the emissions limit (note: 

these data are described in a 

response to comments provided 

below). However, we conservatively 

assume that 10 (of the 140 

facilities) will be affected by the 

lower emissions limits, and that 

they will need to add some fume 

suppressants to achieve moderate 

additional emissions reductions to 

comply with the lower emissions 

limit. We estimate the average 

costs per plant would be $680/yr. 

 We estimate that another 64 

plants (that choose to comply with 

the rule by meeting the surface 

tension limits) will need to add 

fume suppressants to comply with 

the lower surface tension limits, 

and would also have average cost 

per plant of $680/yr. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 46 of 166

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 

Deleted: and still

Comment [A25]: See previous comment. 

Comment [MR26]: This comment was 

addressed during 8/2/12 conference 

call. See response provided above.

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: s
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 47 of 166

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 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, 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 48 of 166

using other methods when drip trays are not practical. The 

compliance date for implementing the housekeeping procedures 

will be 6 months after promulgation of the final amendments.

More details on the housekeeping requirements are explained in 

the 2010 proposal and in the RTC document. 

Phase-out of PFOS WAFS.

Also pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are specifying 

that PFOS WAFS cannot be added to any affected hard chromium 

electroplating tank, decorative chromium electroplating tank, or 

chromium anodizing tank as a method to meet the NESHAP 

requirements for these source categories . In response to public 

comments about the effectiveness and feasibility of non-PFOS 

WAFS, we collected information from several chromium 

electroplating plants in Minnesota that have been using non-PFOS 

WAFS for several years, and that information confirmed that the 

non-PFOS substitutes are effective and feasible alternatives to 

PFOS-based chemicals. See Information on non-PFOS Fume 

Suppressants in Minnesota Chromium Electroplating Facilities.

Further details are 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,
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 49 of 166

electronic reporting requirements, test procedures, and 

monitoring requirements as proposed. 

B. What are the compliance dates for the Chromium 

Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing source category 

amendments?

The effective date for the final rule amendments is [INSERT 

THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. The compliance date for implementing the housekeeping 

requirements is [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The compliance date

for the revised emission limits and surface tension limits is 

[INSERT THE DATE 2 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The compliance date for eliminating the 

use of PFOS-based fume suppressants is [INSERT THE DATE 3 YEARS 

AFTER PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 50 of 166

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 

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. 

Comment [A27]: Interagency comment: 

Did any commenters object to the 

removal of the alternative? If so, 

who? 

Comment [MR28]: EPA response: Yes, 

American Iron Oxide Company 

(AMROX). They requested that EPA 

maintain the “alternative” option 

because they could not meet the 6 

ppm emissions limit with their 

current controls. They would likely 

need to add an alkaline agent 

(e.g., sodium hydroxide) to their 

scrubber water, which they’d prefer 

not to do. 

Deleted: ¶
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 51 of 166

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 

Deleted: level 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 52 of 166

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 [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

IV. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

A. Comments and Responses Associated With the Chromium 

Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Source Categories
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 53 of 166

Many of the significant comments and our responses are 

summarized in this preamble. A summary of the public 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 54 of 166

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 55 of 166

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

Deleted: 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 56 of 166

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 57 of 166

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 58 of 166

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 

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 

Deleted: are

Comment [A29]: Interagency Comment: 

Have you responded to the 

commenter’s point that CA regulates 

hex chrome, rather than total 

chromium in the RTC? If so, what 

was stated? 

Comment [MR30]: EPA response: Yes. 

The compliance test method for the 

NESHAP measures total chromium. We 

assume that total chromium is 98% 

hexavalent chromium. Therefore, in 

effect, the NESHAP does regulate 

hex chrome. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 59 of 166

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 60 of 166

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. 

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 

Deleted: live

Deleted: ,

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Comment [A31]: Be consistent in how 

this is spelled

Comment [A32]: This was not 

described in the comment – please 

amend the comment description or 

your response

Comment [MR33]: EPA response: O.K. 

We added text above to address 

this.

Deleted: , 

Deleted: (such as schools and daycare 

centers), 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 61 of 166

or economically impracticable and that EPA may substitute work 

practice standards for emission limits only if doing so is 

consistent with the provisions of subsection (d) or (f). The 

commenter stated that EPA has not satisfied section 112(h)(1), 

which is required to set an alternative work practice standard 

in lieu of an emission standard and added that EPA may not set a 

section 112(d) emission standard based solely on one type of 

technology (fume suppressants), when other methods are 

available to achieve greater reductions. The commenter also said 

that EPA must set surface tension limits not as an alternative, 

but in addition to the concentration-based limits. The emission 

concentration-based limits must apply at all times. The 

commenter suggested that EPA update and strengthen the proposed 

surface tension limits so that they are at least as stringent as 

the emission concentration-based standards, and to require these 

limits to apply in addition to, but not in lieu of, emission 

limits.

Response: We disagree with the commenter that it is 

unlawful to set an alternative to a numerical emissions limit. 

The CAA allows us to establish alternatives to numerical 

emissions limits if we can demonstrate that the alternative 

limit (in this case, the surface tension limit) is at least as 

stringent as the numerical emissions limit. For the reasons 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 62 of 166

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 63 of 166

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 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 Fed. Reg. 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 

Comment [A34]: Interagency Comment: 

Given the very low baseline risks 

and the minimal reductions of 

tightening the standards along with 

this comment, did EPA rethink their 

determination for anodizing 

facilities?

Comment [MR35]: EPA response: This 

comment was addressed during 8/2/12 

conference call with OMB. As we 

discussed, although the MIR due to 

actuals is 5-in-1 million, the MIR 

due to allowables is 60-in-1 

million. Furthermore, under the 

ample margin of safety, we 

identified feasible and costeffective controls to further 

reduce risks. Based on the data we 

do have, we believe it is quite 

feasible for plants to meet a limit 

of 0.007 mg/dscm. In fact, we 

believe most plants already meet 

this limit. Explanation is provided 

in the “responses”. Therefore, we 

believe it is appropriate to 

tighten the standard to this level.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 64 of 166

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 

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. 

Deleted: in 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 65 of 166

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 

Comment [A36]: What percentage of 

facilities do you now have data 

for?

Comment [MR37]: We have emissions 

test concentration data for 3 of 

140 plants located outside of 

California, or about 2%. These 3 

plants have emissions 

concentrations far lower (about 10 

times lower) than the emissions 

limit. We also have emissions 

information from 3 plants in 

California for multiple tanks, as 

described in this paragraph, that 

provide additional evidence that 

these limits are quite achievable

for anodizing plants. Nevertheless, 

it is also important to note that 

at least half of the Anodizing 

facilities comply with the rule by 

meeting surface tension limits (not 

the emissions limits), so they 

likely have never conducted an 

emissions test and will not need to 

test in the foreseeable future. 

Thus, with regard to number of 

plants that comply with the rule by 

meeting the emissions limit (i.e., 

no more than 70 or so), we have 

data from at least 4% of such 

plants outside of California.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 66 of 166

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 67 of 166

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 

 

1 Cal. EPA, OEHHA, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, 

Technical Support, Document for Exposure Assessment and Stochastic Analysis, 

Scientific Review Panel Draft at F-27, E-5 (Feb. 2012), 

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). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 68 of 166

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 peer-reviewed by the SAB, and it 

is reasonable to use it in the RTR program. In addition, the 

Agency does not have information, nor did the commenter provide 

information, that would enable the EPA to determine whether the

deposition of airborne chromium from chromium electroplaters and 

the subsequent movement of the chromium in the environment would

result in human exposures that could be of concern. With regard 

to the environment, the limited available 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 

Deleted: ,

Deleted: T
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 69 of 166

developing child and fetus can result in increased cancer and 

non-cancer risk due to both increased exposure and increased 

vulnerability, and emphasizes that the EPA must account for the 

increased susceptibility of children to HAP emissions from this 

source category in the risk assessment. The commenter noted that 

according to OEHHA, there is an increased risk indicated from 

early life exposures and asserted that EPA‘s failure to include 

an adequate evaluation of increased early life susceptibility to 

HAP emissions systematically underestimates risk from hexavalent 

chromium emissions of this source category. The commenter stated 

that the EPA must follow the lead of OEHHA and include 

additional factors to address early life exposure in its risk 

assessment. The commenter also cited a recent EPA toxicological 

review and cancer toxicity reviews from California EPA (CalEPA)

that provide evidence for the mutagenic activity of hexavalent 

chromium compounds, and developmental, female reproductive and 

male reproductive toxicity.2,3,4 The commenter suggested that 

under the 2005 Guidance, risk assessments of exposure to 

hexavalent chromium should include adjustment for early life 

 

2 EPA, IRIS, Draft, Technological Review of Hexavalent Chromium (CAS No. 

18540-29-9), In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk 

Information System at 238 (Sept. 2010). 

3 Cal. EPA OEHHA, Public Health Goal for Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water 

(July 2011).

4 Cal. EPA, OEHHA, Evidence of the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity of 

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

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/hazard_ident/pdf_zip/chrome0908.pdf.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 70 of 166

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 age-dependent adjustment factors to those HAPs included in 

EPA‘s 2006 list of carcinogenic HAPs that act by a mutagenic 

mode of action, and did not apply age-dependent adjustment 

factors to assess cancer risk from chromium. The commenter 

recommended that the EPA update both its 2005 Supplemental 

Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure 

to Carcinogens (attached to comment letter), and EPA’s 2006 list 

of carcinogenic HAPs that act by a mutagenic mode of action to 

use age-dependent adjustment factors for hexavalent chromium in 

the Supplemental Guidance and incorporate more recent 

evaluations of carcinogenic modes of action in the list of 

carcinogenic HAPs. The commenter also suggested that the EPA 

should consult with multiple scientific bodies on the scientific 

basis of the proposed rulemaking: National Academy of Sciences, 

the Office of Children’s Health Protection, the Children’s 

Health Protection Advisory Committee, and scientists in the 

Office of Research and Development who focus on children‘s and 

community health (such as experts in the National Center for 

Environmental Research). The commenter asked the EPA to consider 

and follow its 2008 handbook on child-specific exposure factors 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 71 of 166

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 child-health 

reference values and those of EPA.

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s statement 

that the risk assessment underestimates risk to children and 

lacks consideration of early-life susceptibility. The EPA agrees 

that biological differences across lifestages may lead to 

differences in the susceptibility to HAP, as can differences 

among population groups due to pre-existing disease states or 

other factors. Accordingly, the methods we use in risk 

assessments have taken this into account. For the dose-response 

component of HAP assessments for RTR, the EPA uses exposure 

reference concentrations and unit risk estimates (UREs) that are 

expressly derived with the objective of protecting sensitive 

populations and lifestages, including children (see US EPA, 

 

5 U.S. EPA, Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook (Sept. 2008), EPA/600/R06/096F, http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=199243.

Comment [A38]: Interagency Comment: 

Were any of these methodological 

approaches reviewed by the SAB when 

they reviewed your risk assessment 

approach? If so, it might be worth 

mentioning. 

Comment [KAR39]: EPA response: The 

SAB did not look at any 

methodologies as part of the 

review. However they made the 

following comment: “The Panel was 

not charged with critiquing the 

IRIS methodology itself, however, 

we note that inhalation risk 

methods for children are still 

developing and that California’s 

Office of Environmental Health 

Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has very 

recently updated its methodology in 

ways that could affect the 

development of RfC and URE values. 

EPA should examine these 

developments to make sure that the 

RTR process adequately covers 

children's risks.” We conducted an 

evaluation of the OEHHA approach 

and our comments reflect the 

results of that evaluation.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 72 of 166

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 agedependent 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 73 of 166

in the absence of chemical-specific data indicating differential 

early-life susceptibility or when the mode of action is not 

mutagenicity (US EPA, 2005).6

EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA should use 

California EPA’s child-specific reference doses for school site 

risk assessments7 in order to address the potential for earlylife susceptibility. EPA methods for assessing hazard and doseresponse 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 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 

 

6 The EPA has not yet determined whether hexavalent chromium poses 

disproportionate risks to children, but is currently developing an assessment 

of hexavalent chromium which likely will address that issue.

7 We note that California EPA’s use of these numerical values, which do not 

exist for inhalation exposures, is limited to the context of risk assessment 

at proposed or existing California school sites and does not extend to their 

Air Hot Spots Risk Assessment program. Further the guidance for the 

California EPA school site assessment program specifies the use of California 

OEHHA or U.S. EPA IRIS values in the absence of the school site risk 

assessment child-specific values (Cal OEHHA, 2004 -

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/public_info/public/kids/pdf/SchoolscreenFinal.pdf).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 74 of 166

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, lowincome or indigenous populations during this rulemaking. The 

commenter requested that a full evaluation of disproportionate

impacts be conducted following guidance in EJSEAT and an 

evaluation of how this assessment could reduce impacts to those 

communities. The commenter noted that the Online Tracking 

Information System (OTIS) database appears to do this already at 

the facility-specific level and can be incorporated into the 

assessment to more accurately define the number of the 

individuals impacted by the emissions and the demographics of 

the impacted community. The commenter recommended that EPA work 

with the Office of Environmental Justice to adequately evaluate 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 75 of 166

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. This process is described in detail 

in the technical support documents found in the docket for this 

rulemaking.

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 

Deleted: the California Air Resources 

Board (

Deleted: )
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 76 of 166

in the Benzene NESHAP, in determining the need for residual risk 

standards, we strive to limit to no higher than approximately 1-

in-10 thousand (100-in-1 million) the estimated cancer risk that 

a person living near a plant would have if he or she were 

exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 years 

and, in the ample of safety decision, to protect the greatest 

number of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk level 

of no higher than approximately 1-in-1 million. These 

considerations are made for all people regardless of racial or 

socioeconomic status. However, in determining whether to require 

additional standards under Section 112(f), these levels are not 

considered rigid lines, and we weigh the cancer risk values with 

a series of other health measures and factors in both the 

decision regarding risk acceptability and in the ample margin of 

safety determination. We also consider cost of controls in the 

ample margin of safety determination. 

The results of our demographic analyses for hard and 

decorative chromium electroplating indicate that certain 

minority groups and low-income populations may be 

disproportionately exposed to emissions from these categories 

and to any risks that may result due to these emissions because 

the communities most proximate to facilities within these 

categories have a higher proportion of these groups than the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 77 of 166

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 lowincome populations. 

We agree with the commenter on the importance of working 

closely with the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice, 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 Office of Environmental 

Justice, 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 78 of 166

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, higherrisk 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. 

Deleted: percent
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 79 of 166

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 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 does 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 underestimated the costs associated with using non-PFOS fume 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 80 of 166

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. One 

facility estimated that its annual costs for fume suppressants 

would increase by approximately $100,000 with the switch to nonPFOS 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 81 of 166

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 

requested 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 requested that facilities describe 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 nonPFOS 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 82 of 166

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 83 of 166

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 commenters believe 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 84 of 166

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 nonPFOS 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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 85 of 166

reduces the amount of chromium emitted by the tank. It is our 

understanding that this relationship between surface tension and 

chromium emissions is dependent strictly on the surface tension 

of the tank and not on the product used to reduce surface 

tension. 

We acknowledge that there may be differences in the 

performance of non-PFOS based fume suppressants in different 

types of chromium electroplating tanks, but this is also true of 

PFOS based fume suppressants. The performance of any type of 

fume suppressant can depend on the characteristics of the 

chemical and tank (i.e., temperature, contaminants present, 

etc.), but EPA has found no evidence that supports the idea that 

non-PFOS based fume suppressants are unable to reach the surface 

tension limits being finalized in this rulemaking. EPA contacted 

several fume suppressant vendors to request information on 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 Non-PFOS Fume 

Suppressants for Chromium Electroplating Supplemental Proposal

memorandum). It has been reported that there are now suitable, 

successful and well proven non-PFOS fume suppressants for hard 

and decorative chromium electroplating, and that the surface 

tension can be reduced to as low as 20 dynes/cm in baths, but 

Deleted: control
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 86 of 166

are commonly maintained at about 30 dynes/cm. At this level, 

consumption of the suppressant is minimized and emissions are 

controlled (Barlowe, G. and Patton, N., 2011). For example, 

surface tension data from one decorative chromium electroplating 

plant in Minnesota that has been using non-PFOS fume suppressant 

for years show they had an average surface tension of 28.7 

dynes/cm over the first 6 months of 2012, and their highest 

reading was 32.4 dynes/cm. They had several readings below 23 

dynes/cm, and some values were as low as 18.5 dynes/cm. These 

data indicate that 33 dynes/cm is quite feasible, especially for 

decorative chromium electroplating sources. Furthermore, a study 

by the Danish EPA (Danish EPA, 2011) found that the non-PFOS 

fume suppressant reduced emissions just as effectively as the 

PFOS for about the same costs.8

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 

 

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 87 of 166

based products could reach the proposed limits and noted that 

the phase-out of PFOS fume suppressants in Europe and Japan 

occurred seamlessly (See Summary of EPA Meeting with Atotech 

March 1, 2012, in the docket for this rulemaking). 

EPA also contacted several facilities in Minnesota that 

have switched from a PFOS-based fume suppressant to a non-PFOS 

fume suppressant and asked them to describe any changes in the 

effectiveness or consumption of the fume suppressant. All 

facilities stated that the non-PFOS based fume suppressant was 

equally effective as the PFOS-based fume suppressant, with one 

facility noting the non-PFOS based fume suppressant performed 

more effectively. In terms of consumption, all facilities stated 

they have not noticed any increase in fume suppressant 

consumption since the switch, with one facility stating they 

consume less fume suppressant per operating hour since switching 

to the non-PFOS fume suppressant. The facilities that responded 

also reported no issues with maintaining surface tension levels 

consistent with the limits we are establishing in the final 

rule, with one facility stating that since the switch they have 

seen less surface tension fluctuations in their tank. The 

responses of Minnesota facilities are summarized in the 

Information on Non-PFOS Fume Suppressant Use at Minnesota 

Chromium Electroplating Facilities memorandum located in the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 88 of 166

docket of this rulemaking. Also industry representatives 

submitted comments supporting the PFOS phase-out.

Comment: One commenter stated that the phase out of PFOS is 

being proposed without adequate study of the non-PFOS materials 

ability to perform as well as PFOS and meet the proposed lower 

emission limits (as measured by surface tension). The commenter 

indicated that neither the 2010 proposal docket nor the docket 

for the supplemental proposal included the reference materials 

needed to substantiate EPA’s conclusions on the availability and 

feasibility of using non-PFOS fume suppressants to meet the 

proposed surface tension or emission limits. The commenter is 

also concerned with the lack of information on how these 

alternate materials may affect the parts being plated and noted 

that the procedures followed for their aircraft maintenance are 

very tightly controlled with extensive testing done prior to 

implementation of any new procedures. The commenter stated that 

until adequate testing is completed, which can take longer than 

the proposed three year timetable for the PFOS phase out, they

will be unable to change to an alternate fume suppressant. The 

commenter recommended additional study of the available 

alternatives for aeronautics plating and a process by which 

industry may petition for additional time to complete the 

transition to non-PFOS fume suppressants.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 89 of 166

Response: EPA has included several documents on the 

performance of non-PFOS based fume suppressants in the docket to 

this rule-making (see previous responses). EPA agrees that some 

electroplaters of highly specialized products may need to 

perform additional testing in order to integrate the use of nonPFOS fume suppressants and that this testing may require a 

longer time commitment compared to other products. Nevertheless, 

we believe that this testing can be accomplished by the 

compliance date, which is 3 years after the date of publication 

of this Federal Register notice. Additionally, the Clean Air Act 

allows facilities to apply for an extra year if needed for 

compliance. Therefore, facilities could have up to 4 years to 

comply, which should be adequate time to resolve any remaining 

issues associated with the switch to non-PFOS suppressants. 

B. Comments and Responses Associated With the Steel Pickling 

Source Category

Comment: One commenter opposed the proposed removal of the

source-specific alternative concentration standard for chlorine 

(Cl2) at HCl acid regeneration facilities. The commenter stated 

that the current regulation was specifically written to allow 

for the production of iron oxide of acceptable quality, and that 

removing the “alternative concentration standard” may have the 

unintended consequence of reducing the quality of the iron oxide 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 90 of 166

produced and negatively impact the marketability of the 

material. The commenter noted that there are a 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 91 of 166

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.

Deleted: s
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 92 of 166

Comment: One commenter noted that while EPA asserts that 

the source-specific alternative concentration provision does not 

meet the requirements in section 112(d)(2) and (3) of the CAA 

because MACT standards for existing sources cannot be less 

stringent than the average emissions limitation achieved by the 

best performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category 

or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for 

categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources), EPA 

previously promulgated a regulation which allowed an alternative 

concentration standard. The commenter also stated that the CAA 

allows EPA the regulatory flexibility to set source-specific 

concentration standards for particular pollutants. 

The commenter also noted that despite recently concluding 

that no new technology has been developed since the promulgation 

of the current regulation, and despite no new interpretation of 

the data supporting the promulgation of the current regulation, 

EPA has proposed to remove the "alternative concentration 

standard" provision. The commenter claims such a deletion is not 

merited by the facts nor required by the Clean Air Act, and that 

the current rule is lawful. The commenter also noted that the 

existing NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 93 of 166

Response: EPA believes that the alternate source specific 

provision does not meet the requirements in section 112(d)(2) 

and (3) of the CAA, and the CAA does not allow the regulatory 

flexibility to set source-specific concentration standards for 

particular pollutants. We disagree to the extent the commenter 

is suggesting that because EPA previously promulgated the 

alternative, it therefore must be consistent with the CAA. 

Neither the proposed nor final MACT rule provided the legal 

basis for the alternative and, since that time, the courts have 

rejected similar provisions in other standards. (72 FR 61060). 

The commenter cites no specific authority for the statement that 

the CAA allows EPA to set source-specific concentration 

standards for particular pollutants. 

We also disagree with the commenters statement that in the 

original MACT rulemaking we concluded that we could set a 

numerical emission standard for Cl2 “so long as there was also 

the option to set alternative source-specific limits in order to 

ensure that facilities could actually produce marketable 

products.” We drew no such linkage in that rulemaking. We agree 

with the commenter that we have not identified any new 

technology to provide further control of chlorine emissions.

However, we are not basing this revision on section the 

112(d)(6) review of developments in processes and control 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 94 of 166

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 95 of 166

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 (D.C. 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 amending the MACT 

standard nor re-assessing the MACT floor. Rather, we are 

removing the provision in the regulation allowing sources to 

seek a less stringent emission limit than the floor limit. Thus, 

we do not agree that we need to recalculate the MACT floor. 

However, we note that the commenter did not provide, and we are 

not aware of, any information that would indicate that a MACT 

floor determined 10 years after the original MACT was 

promulgated would be less stringent, particularly in light of 

the fact that 3 out of the 5 sources subject to the MACT 

standard have never indicated that there are compliance issues 

with that standard. The elimination of the alternative standard 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 96 of 166

from the rule means there is no reason to allow facilities’ 

requests for 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 97 of 166

the emission limit. Based on available information, EPA believes 

sources can achieve the MACT standard with readily available 

control technologies (e.g., alkaline scrubbers) 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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 98 of 166

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 about 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 the amendments is $8.34 million and 

$2.4 million, respectively. The overall cost effectiveness is

$10,700 per pound of hexavalent chromium emissions reductions. A 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 99 of 166

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

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

$6,377,000 $1,686,000 148 $11,400

Small Hard 

Chromium 

Electroplating

$1,424,

000 $476,000 33 $14,600

Decorative 

Chromium 

Electroplating

$163,000 $166,000 35 $4,800

Chromic Acid 

Anodizing

$235,000 $51,000 8 $6,600

Total $8,340,000 $2,390,000 224 $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 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 

Deleted: 7

Deleted: 7

Deleted: 566
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 100 of 166

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 costto-revenue or cost-to-sales ratio, or the “sales test.” The 

“sales test” is the impact methodology EPA primarily employs in 

analyzing small entity impacts as opposed to a “profits test,” 

in which annualized compliance costs are calculated as a share 

of profits. The sales test is frequently used because revenues 

or sales data are commonly available for entities impacted by 

EPA regulations, and profits data normally made available are 

often not the true profit earned by firms because of accounting 

and tax considerations. The use of a “sales test” for estimating 

small business impacts for a rulemaking is consistent with 

guidance offered by EPA on compliance with SBREFA10 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 

 

9 http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/data/susb2002.html 10 The SBREFA compliance guidance to EPA rulewriters regarding the types of 

small business analysis that should be considered can be found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/Guidance-RegFlexAct.pdf. See Table 2 on 

page 36 for guidance on interpretations of the magnitude of the cost-to-sales 

numbers.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 101 of 166

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,” which 

 

11 U.S. SBA, Office of Advocacy. A Guide for Government Agencies, How to 

Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Implementing the President’s 

Small Business Agenda and Executive Order 13272, June 2010.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 102 of 166

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, and no significant price or productivity 

impacts are anticipated.

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 103 of 166

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 N under the provisions of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq and assigned 

OMB Control Number 2060-0327.

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 104 of 166

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 105 of 166

subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 

entities include small businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 106 of 166

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 107 of 166

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 108 of 166

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 109 of 166

tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 

between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. However, some 

of the pollutants addressed by this action may present a 

disproportionate risk to children.12 The phase-out of PFOS fume 

suppressants will help to reduce a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action will not relax the control measures on 

existing regulated sources and will result in reductions in 

cancer risks due to chromium emissions for people of all ages, 

including children. The EPA’s risk assessments (included in the 

docket for this rule) demonstrate that these regulations, with 

the amendments being promulgated in today’s action, will be 

health protective.

 

12 The EPA has not yet determined whether hexavalent chromium 

poses disproportionate risks to children by acting as a 

mutagenic carcinogen. The EPA is currently developing an IRIS 

assessment of hexavalent chromium which likely will address that 

issue.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 110 of 166

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 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 111 of 166

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 

Deleted: 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 112 of 166

source categories were low.

The analysis indicated that certain minority groups and 

low-income populations may be disproportionately exposed to 

emissions from these categories and to any risks that may result 

due to these emissions because the communities most proximate to 

facilities within these categories have a higher proportion of 

these groups than the national demographic profile. We did not, 

however, identify any vulnerability or susceptibility to risks 

particular to minority and low income populations from 

pollutants emitted from this source category. 

We determined that this rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

because it maintains or increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any population, including any minority 

low-income, or indigenous populations. Further, after 

implementation of the provisions of this rule, the public health 

of all demographic groups will be protected with an ample margin 

of safety.

The development of demographic analyses to inform the 

consideration of environmental justice issues in EPA rulemakings 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 113 of 166

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/5/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 114 of 166

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 [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

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

Page 111 of 159

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

____________________________

Dated:

____________________________

Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 116 of 166

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 section 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.

Deleted: PART 63-–[AMENDED]¶

Deleted: Subpart N-–[AMENDED]¶

Deleted: S

Deleted: is amended 

Deleted: yl

Deleted: ate

Deleted: and

Deleted: and

Deleted: to read 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 117 of 166

* * * * *

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 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. 

* * * * *

Deleted: yl

Deleted: ate
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 118 of 166

(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 section 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), 

(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 reviewing the newly designated 

paragraph (e)(4);

k. Adding a new paragraph (e)(2);

Deleted: S

Deleted: is amended 

Deleted: and revising existing 

Deleted: );
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 119 of 166

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 

Deleted: * * * * *¶
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 120 of 166

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, you 

may assert a civil defense to a claim for civil penalties for 

exceedances of such standards that are caused by a malfunction, 

as defined in 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be 

assessed, however, if the respondent fails to meet it’s 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 limit, the owners or operators of facilities must 

timely meet the notification requirements of paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of 

evidence that:

(A) The excess emissions were caused by a sudden, short, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment, or of 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 were 

not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

Deleted: . 

Deleted: The 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 121 of 166

operation, or maintenance; and 

(B) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when 

the applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Offshift and overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to 

make these repairs; and 

(C) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess 

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum 

extent practicable during periods of such emissions; and 

(D) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of 

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable 

to prevent loss of life, severe personal injury, or severe 

property damage; and 

(E) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact 

of the excess emissions 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; and 

(G) Your actions in response to the excess emissions were 

documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; 

and 

(H) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner 

consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and 

(I) The owner or operator has prepared a written root 

cause analysis to determine, correct and eliminate the primary 

Deleted: ; 

Deleted: and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 122 of 166

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) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility 

experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a 

malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or 

facsimile (FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later

than two business days after the initial occurrence of the 

malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself of an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for that malfunction. The owner or 

operator seeking to assert an affirmative defense shall also 

submit a written report to the Administrator within 30 days of 

the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in 

Subpart N of this part to demonstrate, with all necessary 

supporting documentation, that it has met the requirements set 

forth in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 123 of 166

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 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 [INSERT DATE 3 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner or operator of an 

affected open surface hard chromium electroplating tank shall 

not add PFOS-based fume suppressants to any affected open 

Deleted: .
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 124 of 166

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 125 of 166

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 [INSERT DATE 3 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 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) Standards for decorative chromium electroplating tanks 

using a chromic acid bath and chromium anodizing tanks. During 

tank operation, each owner or operator of an existing, new, or 

reconstructed affected source shall control chromium emissions 

discharged to the atmosphere from that affected source by 

either:

(1) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in 

the exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: * * *¶

Deleted: .
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 126 of 166

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 [INSERT DATE 3 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 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) * * * 

Deleted: .
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 127 of 166

(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 [INSERT DATE 3 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 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).

Deleted: (3) Each owner or operator 

of an existing, new, or 

reconstructed decorative chromium 

electroplating tank that uses a 

trivalent chromium bath that does 

not incorporate a wetting agent as 

a bath ingredient is subject to the 

standards of paragraph (d) of this 

section.¶
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 128 of 166

(f) * * *

(3) * * *

(i) * * *

(F) The plan shall include housekeeping procedures, as 

specified in Table 2 of this section.

* * * * *

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

At all times, 

except when 

transferring the 

substance to and 

from the 

container.

(b) Use a closed 

container when 

transporting the 

substance from the 

enclosed storage area.

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 

(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

Prior to 

operating the 

tank.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 129 of 166

For You must:

At this minimum 

frequency

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.

(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.

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 130 of 166

For You must:

At this minimum 

frequency

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: 

(i) HEPA vacuuming;

(ii) Hand-wiping with 

a damp cloth;

(iii) Wet mopping;

(iv) Hose down or 

rinse with potable 

water that is 

collected in a 

wastewater collection 

system;

(v) Other cleaning 

method approved by the 

permitting authority;

OR 

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.

(b) Apply a non-toxic 

chemical dust 

suppressant to the 

surfaces.

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), (a)(4) and adding 

Deleted: (iv) Other cleaning method 

approved by the permitting agency;¶

Deleted: i

Deleted: i
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 131 of 166

paragraph (a)(8);

b. Revising paragraph (b)(1); and 

c. Revising paragraphs (c), (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 [INSERT DATE 2 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(2) The owner or operator of a new or reconstructed 

affected source that has an initial startup after [INSERT DATE 

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 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 [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]) 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 [INSERT DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL 

Deleted: 

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: to read as follows:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 132 of 166

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 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 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) * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 133 of 166

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 134 of 166

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 agenttype/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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 135 of 166

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)(2) 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:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 136 of 166

* * * * *

(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); 

b Adding paragraphs (b)(1)(v) through (b)(1)(viii);

c Deleting paragraph (b)(2); 

d. Revising paragraph (c)(1);

e. Revising paragraphs (e)(3)(iii), (e)(3)(iv), and 

(e)(3)(v); 

f. Revising paragraphs (e)(4)(ii) and (e)(4)(iv); and

g. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(A) and (f)(1)(ii)(A).

The added and revised text reads as follows:

Deleted: and

Deleted: and
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 137 of 166

§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 [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], the source was using the same emissions controls that 

were used during the compliance test;

(vii) As of [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], the source was operating under conditions that are 

representative of the conditions under which the source was 

Deleted: and
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 138 of 166

operating during the compliance test; and

(viii) Based on approval from the permitting authority.

* * * * *

(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:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 139 of 166

VRtot × IDAi

∑ IAtotal

= VRinlet (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; ∑IAtotal is 

the sum of all inlet duct areas from both affected and 

nonaffected sources; and VRinlet is the total ventilation 

rate from all inlet ducts associated with affected sources.

(v) Establish the allowable mass emission rate of the 

system (AMRsys) in milligrams of total chromium per hour (mg/hr) 

using equation 2:

∑VRinlet × EL × 60 minutes/hour = AMRsys (2)

where Σ 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 140 of 166

(4) * * *

(ii) Determine the total ventilation rate for each type of 

affected source (VRinlet,a)using equation 3: 

VRtot × IDAi,a

∑ IAtotal

= VRinlet,a (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; ∑IAtotal is the sum of all duct areas from both 

affected and nonaffected sources; and VRinlet,a is the total 

ventilation rate from all inlet ducts conveying chromic 

acid from each type of affected source performing the same 

operation, or each type of affected source subject to the 

same emission limitation.

* * * * *

(iv) Establish the allowable mass emission rate of the 

system (AMRsys) in milligrams of total chromium per hour (mg/hr) 

using equation 8, including each type of affected source as 

appropriate:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 141 of 166

AMRhc1+ AMRhc2+ AMRdc+ AMRca= AMRsys (8)

The allowable mass emission rate calculated from equation 8 

should be equal to or more than the outlet three-run average 

mass emission rate determined from Method 306 or 306A testing in 

order for the source to be in compliance with the standards.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(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:

MAMER = ETSA × K × 0.011 mg/dscm (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 emission rate calculated 

Deleted: other than an existing 

affected source

Deleted: small
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 142 of 166

using equation 10:

MAMER = ETSA × K × 0.015 mg/dscm. (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:

MAMER = ETSA × K × 0.006 mg/dscm. (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 of appendix A to part

63 is less than or equal to the maximum allowable mass emission 

rate calculated from equation 11.

* * * * *

6. Amend section 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 

Deleted: S

Deleted: is amended 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 143 of 166

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 section 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) and (h)(2)(i)(A) to read 

as follows:

§ 63.347 Reporting requirements.

* * * * *

Deleted: S

Deleted: is amended 

Deleted: ;

Deleted: c. Adding

Deleted: d
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 144 of 166

(f) * * *

(3)(i) Within 90 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 required by 

this subpart to EPA’s WebFIRE database by using the Compliance 

and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed 

through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX)(www.epa.gov/cdx). 

Performance test data must be submitted in the file format 

generated through use of 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 website 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 or other commonly used electronic storage media (including, 

but not limited to, flash drives) to 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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 145 of 166

business information, to the delegated authority in the format 

specified by the delegated authority.

(ii) All reports required by this subpart not subject to 

the requirements in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) of this section must be 

sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 

§63.13. The Administrator or the delegated authority may request 

a report in any form suitable for the specific case (e.g., by 

commonly used electronic media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD 

or hard copy). The Administrator retains the right to require 

submittal of reports subject to paragraph (3)(i) of this section 

in paper format.

* * * * *

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 146 of 166

* * * * *

(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. Removing entry 63.7(e); and

b. Adding entry 63.7(e)(1) and 63.7(e)(2)-(4).

The added text reads as follows:

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]

Deleted: is amended 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 147 of 166

* * * * * * *

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 148 of 166

* * * * * * *

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]

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, you may assert a civil defense to a claim 

for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are 

caused by a malfunction, as defined in §63.2. Appropriate 

penalties may be assessed, however, if the respondent fails to 

meet its burden of proving all the requirements in the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 149 of 166

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 limit, the owners or operators of facilities must 

timely meet the notification requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of 

this section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence 

that:

(i) The excess emissions were caused by a sudden, short, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment, or a process to operate in a normal an 

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 were 

not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when 

the applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Offshift and overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to 

make these repairs; and 

(iii) The frequency, amount, and duration of the excess 

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum 

extent practicable during periods of such emissions; and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 150 of 166

(iv) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of 

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable 

to prevent loss of life, severe personal injury, or severe 

property damage; and 

(v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact 

of the excess emissions 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; and 

(vii) Your actions in response to the excess emissions 

were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating 

logs; and 

(viii) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner 

consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and 

(ix) The owner or operator has prepared a written root 

cause analysis 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.

(2) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility 

experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a 

malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 151 of 166

facsimile (FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later 2 

business days after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, 

if it wishes to avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for that malfunction. The owner or operator seeking 

to assert an affirmative defense shall also submit a written 

report to the Administrator within 30 days of the initial 

occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in this subpart to 

demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, that 

it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section. 

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 (b)(2) to read as 

follows:

§ 63.1157 Emission standards for existing sources
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 152 of 166

* * * * *

(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) 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 153 of 166

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 154 of 166

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 155 of 166

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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 156 of 166

and the date of repair or replacement.

14. Section 63.1161 is amended by:

a. revising paragraph (a); and

b. deleting 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 157 of 166

(a) Reporting results of performance tests. As required by 

§63.10(d)(2) of subpart A of this part, the owner or operator of 

an affected source shall report the results of any performance 

test required by this paragraph to EPA’s WebFIRE database by 

using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI) that is accessed through EPA’s Central Data Exchange 

(CDX)(www.epa.gov/cdx). Performance test data shall be 

submitted in the file format generated through use of EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html). Only data 

collected using test methods listed on the ERT website are 

subject to this requirement for submitting reports 

electronically to WebFIRE. Owners or operators who claim that 

some of the performance test information being submitted is 

confidential business information (CBI) shall submit a complete 

ERT file including information claimed to be CBI on a compact 

disk or other commonly used electronic storage media (including, 

but not limited to, flash drives) by registered letter to EPA 

and the same ERT file with the CBI omitted to EPA via CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph. The compact disk shall 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. At the discretion of the delegated 

authority, owners or operators shall also submit these reports 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 158 of 166

to the delegated authority in the format specified by the 

delegated authority.

* * * * *

(c) 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 existing 

paragraphs (a)(6) through (a)(11) as (a)(5) through (a)(10) to 

read as follows:

§63.1165 Recordkeeping requirements.

(a) * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 159 of 166

(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. Revising entry 63.6(a)-(g); 

b. 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), 63.6(g);

c. Removing entry 63.7-63.9;

d. Adding entries 63.7, 63.8(a)-(c), 63.8(d)(1)-(2), 

63.8(d)(3), and 63.8(e)-(f);

e. Removing entry 63.10(a)-(c);

f. 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)-(xvi), 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);

g. Removing entry 63.10(d)(4)-(5);
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 160 of 166

h. Adding entries 63.10(d)(4) and 63.10(d)(5) to 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 161 of 166

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 crossreference 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 crossreference 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.

* * * * * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 162 of 166

Appendix A-–[AMENDED]

18. Amend Appendix A to part 63, Method 306-B by:

a. Revising paragraph 1.2; 

b. Revising paragraph 6.1;

c. Revising paragraph 11.1; 

d. Adding paragraphs 11.1.1 through 11.1.4.10; and

e. Revising paragraph 11.2

The added and revised text reads as follows:

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

Deleted: is amended 

Deleted: to read 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 163 of 166

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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 164 of 166

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 165 of 166

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (7/13/2012) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Page 166 of 166

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. 

* * * * *