Vol. 77 Wednesday, No. 182 September 19, 2012

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; and Steel Pickling—HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants; Final Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 58220 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION sulfonic acid (PFOS) based fume copyrighted material, is not placed on AGENCY suppressants. These requirements will the Internet, and will be publicly provide greater protection for public available only in hard copy form. 40 CFR Part 63 health and the environment by reducing Publicly available docket materials are [EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0600; FRL–9709–9] emissions of hexavalent chromium (a available either electronically through known human carcinogen). In addition, http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard RIN 2060–AQ60 as part of the October 2010 proposal, we copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA proposed certain actions pursuant to West Building, Room Number 3334, National Emission Standards for CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for hard 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: and decorative chromium electroplating Washington, DC. The Public Reading Hard and Decorative Chromium and chromium anodizing tanks. For Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. Electroplating and Chromium these sources, we are modifying and to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time Anodizing Tanks; and Steel Pickling— adding testing and monitoring, (EST), Monday through Friday. The HCl Process Facilities and recordkeeping, and reporting telephone number for the Public Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants requirements; and revisions to the Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and AGENCY: Environmental Protection regulatory provisions related to the telephone number for the Air and Agency (EPA). emissions during periods of Radiation Docket and Information malfunction. For steel pickling ACTION: Final rule. Center is (202) 566–1742. hydrochloric acid regeneration plants, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For SUMMARY: This action finalizes the we are finalizing our proposal to remove questions about this final rule, contact residual risk and technology review the alternative compliance method Mr. Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and conducted for the following source because we believe it is inconsistent Programs Division (D243–02), Office of categories regulated under two national with the requirements of CAA section Air Quality Planning and Standards, emission standards for hazardous air 112(d)(2) and (3). This amendment will U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pollutants (NESHAP): hard and achieve reductions in chlorine Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, decorative chromium electroplating and emissions. Additionally, we are adding telephone (919) 541–5289; fax number: chromium anodizing tanks, and steel provisions to the Steel Pickling (919) 541–3207; and email address: pickling—HCl process facilities and Facilities NESHAP requiring that the [email protected]. For specific hydrochloric acid regeneration plants. emission limits of the rule apply at all information regarding the risk modeling On October 21, 2010, EPA proposed times, including during periods of methodology, contact Mr. Mark Morris, amendments to these NESHAP under startup, shutdown and malfunction. Health and Environmental Impacts section 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) of the Clean DATES: This final action is effective on Division (C539–02), Office of Air Air Act. On February 8, 2012, EPA September 19, 2012. Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. published a supplemental proposal with ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a Environmental Protection Agency, new analyses and results. For hard and docket for this action under Docket ID Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; decorative chromium electroplating and No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0600. All telephone number: (919) 541–5416; fax chromium anodizing tanks these final documents in the docket are listed on number: (919) 541–0840; and email amendments addressing Clean Air Act the http://www.regulations.gov Web address: [email protected]. (CAA) sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) site. Although listed in the index, some include revisions to the emissions limits information is not publicly available, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For for total chromium; addition of e.g., confidential business information information about the applicability of housekeeping requirements to minimize (CBI) or other information whose these NESHAP to a particular entity, fugitive emissions; and a requirement to disclosure is restricted by statute. contact the appropriate person listed in phase-out the use of perfluorooctane Certain other material, such as Table 1 to this preamble.

TABLE 1—LIST OF EPA CONTACTS FOR THE NESHAP ADDRESSED IN THIS ACTION

NESHAP for: OECA Contact a OAQPS Contact b

Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anod- Sara Ayres, (202) 564–5391, Phil Mulrine, (919) 541–5289, izing Tanks; and Steel Pickling—HCl Process Facilities and Hydro- [email protected]. [email protected]. chloric Acid Regeneration Plants. a EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. b EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58221

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and developments in practices, processes, electroplating, decorative chromium Economic Impacts and control technologies) no less electroplating, and chromium anodizing A. What are the affected sources? frequently than every 8 years. Section sources. These amendments will reduce B. What are the emission reductions? 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires EPA to chromium emissions (a known human C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? assess the remaining risks due to carcinogen) and the risk associated with E. What are the benefits? emissions of hazardous air pollutants those emissions. This action also VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews (HAP) from these source categories and includes housekeeping requirements to A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory determine whether the emissions minimize fugitive emissions from Planning and Review and Executive standards provide an ample margin of affected sources. In addition, this action Order 13563: Improving Regulation and safety to protect public health within 8 eliminates the use of fume suppressants Regulatory Review years of promulgation of the original that contain perfluorooctane sulfonic B. Paperwork Reduction Act standards. The two regulations acid (PFOS), which has been shown to C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act addressed in this action are the be persistent, bioaccumulative and E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism following: National Emissions toxic. Finally, this action amends the F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation Standards for Chromium Emissions requirements for testing, monitoring, and Coordination With Indian Tribal from Hard and Decorative Chromium reporting, and recordkeeping for Governments Electroplating and Chromium consistency with the other requirements G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Anodizing Tanks; and National of the NESHAP. Children From Environmental Health Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air With regard to the National Emissions Risks and Safety Risks Pollutants for Steel Pickling—HCl H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Concerning Regulations That Process Facilities and Hydrochloric for Steel Pickling—HCl Process Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Acid Regeneration Plants. Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Distribution, or Use In addition to the reviews described Regeneration Plants, the Agency has I. National Technology Transfer and above, the EPA also reviewed these determined that no amendments are Advancement Act rules to determine if any other needed based on the risk and J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions corrections or clarifications were technology reviews under Sections To Address Environmental Justice in needed pursuant to other Sections the 112(d)(6) and 112(f) of the CAA. Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Clean Air Act. As described below, However, EPA identified two areas K. Congressional Review Act based on all these reviews, the EPA has where amendments were needed to determined it is appropriate and ensure the rules were meeting I. General Information necessary to promulgate some requirements of Sections 112(d)(2) and A. Executive Summary amendments to these rules. 112(d)(3). First, this action eliminates an alternative compliance option that was 2. Summary of the Major Provisions of 1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action inconsistent with the requirements of the Regulatory Actions This action presents the results and CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). final decisions based on EPA’s review of With regard to the National Emissions Secondly, we are adding provisions to two national regulations for hazardous Standards for Chromium Emissions require the emission limits of the rule to air pollutants. Specifically, pursuant to from Hard and Decorative Chromium apply at all times, including during the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA has Electroplating and Chromium periods of startup, shutdown and completed risk and technology reviews Anodizing Tanks, based on the reviews malfunction. under Sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f), the (RTRs) for four source categories 3. Costs and Emissions Reductions covered by two separate regulations. EPA has determined it is appropriate to Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires promulgate emissions limits and surface Table 2 summarizes the costs and EPA to review these regulations (i.e., tension limits that are moderately lower emissions reductions for this action. See national emissions standards) and revise than the limits in the current regulation section V of this preamble for further them as necessary (taking into account for new and existing hard chromium discussion of the costs and impacts.

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED COSTS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR THE FINAL CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING NESHAP AND FINAL STEEL PICKLING NESHAP AMENDMENTS

Emissions Source category Number of Capital costs Annualized costs reductions affected plants $ $/yr lbs/yr

Chromium Electroplating NESHAP

Large hard chromium electroplating ...... 57 $6,377,000 $1,686,000 148 Small hard chromium electroplating ...... 91 1,424,000 476,000 33 Decorative chromium electroplating ...... 313 163,000 166,000 35 Chromium anodizing ...... 74 235,000 51,000 8

Total ...... 535 8,200,000 2,380,000 224

Steel Pickling NESHAP

Hydrochloric acid regeneration facilities ...... 1 100,000–200,000 11,419–22,837 30,000

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 58222 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

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

TABLE 3—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ACTION

NESHAP and Source Category NAICS Code 1 MACT Code 2

Chromium Electroplating NESHAP, Subpart N ...... Chromium Anodizing Tanks ...... 332813 1607 Decorative Chromium Electroplating ...... 332813 1610 Hard Chromium Electroplating ...... 332813 1615

Steel Pickling—HCl Process Facilities And Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants NESHAP, Subpart CCC ..... 3311, 3312 0310 1 North American Industry Classification System. 2 Maximum Achievable Control Technology.

C. Where can I get a copy of this reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising plate base metals with a relatively thick document and other related an objection can demonstrate to the EPA layer of chromium using an electrolytic information? that it was impracticable to raise such process. Hard chromium electroplating In addition to being available in the objection within [the period for public provides a finish that is resistant to docket, an electronic copy of this final comment] or if the grounds for such wear, abrasion, heat, and corrosion. action will also be available on the objection arose after the period for These facilities plate large cylinders and World Wide Web (WWW) through the public comment (but within the time industrial rolls used in construction Technology Transfer Network (TTN). specified for judicial review) and if such equipment and printing presses, Following signature by the EPA objection is of central relevance to the hydraulic cylinders and rods, zinc die Administrator, a copy of this final outcome of the rule.’’ Any person castings, plastic molds, engine action will be posted on the TTN’s seeking to make such a demonstration to components, and marine hardware. policy and guidance page for newly us should submit a Petition for The NESHAP distinguish between proposed or promulgated rules at the Reconsideration to the Office of the large hard chromium electroplating following address: http://www.epa.gov/ Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, facilities and small hard chromium ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania electroplating facilities. Large hard provides information and technology Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with chromium electroplating facilities are exchange in various areas of air a copy to both the person(s) listed in the defined as any such facility with a pollution control. preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION cumulative annual rectifier capacity Additional information is available on CONTACT section, and the Associate equal to or greater than 60 million the residual risk and technology review General Counsel for the Air and ampere-hours per year (amp-hr/yr). (RTR) Web page at http://www.epa.gov/ Radiation Law Office, Office of General Small hard chromium electroplating ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, facilities are defined as any facility with information includes source category 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., a cumulative annual rectifier capacity descriptions and detailed emissions and Washington, DC 20460. less than 60 million amp-hr/yr. The other data that were used as inputs to II. Background Information 1995 NESHAP require all affected tanks the risk assessments. located at large hard chromium A. Overview of the Chromium electroplating facilities to meet an D. Judicial Review Electroplating and Chromium emissions limit of 0.015 milligrams of Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial Anodizing Source Categories total chromium per dry standard cubic review of this final action is available The 1995 Chromium Electroplating meter (mg/dscm). Alternatively, large only by filing a petition for review in NESHAP regulate emissions of hard chromium facilities also can the United States Court of Appeals for chromium compounds from three comply with the NESHAP by the District of Columbia Circuit by source categories: Hard chromium maintaining the surface tension in November 19, 2012. Under CAA section electroplating, decorative chromium affected tanks equal to or less than 45 307(b)(2), the requirements established electroplating, and chromium dynes per centimeter (dynes/cm), if by this final rule may not be challenged anodizing. The NESHAP apply to both measured using a stalagmometer, or 35 separately in any civil or criminal major sources and area sources. The dynes/cm, if measured using a proceedings brought by the EPA to NESHAP were promulgated on January tensiometer. Compliance with the enforce the requirements. 25, 1995, (60 FR 4963) and codified at applicable surface tension limit ensures Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 40 CFR part 63, subpart N. We amended compliance with the emission limit. further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an the NESHAP to address issues related to The Chromium Electroplating objection to a rule or procedure which changes in control technology, NESHAP require affected tanks at was raised with reasonable specificity monitoring and implementation on July existing small hard chromium during the period for public comment 19, 2004 (69 FR 42885). electroplating facilities to meet an (including any public hearing) may be emissions limit of 0.030 mg/dscm and raised during judicial review.’’ This 1. Hard Chromium Electroplating affected tanks at new small hard section also provides a mechanism for The Hard Chromium Electroplating chromium electroplating facilities to us to convene a proceeding for source category consists of facilities that meet a limit of 0.015 mg/dscm.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58223

Alternatively, these sources have the conditions. We estimate that there MACT requirements for these source option of complying with surface currently are about 170 chromium categories. The basis for this proposal is tension limits equal to or less than 45 anodizing plants in operation in the described in the October 2010 Federal dynes per centimeter (dynes/cm), if U.S. The NESHAP require all existing Register Notice (75 FR 65068). We measured using a stalagmometer, or 35 and new chromium anodizing sources explained that alternatives to PFOS- dynes/cm, if measured using a to meet a total chromium emissions based WAFS had been successfully used tensiometer. Under the current limit of 0.01 mg/dscm, or meet the in the hard and decorative chrome NESHAP, any small hard chromium surface tension limits of 45 dynes/cm, if source categories and stated that while electroplating tank for which measured using a stalagmometer, or 35 alternatives had not been used construction or reconstruction was dynes/cm, if measured using a extensively in chromium anodizing, we commenced on or before December 16, tensiometer. were unaware of any technical reason 1993 (i.e., the proposal date for the that precluded such use. We specifically B. Summary of the Proposed original NESHAP), is subject to the solicited comment on this issue. existing source standards, and any small Amendments to the Chromium We also proposed some additional hard chromium electroplating tank Electroplating and Chromium changes in the 2010 proposal under constructed or reconstructed after Anodizing Source Categories Section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), including: December 16, 1993, is subject to new 1. The October 2010 Proposal • Revise the startup, shutdown, and source standards. malfunction (SSM) provisions in the We estimate that there currently are In 2010, pursuant to section 112(f)(2) rule; approximately 188 large hard chromium of the CAA, we evaluated the residual • Revise the monitoring and testing electroplating facilities and 394 small risk associated with the NESHAP. At requirements; and hard chromium electroplating facilities that time, we also conducted a • Make technical corrections to the in operation in the U.S. outside of technology review, as required by NESHAP. California. Of the 394 small hard section 112(d)(6). Based on the results of The proposed changes to the SSM chromium electroplating facilities, we our initial residual risk and technology provisions will ensure that the estimate that 131 of these facilities have reviews, we proposed on October 21, standards apply at all times, even one or more tanks that are subject to the 2010 (75 FR 65071), that the risks due during periods of malfunction. new source standards, and the affected to HAP emissions from these source Regarding the monitoring and testing sources at the other 263 facilities are categories were acceptable. The basis for requirements, we proposed to revise the subject to the existing source standards. this decision is explained in the October compliance provisions for multiple Additionally, there are about 70 hard 21, 2010 Federal Register Notice. sources controlled by a common add-on chromium electroplating facilities Furthermore, we proposed that no air pollution control device, clarify that operating in California. additional controls were necessary to testing can be performed by either provide an ample margin of safety Method 306 or Method 306A, revise 2. Decorative Chromium Electroplating (AMOS) to protect public health or to Method 306B to clarify that the method The Decorative Chromium prevent an adverse environmental effect also applies to hard chromium Electroplating source category consists because we concluded that the costs of electroplating tanks and include of facilities that plate base materials the options analyzed were not procedures for checking the accuracy of, such as brass, steel, aluminum, or reasonable considering the emissions and cleaning of, a stalagmometer (See 75 plastic with layers of copper and nickel, and risk reductions potentially achieved FR 65095 for a more detailed discussion followed by a relatively thin layer of with the controls. Thus, we did not of the proposed monitoring revisions). chromium to provide a bright, tarnish- propose to revise the NESHAP under We also proposed to add a provision and wear-resistant surface. Decorative 112(f)(2). However, as explained in that to provide an affirmative defense against chromium electroplating is used for proposal publication, we remained civil penalties for violations of emission items such as automotive trim, metal concerned about the potential cancer standards caused by malfunctions, as furniture, bicycles, hand tools, and risks due to emissions from these source well as criteria for establishing the plumbing fixtures. We estimate that categories and asked for additional affirmative defense, which is the same there currently are approximately 517 information and comments on this affirmative defense provision we have decorative chromium electroplating issue. See 75 FR 65071. proposed or promulgated in several plants in operation in the U.S. The 1995 As a result of our technology review other recent MACT rules. NESHAP require all existing and new in 2010, we proposed the following In our 2010 proposal, we provided decorative chromium electroplating amendments to the NESHAP for all further explanation of the basis for sources to meet a total chromium three source categories: proposing these amendments to the emissions limit of 0.01 mg/dscm or meet • Incorporate housekeeping practices NESHAP pursuant to CAA section the surface tension limits of 45 dynes/ into 40 CFR 63.342(f); and, 112(d)(6). See 75 FR 65093. We cm, if measured using a stalagmometer, • Phase out the use of wetting agent proposed that existing sources could not or 35 dynes/cm, if measured using a fume suppressants (WAFS) that use use PFOS-based WAFS 3 years after tensiometer. perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS); publication of the final rule in the We proposed the housekeeping Federal Register and that new sources 3. Chromium Anodizing practices because they will help reduce cannot use PFOS-based WAFS as a The Chromium Anodizing source and minimize fugitive emissions of method to meet the NESHAP category consists of facilities that use chromium compounds from chromium requirements. chromic acid to form an oxide layer on electroplating and anodizing facilities aluminum to provide resistance to and we had determined at the time of 2. The February 8, 2012 Supplemental corrosion. The chromium anodizing the proposal that they could be Proposal process is used to coat aircraft parts implemented at relatively low costs. We In response to the 2010 proposal, (such as wings and landing gears) as proposed to revise the rule to no longer several commenters expressed concern well as architectural structures that are allow the addition of PFOS-based that the data set used in the risk subject to high stress and corrosive WAFS to tanks as a method to meet the assessment was not sufficient and not

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 58224 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58225

77 FR 6649–50. We proposed that the acceptable based on our determination established in the original MACT rule. revised reporting requirements would that facilities in this source category The alternative compliance option apply upon promulgation of the final emit no HAPs that are carcinogens and allowed existing HCl regeneration rule. because the acute risks were low. While facilities to request approval for an the chronic non-cancer TOSHI level for alternative source-specific chlorine C. Overview of the Steel Pickling Source one facility exceeded the reference concentration standard from their Category level, we noted that this facility has had permitting authority. We stated that we Steel pickling is a treatment process compliance issues with the standard believe that this alternative compliance in which the heavy oxide crust or mill and that the actual emissions we relied option was not appropriate under CAA scale that develops on the steel surface on for this facility included emissions in sections 112(d)(2) and (3) and that the during hot forming or heat treating is excess of what is allowed under the option had been adopted removed chemically in a bath of MACT standard. We estimate that if inappropriately. Second, we proposed aqueous acid solution. There are two emissions were maintained at levels to require electronic reporting for the specific processes regulated under the equal to or lower than the level allowed Steel Pickling and HCl Acid Steel Pickling NESHAP. Pickling is a by the MACT limit (6 ppm) then the Regeneration source category similar to process applied to metallic substances TOSHI would be no higher than 1. The that described above for the chromium that removes surface impurities, stains, next highest HI from any facility in the electroplating and chromium anodizing or crusts to prepare the metal for source category is 0.1. source categories and for the same subsequent plating (e.g., with We identified one development in reasons. chromium) or other treatment, such as practices, processes or control galvanization or painting. A pickling technologies for this source category, III. Summary of the Final Rule line is defined in the rule as using an but determined that it was not A. What are the final rule amendments acid solution in any tank in which technically feasible for the industry. 75 for the Chromium Electroplating and hydrochloric acid is at a concentration FR at 65124. Thus, we proposed that no Chromium Anodizing source categories? of 6 percent by weight or greater and has amendments were necessary under both a temperature of 100 °F or greater. An the second part of the section 112(f) 1. Risk and Technology Review acid regeneration plant is defined in the review, determining whether the For all three chromium electroplating rule as the equipment and processes standard provides an ample margin of and chromium anodizing source that regenerate fresh hydrochloric acid safety and prevents an adverse categories, we are finalizing the (HCl) pickling solution from spent environmental effect, and for the emission and surface tension limits as pickle liquor using a thermal treatment 112(d)(6) review. 75 FR at 65124. proposed in the supplemental proposal process. The HAP emission points from However, under section 112(d)(2) and under Sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) of the steel pickling process include steel 112(d)(3), we proposed to eliminate the the Clean Air Act. However, as noted in pickling baths, steel pickling sprays, startup, shutdown and malfunction the following paragraphs, we performed and tank vents. The HAP emission point (SSM) exemption in the Steel Pickling additional analyses based on issues from acid regeneration plants is the NESHAP in light of the court’s decision raised and information submitted spray roaster. in Sierra Club v. EPA (Sierra Club v. during the comment period, which add We estimate that there are EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008) 130 further support for this final action. approximately 100 facilities subject to S. Ct. 1735 (2010)). We proposed several Additional information on emissions the Steel Pickling NESHAP. Many of revisions to the regulations regarding and controls from chromium these facilities are located adjacent to SSM, including: electroplating and chromic acid integrated iron and steel manufacturing • Revising Table 1 to indicate that the anodizing sources was submitted to EPA plants or electric arc furnace requirements in 40 CFR 63.6(e) of the during the comment period, and we also steelmaking facilities (minimills) that General Provisions, regarding the ‘‘duty obtained additional data and produce steel from scrap. Acid to minimize’’ emissions do not apply information from some States and Regeneration facilities may or may not and instead proposed to incorporate it industry shortly after the close of the be located at steel pickling operations. in 40 CFR 63.1159(c). comment period. The information • supported the data and analyses we had D. Summary of the Proposed Removing the SSM Plan requirement requiring affected sources performed to develop the emissions Amendments to the Steel Pickling limits for the supplemental proposal. Source Category to calculate their emissions during startup and shutdown and to maintain For example, we obtained data from two In 2010, pursuant to section 112(f)(2) records of the startup and shutdown additional chromic acid anodizing of the CAA, we evaluated the residual emission calculations. plants that showed they had emissions risk associated with the NESHAP. We • Revising the SSM-associated well below the limits we are also conducted a technology review, as monitoring, recordkeeping and promulgating and that indicates the required by section 112(d)(6) of the reporting requirements to require anodizing plants can easily meet the CAA. Based on our risk analysis, we reporting and recordkeeping for periods limits with readily available common determined that there were no cancer of malfunction. control technologies. We also obtained risks attributable to emissions from the • Adding provisions to provide an additional data from hard chromium steel pickling source category. We also affirmative defense against civil electroplating plants that shows even estimated the maximum chronic non- penalties for violations of emission more plants than we estimated in the cancer TOSHI value to be 2 based on standards caused by malfunctions, as proposal are already meeting the lower emissions of chlorine and the maximum well as criteria for establishing the emissions limits. off-facility-site acute Hazard Quotient affirmative defense. We also performed new analyses of (HQ) value could be up to 0.4, based on In the February 2012 supplemental the costs of the proposed requirements actual emission levels and the reference proposal (77 FR 6628) we proposed two and the emissions reductions that exposure level (REL) value for chlorine. additional actions for the Steel Pickling would be achieved based on the 75 FR at 65122–24. We proposed on source category. First, we proposed to information that became available after October 21, 2010 that the risks were remove a compliance alternative we issued the supplemental proposal.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 58226 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

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

MIR 1 Number of Emission Total emis- (in-a-million) people Number of Cost-effec- Option reductions sions in Incidence with risk > people w/ Annualized tiveness in lbs/yr lbs/yr (cases/yr) 1-in-1 mil- risk > 10- costs (per lb) Actual Allowable lion in-1 million

Baseline: current situation ...... 0 454 20 50 0.03 88,000 740 0 NA Option 1—Final: limit of 0.011 mg/dscm .... 148 306 2 20 40 0.02 59,000 500 $1.7 M $11,000 Option 2: limit of 0.0075 mg/dscm ...... 169 285 10 30 2 0.02 55,000 470 $4.1 M $24,700 Option 3: limit of 0.006 mg/dscm ...... 180 274 8 20 2 0.02 53,000 450 $5.3 M $29,900 1 MIR estimates are derived from estimates of actual and allowable emissions. Population risk estimates are derived from estimates of actual emissions. 2 There are further risk reductions associated with this option compared to the previous option, but they are not large enough to change the risk values as pre- sented to one significant figure.

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58227

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

MIR 1 Number of Number of Emission Total (in-a-million) people people Cost-effec- Option reductions emissions Incidence with risk with risk Annualized tiveness in lbs/yr in lbs/yr (cases/yr) > 1-in-1 > 10-in-1 costs (per lb) Actual Allowable million million

Baseline: current situation ...... 0 223 20 50 0.02 43,300 360 0 NA Option 1—Final (0.015 mg/dscm) ...... 33 190 10 30 0.01 36,800 306 $0.5 M $15,000 Option 2: 0.01 mg/dscm ...... 71 152 7 20 2 0.01 29,000 245 $1.5 M $21,000 Option 3: 0.006 mg/dscm ...... 116 107 4 10 0.008 22,500 190 $2.2 M $19,300 1 MIR estimates are derived from estimates of actual and allowable emissions. Population risk estimates are derived from estimates of actual emissions. 2 The incidence estimate under Option 2 is less than the incidence estimate under option 1, but the estimates are reported as the same when rounded to one sig- nificant figure.

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 58228 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

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

MIR 1 Number of Number of Emission Total (in-a-million) people people Cost- Option reductions emissions Incidence with risk > with risk > Annualized effective- in lbs/yr in lbs/yr (cases/yr) 1-in-1 10-in-1 costs ness Actual Allowable million million (per lb)

Baseline: Current situation ...... 0 222 10 70 0.02 43,000 100 0 NA Option 1 (0.007 mg/dscm) ...... 35 187 7 50 2 0.02 36,000 80 $170K $5,000 1 MIR estimates are derived from estimates of actual and allowable emissions. Population risk estimates are derived from estimates of actual emissions. 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 above 1-in-1 million would be reduced higher costs. Therefore, after achieved by the proposed lower limit of by about 15 percent. The MIR based on considering all the costs, economic and 0.007 mg/dscm, we estimate that the allowable emissions will be reduced health factors, and comments, we are MIR based on actual emissions of from 70-in-1 million to 50-in-1 million. promulgating an emissions limit of hexavalent chromium, a known human We also considered a limit of 0.006 mg/ 0.007 mg/dscm for decorative chromium carcinogen, would be reduced by about dscm; however, reducing the limit from sources, as proposed in the 30%, and the total estimated cancer 0.007 to 0.006 mg/dscm would provide supplemental proposal (77 FR 6628). incidence, the number of people minimal additional risk reduction and With regard to new sources, as estimated to have cancer risks at or would likely result in more sources described in detail in the supplemental above 10-in-1 million and the number of needing to upgrade add-on controls proposal, we proposed a limit of 0.006 people estimated to have risks at or which would result in significantly mg/dscm. The rationale for choosing

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58229

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

MIR 1 Number Number Total (in-a-million) people people Cost- Emission emissions Incidence Annualized effective- Option reductions (cases/yr) with risk > with risk > costs ness in lbs/yr in 1-in-1 10-in-1 lbs/yr Actual Allowable million million (per lb)

Baseline: Current situation ...... 0 57 5 60 0.003 5,000 0 NA NA Option 1 (0.007 mg/dscm) ...... 8 49 3 40 2 0.003 4,000 0 $50K $6,580 1 MIR estimates are derived from estimates of actual and allowable emissions. Population risk estimates are derived from estimates of actual emissions. 2 The incidence estimate under Option 1 is less than the baseline incidence estimate, but the estimates are reported as the same when rounded to one significant figure.

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 58230 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

grinding, or polishing operations and 2013. The compliance date for the TOSHI allowed by the NESHAP will be electroplating or anodizing operations; revised emission limits and surface no higher than 1. and requirements for the storage, tension limits is September 19, 2014. Based on consideration of all the risk disposal, recovery, or recycling of The compliance date for eliminating the assessment results, including the fact chromium-containing wastes. The main use of PFOS-based fume suppressants is that the maximum TOSHI allowed by changes that were made to the September 21, 2015. the rule will be no higher than 1, we housekeeping requirements since the conclude that risks are acceptable and C. What are the final rule amendments 2010 proposal based on public that the NESHAP will provide an ample for the Steel Pickling source category? comments include removing routine margin of safety given the amendments housekeeping measures from 1. Revisions Pursuant to CAA Section we are promulgating in this action. recordkeeping, adding that cleanup 112(d)(2) & (3) Therefore, we are not amending the must be initiated within one hour of the At the time we promulgated the NESHAP under Section 112(f) because spill, and allowing facilities to collect original MACT standard, we also risks are acceptable and the NESHAP, as dragout using other methods when drip established an alternative compliance revised pursuant to 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), trays are not practical. The compliance option for the steel pickling source provides an ample margin of safety. We date for implementing the housekeeping category that allowed HCl regeneration are also not amending the NESHAP procedures will be 6 months after facilities to apply for a site specific under section 112(d)(6) because we have promulgation of the final amendments. alternative chlorine concentration not identified new developments in More details on the housekeeping standard for existing acid regeneration practices, processes or control requirements are explained in the 2010 technologies. We have determined that proposal and in the RTC document. plants. In this final rule, we are removing the alternative compliance the Steel Pickling NESHAP, given the Phase-Out of PFOS WAFS option. After reviewing public amendments we are promulgating in this action, provide an ample margin of Also pursuant to CAA section comments and evaluating additional information received since proposal, we safety to protect public health and 112(d)(6), we are specifying that PFOS prevent an adverse environmental WAFS cannot be added to any affected continue to believe that the alternative compliance option provided in the effect, and that there have been no hard chromium electroplating tank, advances in practices, processes, and decorative chromium electroplating original rule was not appropriate and therefore should be removed from the control technologies feasible for this tank, or chromium anodizing tank as a source category. method to meet the NESHAP rule because it allowed a source to requirements for these source categories. establish a source specific limit which 3. Electronic Reporting could be less stringent than the MACT In response to public comments about The final rule amendments require Floor level of control. Based on our the effectiveness and feasibility of non- owners and operators of affected review and analysis of available PFOS WAFS, we collected information facilities to submit electronic copies of information, EPA concludes that the from several chromium electroplating required performance test reports to emission limit for chlorine can be met plants in Minnesota that have been EPA’s WebFIRE database through an using available control technologies using non-PFOS WAFS for several electronic emissions test report such as alkaline scrubbers, and that this years, and that information confirmed structure called the Electronic Reporting level of control is consistent with the that the non-PFOS substitutes are Tool (ERT). The ERT generates an MACT floor level of control established effective and feasible alternatives to electronic report which would be in the original NESHAP. We estimate PFOS-based chemicals. See Information submitted using the Compliance and that the amendment to remove the on non-PFOS Fume Suppressants in Emissions Data Reporting Interface alternative compliance provision will Minnesota Chromium Electroplating (CEDRI). The submitted report will be reduce emissions of chlorine by 15 tons Facilities. Further details are also transmitted through EPA’s Central Data per year (tpy). provided in the responses to comments Exchange (CDX) network for storage in provided in Section IV of this FR notice 2. Risk and Technology Review the WebFIRE database making submittal and in the RTC document. As provided in the proposed rule, we of data very straightforward and easy. Other Amendments are not revising the Steel Pickling The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to EPA applies We are finalizing the changes to the NESHAP pursuant to CAA sections only to those performance tests SSM requirements, electronic reporting 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6). While the conducted using test methods that are requirements, test procedures, and chronic non-cancer TOSHI level for one supported by the ERT. monitoring requirements as proposed. facility exceeded the reference level, we We are also finalizing the addition of a noted that this facility has had D. What are the effective and provision to provide an affirmative compliance issues with the standard compliance dates for the Steel Pickling defense against civil penalties for and that the actual emissions we relied source category amendments? violations of emission standards caused on for this facility included emissions in excess of what is allowed under the The effective and compliance date for by malfunctions, as well as criteria for the final rule amendments is September establishing the affirmative defense. NESHAP. Given the amendment to remove the 19, 2012. B. What are the effective and alternative compliance option under IV. Summary of Significant Comments compliance dates for the Chromium Section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3) as described and Responses Electroplating and Chromium above, and assuming that the one Anodizing source category facility will apply the necessary controls A. Comments and Responses Associated amendments? to achieve compliance with the With the Chromium Electroplating and The effective date for the final rule NESHAP, we estimate that the Chromium Anodizing Source Categories amendments is September 19, 2012. The maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI Many of the significant comments and compliance date for implementing the for any facility in the category will be our responses are summarized in this housekeeping requirements is March 19, less than 1. Therefore, the maximum preamble. A summary of the public

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58231

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 58232 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58233

to use the surface tension limit emissions as 0.0007 mg/dscm, and the thus, potentially, both to the compliance alternative. other located in Massachusetts that environment and to human health, from Comment: One commenter stated that reported a concentration of 0.001 mg/ oral and systemic exposure through EPA reviewed data from only 17 dscm. In addition, we reviewed water-based ingestion, rather than just decorative chromium facilities and one emission test data we had previously inhalation. EPA therefore must assess anodizing facility, and concluded that received for three chromium anodizing the multipathway health risk. all decorative and anodizing facilities plants located in California. The data The commenter supported this already comply with the new proposed show emissions for tanks controlled argument by referring to California emissions limits (77 FR at 6642–6644.) with HEPA filters to range from EPA’s Office of Health Hazard The commenter goes on to say that EPA 0.0000097 to 0.00056 mg/dscm. Based Assessment (OEHHA)’s recent revisions acknowledged that 8 decorative on the control efficiencies reported by to Risk Assessment Guidelines, which, facilities may need to make adjustments California, we estimate that, if these according to the commenter, provide and achieve reductions to meet the new tanks were controlled with CMPs evidence that under some emissions limits, but dismissed these instead of HEPA filters, emissions environmental conditions hexavalent data by claiming that these facilities would range from 0.000097 to 0.0056 chromium contamination can persist in would choose to comply with the new mg/dscm. As shown in the cost analysis soil presenting an exposure risk via NESHAP with the surface tension levels technical memo, we already had data for ingestion and dermal exposure to rather than the new emissions limits. a plant in Oklahoma with reported contaminated soils, creating a cancer The commenter noted that EPA emissions of 0.0016 mg/dscm. risk.1 The commenter noted that EPA’s admitted that it did not perform any With regard to add-on controls, based failure to consider cancer risk from detailed analysis for anodizing facilities. on available information we conclude ingestion in its analysis is unlawful, Rather, EPA concluded that anodizing that the CMP is a readily available arbitrary and capricious. processes are similar enough to control technology that can be applied The commenter recommended that decorative processes so the proposed to anodizing plants and can easily meet the EPA perform a multipathway limits would also be appropriate. The a limit of 0.007 mg/dscm for these type analysis for this source category that commenter stated that EPA had limited of plants. Other technologies can also fully accounts for exposure that can data and had weak scientific and likely meet this limit. For example, the occur to a child in an urban or technical basis to support or justify the Connecticut and Massachusetts plants residential setting. The commenter proposed limits for decorative and have chromium mist eliminators (and suggested that the EPA assess anodizing facilities. have emissions of 0.0007 mg/dscm, and multipathway risk based on the Response: In evaluating the impacts of 0.001 mg/dscm, respectively) and the allowable emissions, as it has done for the proposed requirements on the plant from Oklahoma, which has inhalation risk. Further, the commenter existing decorative chromium emissions of 0.0016 mg/dscm, is reported that the OEHHA’s scientists electroplating and chromium anodizing controlled with a wet scrubber. The data found that there is the potential for facilities that comply with emissions from the Connecticut plant, hexavalent chromium uptake in plants limits (as opposed to those plants that Massachusetts plant, Oklahoma plant, and fish and concluded that to protect comply with the surface tension limits), and the plants in California all support public health, exposure via ingestion of we reviewed the available data. For the our assumption that most existing contaminated crops and fish must also 17 decorative tanks in our data set, all chromium anodizing plants that are be considered. of these tanks have emissions below currently complying with the existing Response: The current persistent and 0.007 mg/dscm and many have emission limit could easily meet the bioaccumulative HAP (PB–HAP) list in emissions more than 10 times below revised emissions limit of 0.007 mg/ the Air Toxics Assessment Library (see this level. Although all of the emissions dscm without additional controls. We http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/ data indicated that existing facilities received no data for any decorative or risk_atra_main.html), was developed would meet the more stringent anodizing plants that would not be able considering all of the available emissions limit of 0.007 mg/dscm, we to meet these lower limits. information on persistence and conservatively assumed that at least 2. Risk Assessment bioaccumulation. This list was peer- some facilities would not meet this limit reviewed by the SAB, and it is and would require further controls. The Comment: One commenter contended reasonable to use it in the RTR program. commenter is not correct that we that EPA did not assess multipathway In addition, the Agency does not have assumed the 8 facilities would choose to health risk for chrome plating because information, nor did the commenter comply with the surface tension levels hexavalent chromium is not on the provide information, that would enable rather than the new emissions limits. outdated list of 14 PB–HAPs that EPA the EPA to determine whether the However, we did assume those facilities has used for this risk assessment. The deposition of airborne hexavalent would choose to use fume suppressants commenter noted EPA’s statement that, chromium from chromium to achieve some emissions reductions to ‘‘PB–HAP emissions were not identified electroplaters and the subsequent comply with the more stringent from the chromium anodizing, movement of the hexavalent chromium emissions limits, but we disagree that decorative chromium electroplating, in the environment would result in this assumption means that we and hard chromium electroplating human exposures that could be of dismissed those plants. Using fume source categories, indicating that concern. With regard to the suppressant in combination with add-on exposures due to non-inhalation routes environment, the limited available controls is a relatively common practice of exposure are not significant.’’ The for meeting emissions limits in the commenter argued that this is unlawful, 1 Cal. EPA, OEHHA, Air Toxics Hot Spots chromium electroplating industry. arbitrary and capricious because the Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Technical Regarding the data on chromium science demonstrates this pollutant can Support, Document for Exposure Assessment and anodizing, we have obtained emission indeed cause health effects when a Stochastic Analysis, Scientific Review Panel Draft at F–27, E–5 (Feb. 2012), http://oehha.ca.gov/air/ test data for two additional chromium person is exposed through a pathway hot_spots/SRP/index.html), http://oehha.ca.gov/air/ anodizing plants, one of which is other than inhalation. Evolving research hot_spots/SRP/index.html; see also id. at E–12 tbl. located in Connecticut that reported continues to show risk to animals and E3 (describing exposure pathways for analysis).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 58234 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

information on the persistence and The commenter recommended that the 02/002F. Risk Assessment Forum, bioaccumulation of hexavalent EPA update both its 2005 Supplemental Washington DC. Available online at chromium suggests that there is no Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/ indication of the biomagnifications of from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens pdfs/rfd-final.pdf). For example, a hexavalent chromium along the aquatic (attached to comment letter), and EPA’s review of the chronic reference value food chain, and that chromium has low 2006 list of carcinogenic HAPs that act process concluded that the Agency’s mobility for translocation from roots to by a mutagenic mode of action to use reference concentration (RfC) derivation aboveground parts of plants. (ATSDRs age-dependent adjustment factors for process adequately considers potential Tox profile 2008 http:// hexavalent chromium in the susceptibility of different subgroups www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp7.pdf). Supplemental Guidance and with specific consideration of children, Comment: One commenter stated that incorporate more recent evaluations of such that the resultant RfC values the residual risk assessment carcinogenic modes of action in the list pertain to the full human population underestimates risk to the developing of carcinogenic HAPs. The commenter including ‘‘sensitive subgroups,’’ child and fetus. The commenter also suggested that the EPA should inclusive of childhood. With respect to observed that biological differences in consult with multiple scientific bodies cancer risk assessments, assessments are the developing child and fetus can on the scientific basis of the proposed performed in accordance with EPA’s result in increased cancer and non- rulemaking: National Academy of Supplemental Guidance for Assessing cancer risk due to both increased Sciences, the Office of Children’s Health Susceptibility from Early-life Exposure exposure and increased vulnerability, Protection, the Children’s Health to Carcinogens (US EPA, 2005). This and emphasizes that the EPA must Protection Advisory Committee, and Guidance recommends the application account for the increased susceptibility scientists in the Office of Research and of age-dependent adjustment factors for of children to HAP emissions from this Development who focus on children’s assessing cancer risk from carcinogenic source category in the risk assessment. and community health (such as experts pollutants concluded to act via a The commenter noted that according to in the National Center for mutagenic mode of action and for which OEHHA, there is an increased risk Environmental Research). The information on early-life susceptibility indicated from early life exposures and commenter asked the EPA to consider is lacking. The basis for this asserted that EPA’s failure to include an and follow its 2008 handbook on child- methodology is provided in the 2005 adequate evaluation of increased early specific exposure factors in this Supplemental Guidance. With regard to life susceptibility to HAP emissions rulemaking, and follow the Science other carcinogenic pollutants for which systematically underestimates risk from Advisory Board’s recommendations early-life susceptibility data are lacking, hexavalent chromium emissions of this regarding the greater exposure and it is the Agency’s long-standing science source category. The commenter stated vulnerability of children.5 policy position that use of the linear that the EPA must follow the lead of The commenter also pointed out that low-dose extrapolation approach OEHHA and include additional factors Congress recognized this science in the (without further adjustment) provides to address early life exposure in its risk Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) for adequate public health conservatism in assessment. The commenter also cited a pesticide chemical residue, where the absence of chemical-specific data recent EPA toxicological review and Congress used a ten-fold margin of indicating differential early-life cancer toxicity reviews from California safety for infants and children. The susceptibility or when the mode of EPA (CalEPA) that provide evidence for commenter also provided a table of action is not mutagenicity (U.S. EPA, 6 the mutagenic activity of hexavalent comparisons between OEHHA child- 2005). chromium compounds, and health reference values and those of EPA disagrees with the commenter developmental, female reproductive and that EPA should use California EPA’s 234 EPA. male reproductive toxicity. The Response: The EPA disagrees with the child-specific reference doses for school 7 commenter suggested that under the commenter’s statement that the risk site risk assessments in order to 2005 Guidance, risk assessments of assessment underestimates risk to address the potential for early-life exposure to hexavalent chromium children and lacks consideration of susceptibility. EPA methods for should include adjustment for early life early-life susceptibility. The EPA agrees assessing hazard and dose-response exposures and the estimates included in that biological differences across relationships for HAPs and developing the residual risk assessment fail to lifestages may lead to differences in the RfCs and cancer risk estimates, as noted include the full health risk. susceptibility to HAP, as can differences above, specifically address the potential The commenter noted that the EPA among population groups due to pre- for early-life susceptibility. Whenever restricted its application of age- existing disease states or other factors. data indicate increased susceptibility of dependent adjustment factors to those Accordingly, the methods we use in risk a developmental lifestage or of a HAPs included in EPA’s 2006 list of assessments have taken this into population group, those data are carcinogenic HAPs that act by a account. For the dose-response mutagenic mode of action, and did not 6 The EPA has not yet determined whether component of HAP assessments for apply age-dependent adjustment factors hexavalent chromium poses disproportionate risks to assess cancer risk from chromium. RTR, the EPA uses exposure reference to children, but is currently developing an concentrations and unit risk estimates assessment of hexavalent chromium which likely (UREs) that are expressly derived with will address that issue. 2 EPA, IRIS, Draft, Technological Review of 7 We note that California EPA’s use of these Hexavalent Chromium (CAS No. 18540–29–9), In the objective of protecting sensitive numerical values, which do not exist for inhalation Support of Summary Information on the Integrated populations and lifestages, including exposures, is limited to the context of risk Risk Information System at 238 (Sept. 2010). children (see U.S. EPA, 2002). A Review assessment at proposed or existing California school 3 Cal. EPA OEHHA, Public Health Goal for of the Reference Dose and Reference sites and does not extend to their Air Hot Spots Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water (July Risk Assessment program. Further the guidance for 2011). Concentration Processes. EPA/630/P– the California EPA school site assessment program 4 Cal. EPA, OEHHA, Evidence of the specifies the use of California OEHHA or U.S. EPA Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity of 5 U.S. EPA, Child-Specific Exposure Factors IRIS values in the absence of the school site risk Chromium (Hexavalent Compounds) 3 (Aug. 2009), Handbook (Sept. 2008), EPA/600/R–06/096F, assessment child-specific values (Cal OEHHA, http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/hazard_ident/ http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ 2004—http://www.oehha.ca.gov/public_info/ pdf_zip/chrome0908.pdf. recordisplay.cfm?deid=199243. public/kids/pdf/SchoolscreenFinal.pdf).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58235

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 58236 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58237

through the solution and have less emissions just as effectively as the PFOS docket nor the docket for the energy when they arrive at the for about the same costs.8 supplemental proposal included the solution’s surface. The lower surface In a separate meeting, the EPA reference materials needed to tension also reduces the energy with discussed the effectiveness of non-PFOS substantiate EPA’s conclusions on the which the resulting droplets are ejected fume suppressants with a major availability and feasibility of using non- into the air. Together, both of these distributer of both PFOS and non-PFOS PFOS fume suppressants to meet the effects can reduce the emission of fume suppressant. The distributor proposed surface tension or emission droplets, which in turn reduces the discussed issues that arise when using limits. The commenter is also concerned amount of chromium emitted by the any type of fume suppressant and stated with the lack of information on how tank. It is our understanding that this that, worldwide, they have experienced these alternate materials may affect the relationship between surface tension issues with the switch to non-PFOS parts being plated and noted that the and chromium emissions is dependent based fume suppressants with only a procedures followed for their aircraft primarily on the surface tension of the couple of companies. The distributor maintenance are very tightly controlled tank and not on the product used to was confident that their non-PFOS with extensive testing done prior to reduce surface tension. based products could reach the implementation of any new procedures. proposed limits and noted that the The commenter stated that until We acknowledge that there may be phase-out of PFOS fume suppressants in adequate testing is completed, which differences in the performance of non- Europe and Japan occurred seamlessly can take longer than the proposed three PFOS based fume suppressants in (See Summary of EPA Meeting with year timetable for the PFOS phase-out, different types of chromium Atotech March 1, 2012, in the docket for they will be unable to change to an electroplating tanks, but this is also true this rulemaking). alternate fume suppressant. The of PFOS based fume suppressants. The EPA also contacted several facilities commenter recommended additional performance of any type of fume in Minnesota that have switched from a study of the available alternatives for suppressant can depend on the PFOS-based fume suppressant to a non- aeronautics plating and a process by characteristics of the chemical and tank PFOS fume suppressant and asked them which industry may petition for (i.e., temperature, contaminants present, to describe any changes in the additional time to complete the etc.), but EPA has found no evidence effectiveness or consumption of the transition to non-PFOS fume that supports the idea that non-PFOS fume suppressant. All facilities stated suppressants. based fume suppressants are unable to that the non-PFOS based fume Response: EPA has included several reach the surface tension limits being suppressant was equally effective as the documents on the performance of non- finalized in this rulemaking. EPA PFOS-based fume suppressant, with one PFOS based fume suppressants in the contacted several fume suppressant facility noting the non-PFOS based fume docket to this rule-making (see previous vendors to request information on non- suppressant performed more effectively. responses). EPA agrees that some PFOS fume suppressants. The vendors In terms of consumption, all facilities electroplaters of highly specialized who responded were confident that stated they have not noticed any products may need to perform their non-PFOS fume suppressants increase in fume suppressant additional testing in order to integrate could reach the proposed surface consumption since the switch, with one the use of non-PFOS fume suppressants tension limits (see Information on Non- facility stating they consume less fume and that this testing may require a PFOS Fume Suppressants for Chromium suppressant per operating hour since longer time commitment compared to Electroplating Supplemental Proposal switching to the non-PFOS fume other products. Nevertheless, we believe memorandum). It has been reported that suppressant. The facilities that that this testing can be accomplished by there are now suitable, successful and responded also reported no issues with the compliance date, which is 3 years well proven non-PFOS fume maintaining surface tension levels after the date of publication of this suppressants for hard and decorative consistent with the limits we are Federal Register notice. Additionally, chromium electroplating, and that the establishing in the final rule, with one the Clean Air Act allows facilities to surface tension can be reduced to as low facility stating that since the switch they apply for an extra year if needed for as 20 dynes/cm in baths, but are have seen less surface tension compliance. Therefore, facilities could commonly maintained at about 30 fluctuations in their tank. The responses have up to 4 years to comply, which dynes/cm. At this level, consumption of of Minnesota facilities are summarized should be adequate time to resolve any the suppressant is minimized and in the Information on Non-PFOS Fume remaining issues associated with the Suppressant Use at Minnesota emissions are controlled (Barlowe, G. switch to non-PFOS suppressants. Chromium Electroplating Facilities and Patton, N., 2011). For example, memorandum located in the docket of B. Comments and Responses Associated surface tension data from one decorative this rulemaking. Also industry With the Steel Pickling Source Category chromium electroplating plant in representatives submitted comments Comment: One commenter opposed Minnesota that has been using non- supporting the PFOS phase-out. the proposed removal of the source- PFOS fume suppressant for years show Comment: One commenter stated that specific alternative concentration they had an average surface tension of the phase-out of PFOS is being proposed standard for chlorine (Cl2) at HCl acid 28.7 dynes/cm over the first 6 months without adequate study of the non- regeneration facilities. The commenter of 2012, and their highest reading was PFOS materials ability to perform as stated that the current regulation was 32.4 dynes/cm. They had several well as PFOS and meet the proposed specifically written to allow for the readings below 23 dynes/cm, and some lower emission limits (as measured by production of iron oxide of acceptable values were as low as 18.5 dynes/cm. surface tension). The commenter quality, and that removing the These data indicate that 33 dynes/cm is indicated that neither the 2010 proposal ‘‘alternative concentration standard’’ quite feasible, especially for decorative may have the unintended consequence chromium electroplating sources. 8 Danish, EPA. 2011. Substitution of PFOS for use of reducing the quality of the iron oxide Furthermore, a study by the Danish EPA in non-decorative hard chrome plating. Pia Brunn produced and negatively impact the (Danish EPA, 2011) found that the non- Poulsen, Lars K. Gram and Allan Astrup Jensen. Danish Environmental Protection Agency. marketability of the material. The PFOS fume suppressant reduced Environmental Project No. 1371 2011. commenter noted that there are a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 58238 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58239

amending the MACT standard nor re- ‘‘new technology’’ but rather that they lbs/yr. For large hard chromium assessing the MACT floor. Rather, we convert at least one of their existing electroplating, the amendments will are removing the provision in the water scrubbers to an alkaline scrubber. reduce chromium compound emissions regulation allowing sources to seek a The cost range presented in the by about 148 lbs/yr from 454 lbs/yr less stringent emission limit than the proposed rule represents the estimated down to 306 pounds. For small hard floor limit. Thus, we do not agree that capital cost to upgrade a scrubber from chromium electroplating, the we need to recalculate the MACT floor. using water to using an alkaline amendments will reduce chromium However, we note that the commenter solution, if necessary to meet the compound emissions by an estimated 33 did not provide, and we are not aware emission limit. Based on available lbs/yr from 223 lbs/yr to 190 lbs/yr. For of, any information that would indicate information, EPA believes sources can decorative chromium electroplating, the that a MACT floor determined 10 years achieve the MACT standard with amendments will reduce chromium after the original MACT was readily available control technologies compound emissions by an estimated 35 promulgated would be less stringent, (e.g., alkaline scrubbers) at reasonable lbs/yr from 222 lbs/yr down to 187 lbs/ particularly in light of the fact that 3 out cost and still produce a marketable yr. For chromium anodizing, the of the 5 sources subject to the MACT product. amendments will reduce chromium standard have never indicated that there V. Summary of Cost, Environmental compound emissions by an estimated 8 are compliance issues with that and Economic Impacts lbs/yr from 57 lbs/yr down to 49 lbs/yr. standard. The elimination of the The amendments will have negligible alternative standard from the rule means A. What are the affected sources? impacts on secondary emissions the rule will no longer allow facilities to 1. Chromium Electroplating and because the additional control request alternative concentration Chromium Anodizing equipment that would be required will standards. not significantly impact energy use by Comment: One commenter stated that For the amendments to the Chromium the affected facilities. EPA’s conclusion that the proposed Electroplating NESHAP, the affected removal of the ‘‘alternative sources are each hard chromium 2. Steel Pickling electroplating tank, each decorative concentration standard’’ provision will We estimate that the amendment to chromium electroplating tank, and each have a capital cost in the range of remove the alternative compliance chromium anodizing tank located at a $100,000 to $200,000, cannot be provision for hydrochloric acid facility that performs hard chromium supported by fact. The commenter also regeneration facilities will reduce electroplating, decorative chromium noted that in its description of the emissions of chlorine by 15 tpy. proposed revision, EPA states that there electroplating, or chromium anodizing. C. What are the cost impacts? is no control technology available that is 2. Steel Pickling more effective in removing Cl2 than For the amendments to the Steel 1. Chromium Electroplating and existing technology already used by HCl Chromium Anodizing regeneration facilities. The commenter Pickling NESHAP, the affected sources stated that EPA’s two statements are are steel pickling and hydrochloric acid We estimate that these amendments irreconcilable; how can a facility spend regeneration plants that are major will achieve 224 pounds reductions in $100,000 to $200,000 to upgrade control sources of HAP. hexavalent chromium emissions, and equipment with new technology that B. What are the emission reductions? that the total capital and total does not exist? The commenter would annualized cost for these amendments is like to know what EPA proposes 1. Chromium Electroplating and $8.2 million and $2.4 million, existing facilities do that already have Chromium Anodizing respectively. The overall cost state of the art control technology. Overall, the amendments to the effectiveness is $10,600 per pound of Response: As noted in previous Chromium Electroplating NESHAP will hexavalent chromium emissions responses, alkaline scrubbers constitute reduce nationwide emissions of reductions. A summary of the estimated an existing technology that is effective chromium compounds by an estimated costs and reductions of hexavalent at controlling Cl2 emissions. We are not 224 pounds per year (lbs/yr) from the chromium emissions are shown in Table suggesting that facilities upgrade to current levels of 956 lbs/yr down to 732 8.

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF COST IMPACTS FOR CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING AND ANODIZING ASSOCIATED WITH SURFACE TENSION AND EMISSION LIMIT REQUIREMENTS

Capital costs Annualized costs Number of (controls + (controls + Emissions Cost Source category or subcategory affected plants WAFS + all WAFS + all reductions effectiveness testing) testing), $/yr (lbs/yr) (per lb)

Large Hard Chromium Electroplating .... 57 $6,377,000 $1,686,000 148 $11,400 Small Hard Chromium Electroplating .... 91 1,424,000 476,000 33 14,600 Decorative Chromium Electroplating ..... 313 163,000 166,000 35 4,800 Chromic Acid Anodizing ...... 74 235,000 51,000 8 6,600

Total ...... 535 8,200,000 2,380,000 224 10,600

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 58240 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

and $200,000, depending on whether category. For these categories, because in response to OMB recommendations the existing equipment can be upgraded the average sales receipts used for the have been documented in the docket for or will need to be replaced. The analysis may understate sales for some this action. annualized costs are estimated to be facilities and because these facilities are B. Paperwork Reduction Act between $11,419 and $22,837 per year. likely to be able to pass cost increases The estimated cost effectiveness is $761 through to their customers, we do not This action does not impose any new to $1,522 per ton of HAP (mainly anticipate the final rule to result in firm information collection requirements chlorine). closures, significant price increases, or related to the Steel Pickling—HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric D. What are the economic impacts? substantial profit loss. We conclude that this final rule will not have a significant Acid Regeneration Plants MACT 1. Chromium Electroplating and economic impact on a substantial standards. However, the OMB has Chromium Anodizing number of small entities. More previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the EPA performed a screening analysis information and details of this analysis existing regulations 40 CFR part 63, for impacts on affected small entities by are provided in the technical document subpart CCC under the provisions of the comparing compliance costs to average ‘‘Economic Impact Analysis for Risk and Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. sales revenues by employment size Technology Review: Chromium 3501, et seq and assigned OMB Control category.9 This is known as the cost-to- Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Source Categories,’’ which is Number 2060–0419. revenue or cost-to-sales ratio, or the The information collection ‘‘sales test.’’ The ‘‘sales test’’ is the available in the docket for this final rule. requirements in this rule for the Hard impact methodology EPA primarily and Decorative Chromium employs in analyzing small entity 2. Steel Pickling Electroplating and Chromium impacts as opposed to a ‘‘profits test,’’ Because only one of the Anodizing Tanks NESHAP have been in which annualized compliance costs submitted for approval to OMB under are calculated as a share of profits. The approximately 100 facilities incurs any cost for controls and that cost is the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. sales test is frequently used because 3501, et seq. The Information Collection revenues or sales data are commonly estimated to be less than 1 percent of sales, no significant price or Request (ICR) document prepared was available for entities impacted by EPA assigned EPA ICR number 1611.10. regulations, and profits data normally productivity impacts are anticipated due to these amendments. Burden changes associated with these made available are often not the true amendments would result from the profit earned by firms because of E. What are the benefits? emission testing requirements and accounting and tax considerations. The compliance demonstrations being use of a ‘‘sales test’’ for estimating small 1. Chromium Electroplating and promulgated with today’s action. The business impacts for a rulemaking is Chromium Anodizing estimated average burden per response consistent with guidance offered by EPA The estimated reductions in is 9 hours; the frequency of response is on compliance with SBREFA 10 and is chromium emissions that will be one-time for all respondents that must consistent with guidance published by achieved by this rule will provide comply with the rule’s reporting the U.S. SBA’s Office of Advocacy that benefits to public health. The limits will requirements and the estimated average suggests that cost as a percentage of total result in significant reductions in the number of likely respondents per year is revenues is a metric for evaluating cost actual and allowable emissions of 485. The cost burden to respondents increases on small entities in relation to hexavalent chromium therefore will resulting from the collection of increases on large entities (U.S. SBA, reduce the actual and potential cancer 2010).11 information includes the total capital risks due to emissions of chromium cost annualized over the equipment’s Based on the analysis, we estimate from this source category. that approximately 97 percent of all expected useful life ($100,958), a total affected facilities have a cost-to-sales 2. Steel Pickling operation and maintenance component ratio of less than 1 percent. In addition, The estimated reductions in chlorine ($0 per year), and a labor cost for approximately 1 percent of all emissions that will result from this component (about $152,116 per year). affected facilities, or 9 facilities with action will provide benefits to public Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). An agency may not conduct or fewer than 20 employees, the potential health. The limits will result in sponsor, and a person is not required to for cost-to-sales impacts may be reductions in the potential for respond to a collection of information between 3 and 9 percent. All of these noncancer health effects due to unless it displays a currently valid OMB facilities are in the hard chromium emissions of these HAP. electroplating category, with 3 of the control number. The OMB control facilities in the small hard chromium VI. Statutory and Executive Order numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 electroplating category and 6 in the Reviews CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the large hard chromium electroplating A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Agency will publish a technical Planning and Review and Executive 9 amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/data/ Order 13563: Improving Regulation and susb2002.html. Federal Register to display the OMB Regulatory Review 10 The SBREFA compliance guidance to EPA control number for the approved rulewriters regarding the types of small business Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR information collection requirements analysis that should be considered can be found at: 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/Guidance- contained in this final rule. significant regulatory action because it RegFlexAct.pdf. See Table 2 on page 36 for C. Regulatory Flexibility Act guidance on interpretations of the magnitude of the raises novel legal and policy issues. cost-to-sales numbers. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 11 U.S. SBA, Office of Advocacy. A Guide for to the Office of Management and Budget generally requires an agency to prepare Government Agencies, How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Implementing the (OMB) for review under Executive a regulatory flexibility analysis of any President’s Small Business Agenda and Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, rule subject to notice and comment Order 13272, June 2010. January 21, 2011) and any changes made rulemaking requirements under the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58241

Administrative Procedure Act or any estimates of costs-to-sales ratios in the F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation other statute unless the agency certifies initial analyses are more likely to be and Coordination With Indian Tribal that the rule will not have a significant overstated rather than understated Governments economic impact on a substantial because the additional analyses indicate This rule will not have tribal number of small entities. Small entities that sales are typically higher for these implications, as specified in Executive include small businesses, small sources than the average value used in Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, organizations, and small governmental the initial analysis. 2000). It will not have substantial direct jurisdictions. effect on tribal governments, on the For purposes of assessing the impacts Moreover, because of the nature of the market, these facilities are likely to be relationship between the Federal of today’s rule on small entities, small government and Indian tribes, or on the entity is defined as: (1) A small business able to pass cost increases through to their customers. As such, we do not distribution of power and that is a small industrial entity as responsibilities between the Federal defined by the Small Business anticipate the rule to result in firm closures, or substantial profit loss. More government and Indian tribes, as Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 specified in Executive Order 13175. CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental information and details of this analysis are provided in the technical document Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not jurisdiction that is a government of a apply to this action. city, county, town, school district or ‘‘Economic Impact Analysis for Risk and special district with a population of less Technology Review: Chromium G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of than 50,000; and (3) a small Electroplating,’’ which is available in Children From Environmental Health organization that is any not-for-profit the docket for this final rule. Risks and Safety Risks enterprise which is independently Although this rule will not have a This rule is not subject to Executive owned and operated and is not significant economic impact on a Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, dominant in its field. substantial number of small entities, 1997) because it is not economically After considering the economic EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the significant as defined in Executive impact of this final rule on small impact of this rule on small entities. Order 12866. However, some of the entities, I certify that this action will not pollutants addressed by this action may have a significant economic impact on D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act present a disproportionate risk to a substantial number of small entities. children.12 The phase-out of PFOS fume This rule imposes more stringent This rule does not contain a Federal mandate under the provisions of Title II suppressants will help to reduce a emissions limits and lower surface disproportionate risk to children. This tension requirements. These new of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for action will not relax the control requirements and restrictions to the measures on existing regulated sources hard and decorative chromium state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The rule will not result and will result in reductions in cancer electroplating and chromium anodizing risks due to chromium emissions for in expenditures of $100 million or more tanks MACT standard will impact small people of all ages, including children. for State, local, and tribal governments, entities, but those impacts have been The EPA’s risk assessments (included in in aggregate, or the private sector in any estimated to be nominal. The emissions the docket for this rule) demonstrate 1 year. The rule imposes no enforceable limits reflect the level of performance that these regulations, with the duties on any State, local, or tribal currently being achieved by most amendments being promulgated in facilities, and many facilities currently governments or the private sector. Thus, today’s action, will be health protective. have emissions that are far below the this rule is not subject to the limits. With regard to the remaining requirements of sections 202 or 205 of H. Executive Order 13211: Actions facilities (those that will need to achieve the UMRA. Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, emissions reductions), most of these This rule is also not subject to the Distribution, or Use facilities can achieve the limits at low requirements of section 203 of UMRA costs (e.g., by using additional fume because it contains no regulatory This action is not a ‘‘significant suppressants). requirements that might significantly or energy action’’ as defined under The EPA’s analysis estimated that 97 uniquely affect small governments. This Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355 percent of the affected entities will have action contains no requirements that (May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely an annualized cost of less than 1 percent apply to such governments nor does it to have significant adverse effect on the of sales. In addition, approximately 1 impose obligations upon them. supply, distribution, or use of energy. percent of affected entities, or 9 This action will not create any new facilities with fewer than 20 employees, E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism requirements for sources in the energy may have cost-to-sales ratios between 3 supply, distribution, or use sectors. to 9 percent. All of these facilities are in This rule does not have federalism the hard chromium electroplating implications. It will not have substantial I. National Technology Transfer and category, with 3 of the facilities in the direct effects on the States, on the Advancement Act small hard chromium electroplating relationship between the national Section 12(d) of the National category and 6 in the large hard government and the States, or on the Technology Transfer and Advancement chromium electroplating category. distribution of power and Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. Since our analysis indicates that a responsibilities among the various 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) small subset of facilities (about 1 levels of government, as specified in directs EPA to use voluntary consensus percent) may have cost-to-sales ratios Executive Order 13132. None of the standards (VCS) in its regulatory greater than 3 percent, we have facilities subject to this action are conducted additional economic impact owned or operated by State 12 The EPA has not yet determined whether analyses on this small subset of facilities governments and do not impose hexavalent chromium poses disproportionate risks significant economic costs on state or to children by acting as a mutagenic carcinogen. to better understand the potential The EPA is currently developing an IRIS assessment economic impacts for these facilities. local governments. Thus, Executive of hexavalent chromium which likely will address The additional analyses indicate the Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. that issue.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 58242 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

activities unless to do so would be adverse human health or environmental Comptroller General of the United inconsistent with applicable law or effects on minority or low-income States prior to publication of the final otherwise impractical. VCS are populations because it maintains or rule in the Federal Register. A major technical standards (e.g., materials increases the level of environmental rule cannot take effect until 60 days specifications, test methods, sampling protection for all affected populations after it is published in the Federal procedures, and business practices) that without having any disproportionately Register. This action is not a ‘‘major are developed or adopted by VCS high and adverse human health or rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to environmental effects on any final rules will be effective on provide Congress, through OMB, population, including any minority low- September 19, 2012. explanations when the Agency decides income, or indigenous populations. not to use available and applicable VCS. Further, after implementation of the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 This rulemaking does not involve provisions of this rule, the public health Environmental protection, Air technical standards. Therefore, EPA is of all demographic groups will be pollution control, Reporting and not considering the use of any VCS. protected with an ample margin of recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal safety. The development of demographic Actions To Address Environmental Dated: August 15, 2012. analyses to inform the consideration of Justice in Minority Populations and Lisa P. Jackson, environmental justice issues in EPA Low-Income Populations rulemakings is an evolving process. The Administrator. Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, EPA offers the demographic analyses in For the reasons stated in the February 16, 1994) establishes federal this rulemaking as examples of how preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I, executive policy on environmental such analyses might be developed to of the Code of Federal Regulations is justice. Its main provision directs inform such consideration, with the amended as follows: Federal agencies, to the greatest extent hope that this will support the PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION practicable and permitted by law, to refinement and improve utility of such make environmental justice part of their STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR analyses for future rulemakings. POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE mission by identifying and addressing, Our analysis of the demographics of CATEGORIES as appropriate, disproportionately high the population with estimated risks and adverse human health or greater than 1-in-1 million indicates ■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 environmental effects of their programs, potential disparities in risks between continues to read as follows: policies, and activities on minority demographic groups, including the populations and low-income African American, Other and Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. populations in the United States. Multiracial, Hispanic, Below the ■ 2. Amend § 63.341 by: To examine the potential for any Poverty Level, and the Over 25 without ■ a. Adding, in alphabetical order, in environmental justice issues that might a High School Diploma groups. These paragraph (a), definitions for be associated with two of the source groups stand to benefit the most from ‘‘affirmative defense,’’ ‘‘contains categories associated with today’s rule the emission reductions achieved by hexavalent chromium,’’ ‘‘existing (Hard Chromium Electroplaters and this rulemaking. affected source,’’ ‘‘new affected source,’’ Decorative Chromium Electroplaters), EPA defines ‘‘Environmental Justice’’ and ‘‘perfluorooctane sulfonic acid we evaluated the percentages of various to include meaningful involvement of (PFOS)-based fume suppressant’’; social, demographic, and economic all people regardless of race, color, ■ b. Revising in paragraph (a) the groups within the at-risk populations national origin, or income with respect definition for ‘‘wetting agent’’; and living near the facilities where these to the development, implementation, ■ c. Revising paragraph (b)(10). source categories are located and and enforcement of environmental laws, The added and revised text reads as compared them to national averages. We regulations, and polices. To promote follows: did not conduct this type of analysis for meaningful involvement, after the rule § 63.341 Definitions and nomenclature. the chromic acid anodizing or steel was proposed, EPA conducted a pickling categories because the numbers webinar to inform the public about the (a) * * * Affirmative defense means, in the of people for whom cancer risks were rule and to outline how to submit context of an enforcement proceeding, a greater than 1-in-1 million due to HAP written comments to the docket. Further response or a defense put forward by a emissions from these source categories stakeholder and public input occurred defendant, regarding which the were low. through public comment and follow-up defendant has the burden of proof, and The analysis indicated that certain meetings with interested stakeholders. minority groups and low-income the merits of which are independently populations may be disproportionately K. Congressional Review Act and objectively evaluated in a judicial exposed to emissions from these The Congressional Review Act, 5 or administrative proceeding. categories and to any risks that may U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the * * * * * result due to these emissions because Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Contains hexavalent chromium the communities most proximate to Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides means, the substance consists of, or facilities within these categories have a that, before a rule may take effect, the contains 0.1 percent or greater by higher proportion of these groups than agency promulgating the rule must weight, chromium trioxide, chromium the national demographic profile. We submit a rule report, which includes a (VI) oxide, chromic acid, or chromic did not, however, identify any copy of the rule, to each House of the anhydride. vulnerability or susceptibility to risks Congress and to the Comptroller General * * * * * particular to minority and low income of the United States. The EPA will Existing affected source means an populations from pollutants emitted submit a report containing this final rule affected hard chromium electroplating from this source category. and other required information to the tank, decorative chromium We determined that this rule will not United States Senate, the United States electroplating tank, or chromium have disproportionately high and House of Representatives, and the anodizing tank, the construction or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58243

reconstruction of which commenced on to the Administrator which may personal injury, or severe property or before February 8, 2012. include, but is not limited to, damage; and * * * * * monitoring results, review of operation (E) All possible steps were taken to New affected source means an and maintenance procedures, review of minimize the impact of the violation on affected hard chromium electroplating operation and maintenance records, and ambient air quality, the environment, tank, decorative chromium inspection of the source. and human health; and electroplating tank, or chromium (2) Each owner or operator of an (F) All emissions monitoring and anodizing tank, the construction or affected source subject to the provisions control systems were kept in operation reconstruction of which commenced of this subpart shall comply with these if at all possible, consistent with safety after February 8, 2012. requirements in this section on and after and good air pollution control practices; the compliance dates specified in and * * * * * (G) All of the actions in response to Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)- § 63.343(a). All affected sources are regulated by applying maximum the violation were documented by based fume suppressant means a fume properly signed, contemporaneous suppressant that contains 1 percent or achievable control technology. (b) * * * operating logs; and greater PFOS by weight. (H) At all times, the affected sources (1) The emission limitations in this * * * * * were operated in a manner consistent section apply during tank operation as Wetting agent means the type of with good practices for minimizing defined in § 63.341, and during periods commercially available chemical fume emissions; and of startup and shutdown as these are suppressant that materially reduces the (I) A written root cause analysis was routine occurrences for affected sources surface tension of a liquid. prepared, the purpose of which is to (b) * * * subject to this subpart. In response to an determine, correct, and eliminate the action to enforce the standards set forth (10) VRtot = the average total primary causes of the malfunction and ventilation rate for the three test runs as in this subpart, the owner or operator the excess emissions resulting from the determined at the outlet by means of the may assert a defense to a claim for civil malfunction event at issue. The analysis Method 306 or 306A testing specified in penalties for violations of such shall also specify, using the best appendix A of this part in dscm/min. standards that are caused by a monitoring methods and engineering malfunction, as defined in 40 CFR 63.2. ■ judgment, the amount of excess 3. Amend § 63.342 by: Appropriate penalties may be assessed, ■ emissions that were the result of the a. Revising paragraph (a); however, if the owner or operator fails ■ malfunction. b. Revising paragraph (b)(1); to meet the burden of proving all the ■ c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (ii) Report. The owner or operator requirements in the affirmative defense. (c)(1)(ii), and (c)(1)(iii); seeking to assert an affirmative defense The affirmative defense shall not be ■ d. Adding paragraphs (c)(1)(iv) and shall submit a written report to the available for claims for injunctive relief. (c)(1)(v); Administrator with all necessary (i) To establish the affirmative defense ■ e. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i), supporting documentation, that it has in any action to enforce such a standard, (c)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(iii), and (c)(2)(iv); met the requirements set forth in ■ f. Adding paragraphs (c)(2)(vi), the owner or operator must timely meet paragraph (i) of this section. This (c)(2)(vii), and (c)(2)(viii); the reporting requirements of paragraph affirmative defense report shall be ■ g. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (b)(1)(ii) of this section, and must prove included in the first periodic (d)(2); by a preponderance of evidence that: compliance, deviation report or excess ■ h. Adding paragraphs (d)(3) and (A) The violation was caused by a emission report otherwise required after (d)(4); sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable the initial occurrence of the violation of ■ i. Revising paragraph (e)(1); failure of air pollution control the relevant standard (which may be the ■ j. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(2) and equipment, process equipment, or a end of any applicable averaging period). (e)(3) as paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4), and process to operate in a normal and usual If such compliance, deviation report or revising the newly designated paragraph manner; and could not have been excess emission report is due less than (e)(4); prevented through careful planning, 45 days after the initial occurrence of ■ k. Adding a new paragraph (e)(2); proper design or better operation and the violation, the affirmation defense ■ l. Adding paragraph (f)(3)(i)(F); and maintenance practices; and did not stem report may be included in the second ■ m. Adding Table 2 to read as follows: from any activity or event that could compliance, deviation report or excess have been foreseen and avoided, or emission report due after the initial § 63.342 Standards. planned for; and was not part of a occurrence of the violation of the (a)(1) At all times, each owner or recurring pattern indicative of relevant standard. operator must operate and maintain any inadequate design, operation, or (c)(1) * * * affected source subject to the maintenance; and (i) Not allowing the concentration of requirements of this subpart, including (B) Repairs were made as total chromium in the exhaust gas associated air pollution control expeditiously as possible when stream discharged to the atmosphere to equipment and monitoring equipment, exceeded violation occurred. Off-shift exceed 0.011 milligrams of total in a manner consistent with safety and and overtime labor were used, to the chromium per dry standard cubic meter good air pollution control practices for extent practicable to make these repairs; (mg/dscm) of ventilation air (4.8 × 10¥6 minimizing emissions. The general duty and grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/ to minimize emissions does not require (C) The frequency, amount and dscf)) for all open surface hard the owner or operator to make any duration of the violation (including any chromium electroplating tanks that are further efforts to reduce emissions if bypass) were minimized to the existing affected sources and are located levels required by this standard have maximum extent practicable; and at large hard chromium electroplating been achieved. Determination of (D) If the violation resulted from a facilities; or whether such operation and bypass of control equipment or a (ii) Not allowing the concentration of maintenance procedures are being used process, then the bypass was total chromium in the exhaust gas will be based on information available unavoidable to prevent loss of life, stream discharged to the atmosphere to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 58244 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58245

TABLE 2 TO § 63.342—HOUSEKEEPING PRACTICES

For You must: At this minimum frequency

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

■ 4. Section 63.343 is amended by: (4) The owner or operator of a new section, an owner or operator of an ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), area source (i.e., an area source for affected source subject to the and (a)(4), and adding paragraph (a)(8); which construction or reconstruction requirements of this subpart is required ■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(1); and was commenced after February 8, 2012, to conduct an initial performance test as ■ c. Revising paragraphs (c) that increases actual or potential required under § 63.7, using the introductory text, (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(ii), emissions of hazardous air pollutants procedures and test methods listed in (c)(4)(ii), (c)(5)(i), (c)(5)(ii), and (c)(6)(ii). such that the area source becomes a §§ 63.7 and 63.344. The added and revised text reads as major source must comply with the * * * * * follows: provisions for new major sources, (c) Monitoring to demonstrate § 63.343 Compliance provisions. immediately upon becoming a major source. continuous compliance. The owner or (a)(1) The owner or operator of an operator of an affected source subject to existing affected source shall comply * * * * * the emission limitations of this subpart with the emission limitations in (8) After March 19, 2013, the owner shall conduct monitoring according to § 63.342 no later than September 19, or operator of an affected source that is the type of air pollution control 2014. subject to the standards in paragraphs technique that is used to comply with (2) The owner or operator of a new or § 63.342(c) or (d) shall implement the the emission limitation. The monitoring reconstructed affected source that has housekeeping procedures specified in required to demonstrate continuous an initial startup after September 19, Table 2 of § 63.342. compliance with the emission 2012, shall comply immediately upon (b) Methods to demonstrate initial limitations is identified in this section startup of the source. compliance. (1) Except as provided in for the air pollution control techniques * * * * * paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this expected to be used by the owners or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 58246 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

operators of affected sources. As an performance test, or shall be operated (c)(6)(i) of this section, shall constitute alternative to the daily monitoring, the within the range of compliant values for noncompliance with the standards. The owner or operator of an affected source pressure drop established during foam blanket thickness shall be may install a continuous pressure multiple performance tests. measured according to the following monitoring system. * * * * * schedule: * * * * * (5) Wetting agent-type or combination * * * * * (c) * * * wetting agent-type/foam blanket fume ■ 5. Section 63.344 is amended by: (1) * * * suppressants. (i) During the initial ■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory (ii) On and after the date on which the performance test, the owner or operator text; initial performance test is required to be of an affected source complying with ■ b. Removing ‘‘and’’ from the end of completed under § 63.7, the owner or the emission limitations in § 63.342 paragraph (b)(1)(iii); operator of an affected source, or group through the use of a wetting agent in the ■ c. Removing the period from the end of affected sources under common electroplating or anodizing bath shall of paragraph (b)(1)(iv) and adding ‘‘; control, shall monitor and record the determine the outlet chromium and’’ in its place; pressure drop across the composite concentration using the procedures in ■ d. Adding paragraphs (b)(1)(v) mesh-pad system once each day that § 63.344(c). The owner or operator shall through (b)(1)(viii); any affected source is operating. To be establish as the site-specific operating ■ e. Removing and reserving paragraph in compliance with the standards, the parameter the surface tension of the (b)(2); composite mesh-pad system shall be bath using Method 306B, appendix A of ■ f. Revising paragraph (c)(1); operated within ±2 inches of water this part, setting the maximum value ■ g. Revising paragraphs (e)(3)(iii), column of the pressure drop value that corresponds to compliance with the (e)(3)(iv), and (e)(3)(v); established during the initial applicable emission limitation. In lieu ■ h. Revising paragraphs (e)(4)(ii) and performance test, or shall be operated of establishing the maximum surface (e)(4)(iv); within the range of compliant values for tension during the performance test, the ■ i. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(A) and pressure drop established during owner or operator may accept 40 dynes/ (f)(1)(ii)(A); and multiple performance tests. cm, as measured by a stalagmometer, or ■ j. Adding paragraph (f)(1)(iii). * * * * * 33 dynes/cm, as measured by a The added and revised text reads as (2) * * * tensiometer, as the maximum surface follows: (ii) On and after the date on which the tension value that corresponds to initial performance test is required to be compliance with the applicable § 63.344 Performance test requirements and test methods. completed under § 63.7, the owner or emission limitation. However, the operator of an affected source, or group owner or operator is exempt from (a) Performance test requirements. of affected sources under common conducting a performance test only if Performance tests shall be conducted control, shall monitor and record the the criteria of paragraph (b)(1) of this using the test methods and procedures velocity pressure at the inlet to the section are met. in this section. Performance tests shall packed-bed system and the pressure (ii) On and after the date on which the be conducted under such conditions as drop across the scrubber system once initial performance test is required to be the Administrator specifies to the owner each day that any affected source is completed under § 63.7, the owner or or operator based on representative operating. To be in compliance with the operator of an affected source shall performance of the affected source for standards, the scrubber system shall be monitor the surface tension of the the period being tested. Upon request, operated within ±10 percent of the electroplating or anodizing bath. the owner or operator shall make velocity pressure value established Operation of the affected source at a available to the Administrator such during the initial performance test, and surface tension greater than the value records as may be necessary to within ±1 inch of water column of the established during the performance test, determine the conditions of pressure drop value established during or greater than 40 dynes/cm, as performance tests. Performance test the initial performance test, or within measured by a stalagmometer, or 33 results shall be documented in complete the range of compliant operating dynes/cm, as measured by a test reports that contain the information parameter values established during tensiometer, if the owner or operator is required by paragraphs (a)(1) through (9) multiple performance tests. using this value in accordance with of this section. The test plan to be * * * * * paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section, shall followed shall be made available to the (4) * * * constitute noncompliance with the Administrator prior to the testing, if (ii) On and after the date on which the standards. The surface tension shall be requested. initial performance test is required to be monitored according to the following * * * * * completed under § 63.7, the owner or schedule: (b)(1) * * * operator of an affected source, or group * * * * * (v) The performance test was of affected sources under common (6) * * * conducted after January 25, 1995; control, shall monitor and record the (ii) On and after the date on which the (vi) As of September 19, 2012 the pressure drop across the fiber-bed mist initial performance test is required to be source was using the same emissions eliminator, and the control device completed under § 63.7, the owner or controls that were used during the installed upstream of the fiber bed to operator of an affected source shall compliance test; prevent plugging, once each day that monitor the foam blanket thickness of (vii) As of September 19, 2012, the any affected source is operating. To be the electroplating or anodizing bath. source was operating under conditions in compliance with the standards, the Operation of the affected source at a that are representative of the conditions fiber-bed mist eliminator and the foam blanket thickness less than the under which the source was operating upstream control device shall be value established during the during the compliance test; and operated within ±1 inch of water performance test, or less than 2.54 cm (viii) Based on approval from the column of the pressure drop value (1 inch) if the owner or operator is using permitting authority. established during the initial this value in accordance with paragraph * * * * *

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58247

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

where VRtot is the average total ventilation affected sources; èIAtotal is the sum of all (v) Establish the allowable mass rate in dscm/min for the three test runs as inlet duct areas from both affected and emission rate of the system (AMRsys) in determined at the outlet by means of the nonaffected sources; and VRinlet is the total milligrams of total chromium per hour Method 306 or 306A testing; IDAi is the total ventilation rate from all inlet ducts inlet area for all ducts associated with associated with affected sources. (mg/hr) using equation 2:

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

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

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

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER19SE12.000 ER19SE12.001 ER19SE12.002 ER19SE12.003 ER19SE12.004 58248 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

emission rate calculated using equation 10:

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

(B) Compliance with the alternative (3)(i) Within 60 days after the date of (xii) The number, duration, and a mass emission limit is demonstrated if completing each performance test brief description for each type of the three-run average mass emission rate (defined in § 63.2) as required by this malfunction which occurred during the determined from testing using Method subpart, you must submit the results of reporting period and which caused or 306 or 306A of appendix A to part 63 the performance tests, including any may have caused any applicable is less than or equal to the maximum associated fuel analyses, required by emission limitation to be exceeded. The allowable mass emission rate calculated this subpart to the EPA’s WebFIRE report must also include a description of from equation 11. database by using the Compliance and actions taken by an owner or operator ■ 6. Amend § 63.346 by revising Emissions Data Reporting Interface during a malfunction of an affected paragraphs (b)(2),(b)(4) and (b)(13) to (CEDRI) that is accessed through the source to minimize emissions in read as follows: EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) accordance with § 63.342(a)(1), (www.epa.gov/cdx). Performance test including actions taken to correct a § 63.346 Recordkeeping requirements. data must be submitted in the file malfunction. * * * * * format generated through use of the (xiii) The name, title, and signature of (b) * * * EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) the responsible official who is certifying (2) Records of all maintenance (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ the accuracy of the report; and performed on the affected source, the index.html). Only data collected using (xiv) The date of the report. test methods on the ERT Web site are add-on air pollution control device, and * * * * * monitoring equipment, except routine subject to this requirement for (h) * * * housekeeping practices; submitting reports electronically to (2) * * * * * * * * WebFIRE. Owners or operators who (i) If either of the following conditions (4) Records of actions taken during claim that some of the information being is met, semiannual reports shall be periods of malfunction to minimize submitted for performance tests is prepared and submitted to the emissions in accordance with confidential business information (CBI) Administrator: § 63.342(a)(1), including corrective must submit a complete ERT file actions to restore malfunctioning including information claimed to be CBI (A) The total duration of excess process and air pollution control and on a compact disk, flash drive or other emissions (as indicated by the monitoring equipment to its normal or commonly used electronic storage monitoring data collected by the owner usual manner of operation; media to the EPA. The electronic media or operator of the affected source in must be clearly marked as CBI and accordance with § 63.343(c)) is 1 * * * * * mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI percent or greater of the total operating (13) For sources using fume Office, Attention: WebFIRE time for the reporting period; or suppressants to comply with the Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old standards, records of the date and time * * * * * Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ■ that fume suppressants are added to the ERT file with the CBI omitted must be 8. Amend Table 1 to Subpart N by: ■ electroplating or anodizing bath and submitted to the EPA via CDX as a. Adding in alphanumerical order records of the fume suppressant described earlier in this paragraph. At entries 63.1(a)(5), 63.1(a)(7)–(9), manufacturer and product name; the discretion of the delegated authority, 63.1(a)(12), 63.1(c)(3)–(4), 63.4(a)(1)–(2), * * * * * you must also submit these reports, 63.4(a)(3)–(5), 63.4(b)–(c), 63.5(b)(2), ■ 7. Amend § 63.347 by: including the confidential business 63.5(c), 63.6(c)(3)–(4), 63.6(d), ■ a. Adding paragraph (f)(3); information, to the delegated authority 63.6(e)(1)–(3), 63.6(h)(1), 63.6(h)(2), ■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (g)(3)(xii) in the format specified by the delegated 63.6(i)(15), 63.7(a)(2)(i)–(viii), 63.7(a)(4), and (g)(3)(xiii) as (g)(3)(xiii) and authority. For any performance test 63.7(e)(1), 63.7(e)(2)–(4), 63.7(g)(2), (g)(3)(xiv), respectively, and adding a conducted using test methods that are 63.8(a)(3), and 63.9(h)(4). ■ new paragraph (g)(3)(xii); and not listed on the ERT Web site, the b. Removing entries 63.1(a)(7) and ■ c. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(i) owner or operator shall submit the 63.1 (a)(8), 63.1(a)(12)—(a)(14), introductory text and (h)(2)(i)(A) to read results of the performance test to the 63.1(c)(4), 63.4, 63.6(e), 63.6(h), as follows: Administrator at the appropriate 63.7(a)(2)(i)–(vi), and 63.7(e). address listed in § 63.13. ■ c. Revising entries 63.1(b)(2), § 63.347 Reporting requirements. * * * * * 63.5(b)(5), 63.6(b)(6), and 63.9(b)(3), * * * * * (g) * * * The added and revised text reads as (f) * * * (3) * * * follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER19SE12.005 ER19SE12.006 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58249

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

Applies to General provisions reference subpart N Comment

******* 63.1(a)(5) ...... No ...... [Reserved]

******* 63.1(a)(7)–(9) ...... No ...... [Reserved]

******* 63.1(a)(12) ...... Yes ......

******* 63.1(b)(2) ...... No ...... [Reserved]

******* 63.1(c)(3)–(4) ...... No ...... [Reserved]

******* 63.4(a)(1)–(2) ...... Yes. 63.4(a)(3)–(5) ...... No ...... [Reserved] 63.4(b)–(c) ...... Yes.

******* 63.5(b)(2) ...... No ...... [Reserved]

******* 63.5(b)(5) ...... No ...... [Reserved]

******* 63.5(c) ...... No ...... [Reserved]

******* 63.6(b)(6) ...... No ...... [Reserved]

******* 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ...... No ...... [Reserved]

******* 63.6(d) ...... No ...... [Reserved] 63.6(e)(1)–(3) ...... No ...... § 63.342(f) of subpart N contains work practice standards (operation and mainte- nance requirements) that override these provisions.

******* 63.6(h)(1) ...... No ...... SSM Exception 63.6(h)(2) ...... No ...... Subpart N does not contain any opacity or visible emission standards.

******* 63.6(i)(15) ...... No ...... [Reserved]

******* 63.7(a)(2)(i)–(viii) ...... No ...... [Reserved]

******* 63.7(a)(4) ...... Yes ......

******* 63.7(e)(1) ...... No ...... See § 63.344(a). Any cross reference to § 63.7(e)(1) in any other general provision incorporated by reference shall be treated as a cross-reference to § 63.344(a). 63.7(e)(2)–(4) ...... Yes ...... Subpart N also contains test methods specific to affected sources covered by that subpart.

******* 63.7(g)(2) ...... No ...... [Reserved]

******* 63.8(a)(3) ...... No ...... [Reserved]

******* 63.9(b)(3) ...... No ...... [Reserved]

******* 63.9(h)(4) ...... No ...... [Reserved]

VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:49 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 58250 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

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

Applies to General provisions reference subpart N Comment

*******

Subpart CCC—[AMENDED] ambient air quality, the environment, defendant has the burden of proof, and and human health; and the merits of which are independently ■ 9. Section 63.1155 is amended by (vi) All emissions monitoring and and objectively evaluated in a judicial adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: control systems were kept in operation or administrative proceeding. if at all possible, consistent with safety § 63.1155 Applicability. * * * * * and good air pollution control practices; * * * * * ■ 11. Section 63.1157 is amended by and revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as (d) In response to an action to enforce (vii) All of the actions in response to follows: the standards set forth in this subpart, the violation were documented by the owner or operator may assert an properly signed, contemporaneous § 63.1157 Emission standards for existing affirmative defense to a claim for civil operating logs; and sources. penalties for violations of such (viii) At all times, the affected source * * * * * standards that are caused by a was operated in a manner consistent (b) * * * malfunction, as defined in § 63.2. with good practices for minimizing (2) In addition to the requirement of Appropriate penalties may be assessed, emissions; and paragraph (b)(1) of this section, no however, if the owner or operator fails (ix) A written root cause analysis has owner or operator of an existing plant to meet the burden of proving all the been prepared, the purpose of which is shall cause or allow to be discharged requirements in the affirmative defense. to determine, correct, and eliminate the into the atmosphere from the affected The affirmative defense shall not be primary causes of the malfunction and plant any gases that contain chlorine available for claims for injunctive relief. the violation resulting from the (Cl2) in a concentration in excess of 6 (1) To establish the affirmative malfunction event at issue. The analysis ppmv. defense in any action to enforce such a shall also specify, using the best ■ 12. Section 63.1159 is amended by standard, the owner or operator must monitoring methods and engineering adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: timely meet the reporting requirements judgment, the amount of excess of paragraph (d)(2) of this section, and emissions that were the result of the § 63.1159 Operational and equipment must prove by a preponderance of malfunction. standards for existing, new, or evidence that: (2) Report. The owner of operator reconstructed sources. (i) The violation was caused by a seeking to assert an affirmative defense * * * * * sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable shall submit a written report to the (c) General duty to minimize failure of air pollution control Administrator with all necessary emissions. At all times, each owner or equipment, process equipment, or a supporting documentation, that it has operator must operate and maintain any process to operate in a normal and usual met the requirements set forth in affected source subject to the manner; and could not have been paragraph (d)(1) of this section. This requirements of this subpart, including prevented through careful planning, affirmative defense report shall be associated air pollution control proper design, or better operation and included in the first periodic equipment and monitoring equipment maintenance practices; and did not stem compliance, deviation report or excess in a manner consistent with safety and from any activity or event that could emission report otherwise required after good air pollution control practices for have been foreseen and avoided, or the initial occurrence of the violation of minimizing emissions. The general duty planned for; and was not part of a the relevant standard (which may be the to minimize emissions does not require recurring pattern indicative of end of any applicable averaging period). the owner or operator to make any inadequate design, operation, or If such compliance, deviation report or further efforts to reduce emissions if maintenance; and excess emission report is due less than levels required by this standard have (ii) Repairs were made as 45 days after the initial occurrence of been achieved. Determination of expeditiously as possible when the violation, the affirmation defense whether such operation and exceeded violation occurred. Off-shift report may be included in the second maintenance procedures are being used and overtime labor were used, to the compliance, deviation report or excess will be based on information available extent practicable to make these repairs; emission report due after the initial to the Administrator which may and occurrence of the violation of the include, but is not limited to, (iii) The frequency, amount, and relevant standard. monitoring results, review of operation duration of the violation (including any ■ 10. Section 63.1156 is amended by and maintenance procedures, review of bypass) were minimized to the adding in alphabetical order a definition operation and maintenance records, and maximum extent practicable; and for ‘‘affirmative defense’’ to read as inspection of the source. (iv) If the violation resulted from a follows: ■ 13. Section 63.1160 is amended by bypass of control equipment or a revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: process, then the bypass was § 63.1156 Definitions. unavoidable to prevent loss of life, * * * * * § 63.1160 Compliance dates and personal injury, or severe property Affirmative defense means, in the maintenance requirements. damage; and context of an enforcement proceeding, a * * * * * (v) All possible steps were taken to response or a defense put forward by a (b) Maintenance requirements. (1) The minimize the impact of the violation on defendant, regarding which the owner or operator shall prepare an

VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:49 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58251

operation and maintenance plan for identified, a description of the repair, EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) each emission control device to be replacement, or other corrective action (www.epa.gov/;cdx). Performance test implemented no later than the taken, and the date of the repair, data must be submitted in the file compliance date. The plan shall be replacement, or other corrective action format generated through use of the incorporated by reference into the taken. EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) source’s title V permit. All such plans (2) The owner or operator of each (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ must be consistent with good hydrochloric acid regeneration plant index.html). Only data collected using maintenance practices, and, for a shall develop and implement a written test methods on the ERT Web site are scrubber emission control device, must maintenance program. The program subject to this requirement for at a minimum: shall require: submitting reports electronically to (i) Require monitoring and recording (i) Performance of the manufacturer’s WebFIRE. Owners or operators who the pressure drop across the scrubber recommended maintenance at the claim that some of the information being once per shift while the scrubber is recommended intervals on all required submitted for performance tests is operating in order to identify changes systems and components; confidential business information (CBI) that may indicate a need for (ii) Initiation of procedures for must submit a complete ERT file maintenance; appropriate and timely repair, including information claimed to be CBI (ii) Require the manufacturer’s replacement, or other corrective action on a compact disk, flash drive or other recommended maintenance at the within 1 working day of detection; and commonly used electronic storage recommended intervals on fresh solvent (iii) Maintenance of a daily record, media to the EPA. The electronic media pumps, recirculating pumps, discharge signed by a responsible maintenance must be clearly marked as CBI and pumps, and other liquid pumps, in official, showing the date of each mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI addition to exhaust system and scrubber inspection for each requirement, the Office, Attention: WebFIRE fans and motors associated with those problems found, a description of the Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old pumps and fans; repair, replacement, or other action Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same (iii) Require cleaning of the scrubber taken, and the date of repair or ERT file with the CBI omitted must be internals and mist eliminators at replacement. submitted to the EPA via CDX as intervals sufficient to prevent buildup of ■ 14. Section 63.1161 is amended by: described earlier in this paragraph. At solids or other fouling; ■ a. Revising paragraph (a); and the discretion of the delegated authority, (iv) Require an inspection of each ■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph you must also submit these reports, scrubber at intervals of no less than 3 (c)(2). including the confidential business months with: information, to the delegated authority (A) Cleaning or replacement of any § 63.1161 Performance testing and test in the format specified by the delegated methods. plugged spray nozzles or other liquid authority. For any performance test delivery devices; (a) Demonstration of compliance. The conducted using test methods that are (B) Repair or replacement of missing, owner or operator shall conduct an not listed on the ERT Web site, the misaligned, or damaged baffles, trays, or initial performance test for each process owner or operator shall submit the other internal components; or emission control device to determine results of the performance test to the (C) Repair or replacement of droplet and demonstrate compliance with the Administrator at the appropriate eliminator elements as needed; applicable emission limitation address listed in § 63.13. according to the requirements in § 63.7 (D) Repair or replacement of heat * * * * * exchanger elements used to control the of subpart A of this part and in this (c) Reporting malfunctions. The temperature of fluids entering or leaving section. Performance tests shall be number, duration, and a brief the scrubber; and conducted under such conditions as the description for each type of malfunction (E) Adjustment of damper settings for Administrator specifies to the owner or which occurred during the reporting consistency with the required air flow. operator based on representative period and which caused or may have (v) If the scrubber is not equipped performance of the affected source for caused any applicable emission with a viewport or access hatch the period being tested. Upon request, limitation to be exceeded shall be stated allowing visual inspection, alternate the owner or operator shall make in a semiannual report. The report must means of inspection approved by the available to the Administrator such also include a description of actions Administrator may be used. records as may be necessary to taken by an owner or operator during a (vi) The owner or operator shall determine the conditions of malfunction of an affected source to initiate procedures for corrective action performance tests. minimize emissions in accordance with within 1 working day of detection of an * * * * * § 63.1159(c), including actions taken to operating problem and complete all ■ 15. Section 63.1164 is amended by: correct a malfunction. The report, to be corrective actions as soon as practicable. ■ a. Revising paragraph (a); and certified by the owner or operator or Procedures to be initiated are the ■ b. Revising paragraph (c). other responsible official, shall be applicable actions that are specified in § 63.1164 Reporting requirements. submitted semiannually and delivered the maintenance plan. Failure to initiate or postmarked by the 30th day following (a) Reporting results of performance or provide appropriate repair, the end of each calendar half. tests. Within 60 days after the date of replacement, or other corrective action ■ is a violation of the maintenance completing each performance test 16. Section 63.1165 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); (defined in § 63.2), as required by this requirement of this subpart. ■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(4); (vii) The owner or operator shall subpart you must submit the results of ■ c. Removing paragraph (a)(5), and maintain a record of each inspection, the performance tests, including any redesignating paragraphs (a)(6) through including each item identified in associated fuel analyses, required by (a)(11) as (a)(5) through (a)(10). paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section, that this subpart to the EPA’s WebFIRE The revisions read as follows: is signed by the responsible database by using the Compliance and maintenance official and that shows the Emissions Data Reporting Interface § 63.1165 Recordkeeping requirements. date of each inspection, the problem (CEDRI) that is accessed through the (a) * * *

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 58252 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(1) The occurrence and duration of ■ 17. Table 1 to Subpart CCC is ■ f. Removing entry 63.10(a)–(c); each malfunction of operation (i.e., amended by: ■ g. Adding entries 63.10(a), 63.10(b)(1), process equipment); ■ a. Removing entry 63.6(a)–(g); 63.10(b)(2)(i), 63.10(b)(2)(ii), * * * * * ■ b. Adding entry 63.6(a)–(d) in 63.10(b)(2)(iii), 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v), (4) Actions taken during periods of alphanumerical order; 63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(xiv), 63.10(b)(3), malfunction to minimize emissions in ■ c. Adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.10(c)(1)–(9), 63.10(c)(10), accordance with § 63.1259(c) and the 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 63.6(e)(1)(iii), 63.6(e)(2), 63.10(c)(11), 63.10(c)(12)–(14), and dates of such actions (including 63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1), 63.6(f)(2)–(3), and 63.10(c)(15) in alphanumerical order; corrective actions to restore 63.6(g) in alphanumerical order; ■ h. Removing entry 63.10(d)(4)–(5); malfunctioning process and air ■ d. Removing entry 63.7–63.9; and pollution control equipment to its ■ e. Adding entries 63.7, 63.8(a)–(c), ■ i. Adding entries 63.10(d)(4) and normal or usual manner of operation); 63.8(d)(1)–(2), 63.8(d)(3), and 63.8(e)–(f) 63.10(d)(5) in alphanumerical order. * * * * * in alphanumerical order; The additions read as follows:

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART CCC OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART CCC

Applies to Reference subpart CCC Explanation

******* 63.6 (a)–(d) ...... Yes. 63.6(e)(1)(i) ...... No ...... See § 63.1259(c) for general duty requirement. Any cross-reference to § 63.6(e)(1)(i) in any other general provision incorporated by reference shall be treated as a cross-reference to § 63.1259(c). 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ...... No. 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ...... Yes. 63.6(e)(2) ...... No ...... Section reserved. 63.6(e)(3) ...... No. 63.6(f)(1) ...... No. 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ...... Yes. 63.6(g) ...... Yes.

******* 63.7 ...... Yes. 63.8(a)–(c) ...... Yes. 63.8(d)(1)–(2) ...... Yes. 63.8(d)(3) ...... Yes, except for last sentence. 63.8(e)–(f) ...... Yes.

******* 63.10(a) ...... Yes. 63.10(b)(1) ...... Yes. 63.10(b)(2)(i) ...... No. 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ...... No ...... See § 63.1265(a)(1) for recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of malfunctions. See § 63.1265(a)(4) for recordkeeping of actions taken during malfunction. Any cross-reference to § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) in any other general provision incorporated by reference shall be treated as a cross-reference to § 63.1265(a)(1). 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ...... Yes. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(b)(2)(v) ...... No. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(b)(2)(xiv) ...... Yes. 63.10(b)(3) ...... Yes. 63.10(c)(1)–(9) ...... Yes. 63.10(c)(10) ...... No ...... See § 63.1164(c) for reporting malfunctions. Any cross-reference to § 63.10(c)(10) in any other general provision incorporated by reference shall be treated as a cross-reference to § 63.1164(c). 63.10(c)(11) ...... No ...... See § 63.1164(c) for reporting malfunctions. Any cross-reference to § 63.10(c)(11) in any other general provision incorporated by reference shall be treated as a cross-reference to § 63.1164(c). 63.10(c)(12)–(c)(14) ...... Yes. 63.10(c)(15) ...... No. 63.10(d)(4) ...... Yes. 63.10(d)(5) ...... No.

*******

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58253

Appendix A to Part 63—Test Methods 11.1.2 If a stalagmometer is used, the beaker with reagent grade concentrated nitric Pollutant Measurement Methods From procedures specified in Sections 11.1.2.1 acid. Various Waste Media through 11.1.2.3 must be followed. 11.1.3.3 Immerse the bottom tip of the 11.1.2.1 Check the stalagmometer for stalagmometer (approximately 1 centimeter * * * * * visual signs of damage. If the stalagmometer (0.5 inches)) into the beaker. appears to be chipped, cracked, or otherwise 11.1.3.4 Squeeze the rubber bulb and METHOD 306B—SURFACE TENSION in disrepair, the instrument shall not be used. pinch at the arrow up (1) position to collapse. MEASUREMENT FOR TANKS USED AT 11.1.2.2 Using distilled or deionized 11.1.3.5 Place the bulb end securely on DECORATIVE CHROMIUM water and following the procedures provided top end of stalagmometer and carefully draw ELECTROPLATING AND CHROMIUM by the manufacturer, count the number of the nitric acid by pinching the arrow up (1) ANODIZING FACILITIES drops corresponding to the distilled/ position until the level is above the top * * * * * deionized water liquid volume between the etched line. upper and lower etched marks on the 11.1.3.6 Allow the nitric acid to remain 1.0 Scope and Application stalagmometer. If the number of drops for the in stalagmometer for 5 minutes, then * * * * * distilled/deionized water is not within ±1 carefully remove the bulb, allowing the acid 1.2 Applicability. This method is drop of the number indicated on the to completely drain. applicable to all chromium electroplating instrument, the stalagmometer must be 11.1.3.7 Fill a clean 150 mL beaker with and chromium anodizing operations, and cleaned, using the procedures specified in distilled or deionized water. continuous chromium plating at iron and Section 11.1.3 of this method, before using 11.1.3.8 Using the rubber bulb per the steel facilities where a wetting agent is used the instrument to measure the surface tension instructions in Sections 11.1.3.4 and 11.1.3.5, in the tank as the primary mechanism for of the tank liquid. rinse and drain stalagmometer with reducing emissions from the surface of the 11.1.2.2.1 If the stalagmometer must be deionized or distilled water. cleaned, as indicated in Section 11.1.2.2, plating solution. 11.1.3.9 Fill a clean 150 mL beaker with repeat the procedure specified in Section isopropyl alcohol. * * * * * 11.1.2.2 before proceeding. 11.1.3.10 Again using the rubber bulb per 11.1.2.2.2 If, after cleaning and 6.0 Equipment and Supplies the instructions in Sections 11.1.3.4 and performing the procedure in Section 11.1.2.2, 11.1.3.5, rinse and drain stalagmometer twice 6.1 Stalagmometer. Any commercially the number of drops indicated for the with isopropyl alcohol and allow the available stalagmometer or equivalent surface distilled/deionized water is not within ±1 stalagmometer to dry completely. tension measuring device may be used to drop of the number indicated on the 11.2 * * * measure the surface tension of the plating or instrument, either use the number of drops * * * * * corresponding to the distilled/deionized anodizing tank liquid provided the 11.2.2 If a measurement of the surface water volume as the reference number of procedures specified in Section 11.1.2 are tension of the solution is above the 40 dynes drops, or replace the instrument. followed. per centimeter limit when measured using a 11.1.2.3 Determine the surface tension of stalagmometer, above 33 dynes per * * * * * the tank liquid using the procedures centimeter when measured using a specified by the manufacturer of the 11.0 Analytical Procedure tensiometer, or above an alternate surface stalagmometer. tension limit established during the 11.1 Procedure. The surface tension of 11.1.3 Stalagmometer cleaning performance test, the time interval shall the tank bath may be measured using a procedures. The procedures specified in revert back to the original monitoring tensiometer, stalagmometer, or any other Sections 11.1.3.1 through 11.1.3.10 shall be schedule of once every 4 hours. A subsequent equivalent surface tension measuring device used for cleaning a stalagmometer, as decrease in frequency would then be allowed for measuring surface tension in dynes per required by Section 11.1.2.2. according to Section 11.2.1. centimeter. 11.1.3.1 Set up the stalagmometer on its 11.1.1 If a tensiometer is used, the stand in a fume hood. * * * * * procedures specified in ASTM Method D 11.1.3.2 Place a clean 150 (mL) beaker [FR Doc. 2012–20642 Filed 9–18–12; 8:45 am] 1331–89 must be followed. underneath the stalagmometer and fill the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:31 Sep 18, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\19SER2.SGM 19SER2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2