the surface tension data into intervals that had enough data points to
calculate the mean and standard deviation. Separate data sets and
intervals were determined for surface tension measurements using
stalagmometers and for measurements using tensiometers. We then applied
a statistical procedure to develop UTLs for each surface tension
interval. We evaluated the results to determine appropriate intervals
(i.e., surface tension limits) that would be achievable from a process
operating perspective and would achieve significant reductions in
chromium emissions. We used these surface tension limits as the basis
for our proposed decisions regarding surface tension. These proposed
decisions are described previously in sections IV.A.1 through IV.A.4.
The results of the UTL analysis indicate that maintaining the surface
tension below 40 dynes/cm, as measured using a stalagmometer, would
limit emissions to no more than 0.0055 mg/dscm; and maintaining the
surface

tension below 32.5 dynes/cm, as measured using a tensiometer, would
limit emissions to no more than 0.0047 mg/dscm. Recognizing that these
instruments measure surface tension in integer increments, we rounded
the tensiometer limit to 33 dynes/cm and concluded that maintaining
these two surface tension limits (40 dynes/cm by stalagmometer and 33
dynes/cm by tensiometer) in chromium electroplating and anodizing baths
would maintain emissions below 0.006 mg/dscm. Additional details on the
analysis of the surface tension data can be found in the technical
memorandum, ``Development of Revised Surface Tension Limits for
Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing Tanks Controlled with Wetting
Agent Fume Suppressants,'' which is available in the docket for this
action.
    Based on available data, many facilities that currently use WAFS
already achieve surface tensions well below these levels (i.e., 40
dynes/cm and 33 dynes/cm), and based on available information, we
conclude that other facilities can easily achieve these levels with a
relatively small increase in the use of fume suppressants. Therefore,
as an alternative to meeting the proposed emissions limits, we are
proposing to allow new and existing sources in all three source
categories (hard chromium electroplating, decorative chromium
electroplating, and chromium anodizing) that use WAFS to comply with
the NESHAP to meet these proposed lower surface tension limits (40
dynes/cm as measured with a stalagmometer and 33 dynes/cm as measured
with a tensiometer).
    As mentioned above, in the October 21, 2010 Federal Register notice
(75 FR 65068), we proposed phasing out the use of wetting agent fume
suppressants (WAFS) that contain perfluorooctyl sulfonates (PFOS).
Based on available information, we continue to believe that non-PFOS
WAFS are available that can effectively limit surface tension for about
the same costs as PFOS-based WAFS, and that these non-PFOS WAFS can
achieve surface tension levels below the proposed surface tension
limits (described above).\10,11\ However, to be conservative, we have
assumed that the costs for non-PFOS WAFS will be 15 percent higher than
the PFOS based WAFS and these additional costs have been included in
the costs presented in today's notice. More information about the cost
estimates for WAFS and how they were derived are provided in the
technical support document ``Procedures for Determining Control Costs
and Cost Effectiveness for Chromium Electroplating Supplemental
Proposal,'' which is available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Barlowe, G. and Patton, N., 2011. ``Non-PFOS, Permanent
Mist Suppressants for Hard Chromium Plating, Decorative Chromium
Plating and Chromic Etch Applications''. March 1, 2011.
    \11\ Danish, EPA. 2011. Substitution of PFOS for use in non-
decorative hard chrome plating. Pia Brunn Poulsen, Lars K. Gram and
Allan Astrup Jensen. Danish Environmental Protection Agency.
Environmental Project No. 1371 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not re-opening the comment period on the proposed phase out
of the use of PFOS-based WAFS. However, we are soliciting comment and
data on whether the proposed surface tension limits can be met through
the use of non-PFOS WAFS. We seek data and information on the type of
WAFS used, what surface tensions have been achieved, what hexavalent
chromium emissions reductions have been achieved, fume suppressant
costs, and detailed information related to the feasibility of using
different types of WAFS.

B. What are the results of the risk assessment?

1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 4 provides an overall summary of the inhalation risk
assessment results for the source category.

                                    Table 4--Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Maximum individual                                 Maximum chronic non-
                                                                   cancer risk (in 1                     Annual        cancer TOSHI \4\
                                                   Number of         million) \2\         Population     cancer   -------------------------- Maximum off-
                 Source category                   facilities -------------------------- at risk  >=   incidence                              site acute
                                                      \1\         Actual     Allowable      1-in-1     (cases per     Actual     Allowable    non-cancer
                                                                emissions    emissions   million \3\   year) \3\    emissions    emissions        HQ
                                                                  level        level                                  level        level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard Chromium Electro-plating...................          699           20           50      130,000         0.05         0.02         0.04       \5\ NA
Decorative Chromium Electro-plating.............          577           10           70       43,000         0.02        0.008         0.06       \5\ NA
Chromic acid Anodizing..........................          179            5           60        5,000        0.003        0.004         0.05       \5\ NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Based on actual emissions.
\4\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for these source categories is the respiratory system.
\5\ NA = Not applicable. There are no HAP with acute dose-response benchmark values, so no acute HQ were calculated for these source categories.

    As shown in Table 4, the results of the inhalation risk assessment
for the hard chromium electroplating source category indicate the
maximum lifetime individual cancer risk could be up to 20-in-1 million
based on actual emission levels of hexavalent chromium, and the maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.02. The total estimated
national cancer incidence from these facilities, based on actual
emission levels, is 0.05 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in
every 20 years. In addition, we note that approximately 1,100 people
are estimated to have cancer risks greater than 10 in one million, and
approximately 130,000 people are estimated to have risks greater than
1-in-1 million based on estimates of actual emissions. Based on
allowable emission levels, the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk
could be up to 50-in-1 million, and the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI
value could be up to 0.04. Hexavalent chromium, which is a known human
carcinogen, is the only HAP emitted by these sources and the HAP
driving all these risks.
    The results of the inhalation risk assessment for the decorative
chromium electroplating source category indicate the maximum lifetime
individual cancer risk could be up to 10-in-1 million based on actual
emission levels, and the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value could be
up to 0.008. The total estimated national cancer incidence from these
facilities, based on actual emission levels, is 0.02 excess cancer
cases per year, or one case in every 50 years. In addition, we note
that approximately 100 people are estimated to have cancer risks
greater than 10 in

one million, and approximately 43,000 people are estimated to have
risks greater than 1-in-1 million based on estimates of actual
emissions. Based on allowable emission levels, the maximum lifetime
individual cancer risk could be up to 70-in-1 million, and the maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.06.
    The results of the inhalation risk assessment for the chromic acid
anodizing source category indicate the maximum lifetime individual
cancer risk could be up to 5-in-1 million based on actual emission
levels, and the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value could be up to
0.004. The total estimated national cancer incidence from these
facilities, based on actual emission levels, is 0.003 excess cancer
cases per year, or one case in every 333 years. In addition, we note
that no people are estimated to have cancer risks greater than 10-in-1
million, and approximately 5,000 people are estimated to have risks
greater than 1-in-1 million. Based on allowable emission levels, the
maximum lifetime individual cancer risk could be up to 60-in-1 million,
and the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.05.
    The cancer risk estimates for all of the chromium electroplating
source categories, especially those based on actual emissions, are
considerably different compared to the results that were presented in
the initial RTR proposal on October 21, 2010, (75 FR 65071). The risks
due to the estimates of actual emissions presented above are
considerably lower than those presented in the October 21, 2010
proposal FR Notice for hard chromium and decorative chromium plants.
However, the risks due to actual emissions for chrome anodizing are
about the same as the October 2010 proposal. The revised estimate of
risks based on allowable emissions presented above are lower for hard
chromium, about the same for decorative, and considerably higher for
anodizing plants compared to the October 2010 proposal. The main reason
for the difference is that we have significantly improved data on
emissions and facility characteristics for this supplemental proposal,
and we used a different methodology to estimate emissions for
facilities for which we had incomplete data. This improved data set is
described further in section II.E of this preamble, and the methodology
is described in section III.B.
    For all three source categories, there were no reported emissions
of PB-HAP, and chromium emissions are not known to have any associated
adverse environmental impacts; therefore, we conclude there is low
potential for human health multipathway risks or adverse environmental
impacts. Also, because there are no HAP with acute dose-response
benchmark values, no acute HQ were calculated for these source
categories, and we believe that the potential for acute effects is low.
2. Facility-Wide Risk Assessment Results
    Table 5 displays the results of the facility-wide risk assessment.
This assessment was conducted based on actual emission levels. For
detailed facility-specific results, see Appendix 5 of the ``Residual
Risk Assessment for the Chromic Acid Anodizing, Decorative Chromium
Electroplating, and Hard Chromium Electroplating Source Categories''
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

              Table 5--Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing Facility-Wide Risk Assessment Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Decorative
                  Source category                       Hard chromium         chromium       Chromium  anodizing
                                                       electroplating      electroplating
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of facilities analyzed......................                 699                 577                179
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Cancer Risk:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated maximum facility-wide individual cancer                    70                  80                 10
 risk (in 1 million)...............................
Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide                     0                   0                  0
 individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more
Number of facilities at which the source category                     0                   0                  0
 contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-
 wide individual cancer risks of 100-in-1 million
 or more...........................................
Number of facilities at which the source category                   195                  98                 31
 contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-
 wide individual cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or
 more..............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Chronic Noncancer Risk:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI......                   2                   7                  0.1
Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum                       1                   2                  0
 noncancer TOSHI greater than 1....................
Number of facilities at which the source category                     0                   0                  0
 contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-
 wide maximum noncancer TOSHI of 1 or more.........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The facility-wide MIR from all HAP emissions at a facility that
contains sources subject to the hard chromium electroplating MACT
standards is estimated to be 70-in-1 million, based on actual
emissions. Of the 699 facilities included in this analysis, none have a
facility-wide MIR of 100-in-1 million or greater. There are 206
facilities with facility-wide MIR of 1-in-1 million or greater, of
which 195 have hard chromium electroplating operations that contribute
greater than 50 percent to the facility-wide risks. The facility-wide
maximum individual chronic noncancer TOSHI value is estimated to be 2,
based on actual emissions, and there is 1 facility with a facility-wide
maximum individual chronic noncancer TOSHI value greater than 1. Hard
chromium electroplating operations do not contribute greater than 50
percent to the facility-wide maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value at
any facility.
    The facility-wide MIR from all HAP emissions at a facility that
contains sources subject to the decorative chromium electroplating MACT
standards is estimated to be 80-in-1 million, based on actual
emissions. Of the 577 facilities included in this analysis, none have a
facility-wide MIR of 100-in-1 million or greater. There are 121
facilities with a facility-wide MIR of 1-in-1 million or greater, of
which 98 have decorative chromium

electroplating operations that contribute greater than 50 percent to
the facility-wide risks. The facility-wide maximum individual chronic
noncancer TOSHI value is estimated to be 7, based on actual emissions,
and there are 2 facilities with facility-wide maximum individual
chronic noncancer TOSHI values greater than one. Decorative chromium
electroplating operations do not contribute greater than 50 percent to
the facility-wide maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value at any
facility.
    The facility-wide MIR from all HAP emissions at a facility that
contains sources subject to the chromium anodizing MACT standards is
estimated to be 10-in-1 million, based on actual emissions. Of the 179
facilities included in this analysis, none have a facility-wide MIR of
100-in-1 million or greater. There are 35 facilities with a facility-
wide MIR of 1-in-1 million or greater, of which 31 have chromium
anodizing operations that contribute greater than 50 percent to the
facility-wide risks. The facility-wide maximum individual chronic
noncancer TOSHI value is estimated to be 0.1.
3. Demographic Analysis Results
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice (EJ) issues
that might be associated with these source categories, we performed
demographic analyses of the at-risk populations (i.e., the population
with estimated lifetime cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million due to emissions from chromium electroplaters) for two of the
three chromium electroplating categories. The results of the
demographic analyses are summarized in Table 6. These results, for
various demographic groups, are based on the estimated risks from
actual emissions levels for the population living within 50 km of the
facilities.

             Table 6--Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Decorative
                                                             Nationwide       Hard chromium         chromium
                                                                              electroplating     electroplating
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         .................    Population with cancer risk at or
                                                                                above 1-in-1 Million
                                                                           -------------------------------------
Total Population.......................................        312,900,000            131,000             43,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White..................................................                 72                 59                 48
All Other Races........................................                 28                 41                 52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White..................................................                 72                 59                 48
African American.......................................                 13                 21                 21
Native American........................................                1.1                0.8                0.8
Other and Multiracial..................................                 14                 20                 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Ethnicity by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic...............................................                 17                 34                 26
Non-Hispanic...........................................                 83                 66                 74
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level....................................                 14                 21                 24
Above Poverty Level....................................                 86                 79                 76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without High School Diploma................                 10                 27                 24
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.................                 90                 73                 76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For hard chromium electroplating, the results indicate that there
are approximately 131,000 people exposed to a cancer risk at or above
1-in-1 million due to emissions from the source category. For several
demographic groups, the percentage of such groups in the at-risk
population are higher than their respective nationwide percentages,
including the African American, Other and Multiracial, Hispanic, Below
the Poverty Level, and Over 25 without a High School Diploma
demographic groups. These results indicate that these demographic
groups carry the potential to be disproportionately exposed to
emissions and risks from this source category. These groups therefore
stand to benefit the most from the emission reductions achieved by this
proposed rulemaking.
    For decorative chromium electroplating, the results indicate that
there are approximately 43,000 people exposed to a cancer risk at or
above 1-in-1 million due to emissions from the source category. The
percentages of the at-risk population in several demographic groups are
higher than their respective nationwide percentages, including the
African American, Other and Multiracial, Hispanic, Below the Poverty
Level, and the Over 25 without a High School Diploma demographic
groups. These results indicate that these demographic groups carry the
potential to be disproportionately exposed to emissions and risks from
this source category. These groups therefore stand to benefit the most
from the emission reductions achieved by this proposed rulemaking.

C. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and
ample margin of safety?

1. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in the preamble of the October 2010 proposal (75 FR
65068), we weigh all health risk factors in our risk acceptability
determination, including the MIR, the numbers of persons in various
cancer and noncancer risk ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum
noncancer HI, the maximum acute noncancer hazard, the extent of
noncancer risks, the potential for adverse environmental effects, and
risk estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
    For each of the three source categories, the risk analysis we
performed indicates that the cancer risk to the individual most exposed
due to actual emissions is well below 100-in-1 million (an MIR of 100-
in-1 million is generally considered the upper limit of acceptable
risk), and that the cancer incidence is less than 0.05 cases per year
(about 1 case in every 20 years). These risks are due to hexavalent
chromium emissions. Hexavalent chromium is classified as a known human
carcinogen by U.S. EPA. While the potential cancer risks due to
allowable emissions from each of the three chromium electroplating
categories are higher, they are also less than 100-in-1 million (with
the highest estimated MIR of 70-in-1 million for the decorative
chromium electroplating category based on allowable emissions).
Specifically, for hard chromium electroplating, the MIR due to actual
emissions is estimated to be 20-in-1 million, and the cancer incidence
is estimated to be 0.05 cases per year. The MIR due to allowable
emissions from hard chromium electroplating facilities is estimated to
be 50-in-1 million, and the cancer incidence is estimated to be 0.2.
For decorative chromium electroplating, the MIR due to actual emissions
is estimated to be 10-in-1 million, and the cancer incidence is
estimated to be 0.02 cases per year. The MIR due to allowable emissions
from decorative chromium facilities is estimated to be 70-in-1 million,
and the cancer incidence is estimated to be 0.08. For chromium
anodizing, the MIR due to actual emissions is estimated to be 5-in-1
million, and the cancer incidence is estimated to be 0.003 cases per
year. The MIR due to allowable emissions from chromium anodizing
facilities is estimated to be 60-in-1 million, and the cancer incidence
is estimated to be 0.08.
    Our analysis also indicates that chronic noncancer health risks,
potential acute impacts of concern, multipathway health risks and
environmental risks are all negligible due to both actual and allowable
emissions for all three source categories.
    Although the cancer risks are due to emissions of a known human
carcinogen (hexavalent chromium), since the cancer MIRs due to actual
emissions are well below 100-in-1 million, and because a number of the
other risk metrics do not indicate high risk concerns, we are proposing
to determine that the risks due to HAP emissions from each of the three
source categories are acceptable.
    We note that the results of our demographic analyses (which are
presented above) for hard and decorative chromium electroplating
indicate that certain minority groups and low-income populations may be
disproportionately exposed to emissions from these categories and to
any risks that may result due to these emissions because the
communities most proximate to facilities within these categories have a
higher proportion of these groups than the national demographic
profile. We note that we did not identify any vulnerability or
susceptibility to risks particular to minority and low income
populations from pollutants emitted from this source category. The
Agency has determined that the existing NESHAP for these source
categories provides an acceptable level of risk for all proximate
populations, including minority and low-income populations.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    We next considered whether the existing MACT standard provides an
ample margin of safety (AMOS). Under the ample margin of safety
analysis, we evaluate the cost and feasibility of available control
technologies and other measures (including the controls, measures, and
costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be applied in
each of the three source categories to further reduce the risks (or
potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk
assessment, along with all of the health risks and other health
information considered in the risk acceptability determination
described above.
    Based on the fact that we have determined the risks due to actual
and allowable emissions associated with each of the three categories of
sources subject to the Chromium Electroplating NESHAP to be acceptable,
and after evaluating the costs and feasibility of possible options to
reduce emissions in our technology review, we are proposing that the
same emission and surface tension limits that we are proposing under
section 112(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act, which are discussed previously
in section IV.A of this preamble, will reduce health risks and provide
an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As described below,
these proposed actions will reduce the modeled estimated maximum
individual cancer risks and the modeled population cancer risks for the
three source categories. Specifically, under Section 112(f) of the
Clean Air Act, we are proposing the following amendments to the NESHAP:
     Existing large hard chromium electroplating facilities
would be required to meet an emissions limit of 0.011 mg/dscm or a
surface tension limit of 40 dynes/cm, if measured by stalagmometer, or
33 dynes/cm, if measured by tensiometer;
     New large hard chromium electroplating facilities would be
required to meet an emissions limit of 0.006 mg/dscm or a surface
tension limit of 40 dynes/cm, if measured by stalagmometer, or 33
dynes/cm, if measured by tensiometer;
     Existing small hard chromium electroplating facilities
would be required to meet an emissions limit of 0.015 mg/dscm or a
surface tension limit of 40 dynes/cm, if measured by stalagmometer, or
33 dynes/cm, if measured by tensiometer;
     New small hard chromium electroplating facilities would be
required to meet an emissions limit of 0.006 mg/dscm or a surface
tension limit of 40 dynes/cm, if measured by stalagmometer, or 33
dynes/cm, if measured by tensiometer;
     Existing decorative chromium electroplating and chromium
anodizing facilities would be required to meet an emissions limit of
0.007 mg/dscm or a surface tension limit of 40 dynes/cm, if measured by
stalagmometer, or 33 dynes/cm, if measured by tensiometer;
     New decorative chromium electroplating and chromium
anodizing facilities would be required to meet an emissions limit of
0.006 mg/dscm or a surface tension limit of 40 dynes/cm, if measured by
stalagmometer, or 33 dynes/cm, if measured by tensiometer.
    These proposed amendments to the NESHAP would reduce the cancer
risks due to emissions of hexavalent chromium from this industry for
all populations, including minority and low-income populations.
Specifically, we estimate that the MIR based on actual emissions for
each of these categories would be reduced by 25 to 50 percent, and the
MIR based on allowable emissions would also be reduced by 25 to 50
percent. Cancer incidence and the number of people

exposed to risks greater than 1-in-1 million would also be reduced
significantly, by about 25 to 50 percent each.
    As described above, we estimate that the total estimated capital
costs for all existing large hard chromium electroplating sources to
comply with the proposed revised limits and conduct the necessary
testing and monitoring would be $1.8 million. The total annualized
costs are estimated to be $2.2 million. We estimate that these proposed
requirements would reduce chromium emissions by 121 pounds per year,
and that the cost-effectiveness would be $18,100 per pound.
    The total estimated capital costs for all existing small hard
chromium electroplating sources to comply with the proposed revised
limits and conduct the necessary testing and monitoring is estimated to
be $1.45 million. The total annualized costs are estimated to be
$652,000. We estimate that these proposed requirements would reduce
chromium emissions by 41 pounds per year, and that the cost-
effectiveness would be $15,800 per pound.
    The total estimated capital costs for all existing decorative
chromium electroplating facilities to comply with these proposed
revised standards (i.e., lower surface tension limits or lower
emissions limits) and to conduct all the necessary testing and
monitoring is estimated to be $183,000. The total annualized costs are
estimated to be $189,000. We estimate that these proposed requirements
would reduce emissions by 39 pounds per year, and that the cost-
effectiveness would be $4,800 per pound.
    The total estimated capital costs for all existing chromic acid
anodizing facilities to comply with the proposed revised limits and
conduct the necessary testing and monitoring is estimated to be
$245,000. The total annualized costs are estimated to be $54,000. We
estimate that these proposed requirements would reduce emissions by 6
pounds per year, and that the cost-effectiveness would be $9,100 per
pound.
    We conclude that the costs for all four categories or subcategories
described above are reasonable given the risk reductions that will be
achieved.
    Based on all the above information, we propose that the NESHAP as
revised with these proposed requirements will provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health by lowering emission levels and
reducing cancer risk for all populations, including minority and low-
income populations.

D. Compliance Dates

    We are proposing to require existing facilities to comply with the
proposed revised emissions limits or revised surface tension
requirements no later than 2 years after the date of publication of the
final rule. We believe this much time is needed for facilities to
determine if they meet the proposed emissions limits, which would
likely require conducting an emissions test. Scheduling a compliance
test, conducting the test, and receiving the results, could take as
much as 4 to 6 months. At that time, affected facilities that do not
meet the proposed emissions limit would have to perform an engineering
analysis to determine the control options, decide on what additional
controls are needed, send out a tender notice, evaluate the bids
received, and contract the installation and testing of the new
equipment. Since most chromium electroplating facilities do not have
in-house engineering expertise, they would likely have to hire
consultants to perform all of the above work, and that would add to the
time required.
    We are proposing that all new facilities (newly constructed or
reconstructed) must comply with the proposed revised emissions limits
or surface tension requirements upon startup. We are proposing to
require compliance with the electronic reporting requirements, which
are discussed in section VII below, upon promulgation of the final
rule.

V. What action are we proposing for the steel pickling source category?

A. Elimination of an Alternative Compliance Option

    As a result of the review of the NESHAP, we are proposing the
elimination of language in the NESHAP that allows HCl regeneration
facilities to establish an alternative chlorine concentration standard
for existing acid regeneration plants. The NESHAP currently allows the
owner or operator to request approval for a source-specific standard
based on the maximum design temperature and minimum excess air that
allows production of iron oxide of acceptable quality if the source is
unable to meet the otherwise applicable emissions limit for chlorine
(Cl2) of 6 parts per million by volume (ppmv) (40 CFR
subpart CCC). Upon review of this provision, we believe that it does
not meet the requirements in section 112(d)(2) and (3) of the CAA. MACT
standards for existing sources cannot be less stringent than the
average emissions limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent
of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-
performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than
30 sources). This is referred to as the ``MACT floor.'' The promulgated
standard in 40 CFR part 63, Sec.  63.1157(b)(2), subpart CCC, was
established in compliance with EPA's obligation to promulgate a
standard representing the MACT floor. We do not have authority to allow
a source to seek an alternative standard if such a source is unable to
meet a standard which reflects the MACT floor level of control.
Therefore, we are proposing to amend the NESHAP by removing the
language in Sec.  63.1157(b)(2) that currently allows a source-specific
standard for sources that demonstrate they are unable to meet the
applicable standard and removing the methods for establishing a source-
specific standard under Sec.  63.1161(c)(2) of the NESHAP. This action
is being proposed under section 112(d)(2) and (3) of the CAA to ensure
that the NESHAP is consistent with requirements of that section.
    In addition to fulfilling the statutory requirements of Sections
112(d)(2) and (3), we note that this proposed action also will reduce
the emissions of chlorine and HCl from this source category, resulting
in a reduction of the Hazard Index (HI) from 2 due to HCl (that was
presented in the October 21, 2010 proposal) to an HI of less than one.
The one facility that posed the HI of 2 (in the October 21, 2010
proposal) will need to improve controls and reduce emissions by more
than a factor of 2 to comply with this proposed action.

B. Compliance Dates

    We are proposing that the amendments to Sec.  63.1157(b)(2) and
Sec.  63.1161(c)(2) of the NESHAP would be effective upon promulgation
of the final rule.

VI. What other actions are we proposing?

A. Electronic Reporting

    EPA must have performance test data to conduct effective reviews of
CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as well as for many other purposes
including compliance determinations, emission factor development, and
annual emission rate determinations. In conducting these required
reviews, EPA has found it ineffective and time consuming, not only for
us, but also for regulatory agencies and source owners and operators,
to locate, collect, and submit performance test data because of varied
locations for data storage and varied data storage methods. In recent
years, though, stack testing firms have

typically collected performance test data in electronic format, making
it possible to move to an electronic data submittal system that would
increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve data
accessibility.
    Through this proposal, EPA is presenting a step to increase the
ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility.
Specifically, EPA is proposing that owners and operators of facilities
in the Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium
Anodizing source categories and the Steel Pickling--HCl Process
Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants source categories
submit electronic copies of required performance test reports to EPA's
WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE database was constructed to store
performance test data for use in developing emission factors. A
description of the WebFIRE database is available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
    As proposed above, data entry would be through an electronic
emissions test report structure called the Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT). The ERT would generate an electronic report which would be
submitted using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI). The submitted report would be transmitted through EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) network for storage in the WebFIRE database
making submittal of data very straightforward and easy. A description
of the ERT can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html
and CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web site (www.epa.gov/cdx).
    The proposal to submit performance test data electronically to EPA
would apply only to those performance tests conducted using test
methods that will be supported by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific
electronic data entry form for most of the commonly used EPA reference
methods. A listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the
ERT is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. We
believe that industry would benefit from this proposed approach to
electronic data submittal. Having these data, EPA would be able to
develop improved emission factors, make fewer information requests, and
promulgate better regulations.
    One major advantage of the proposed submittal of performance test
data through the ERT is a standardized method to compile and store much
of the documentation required to be reported by this rule. Another
advantage is that the ERT clearly states what testing information would
be required. Another important proposed benefit of submitting these
data to EPA at the time the source test is conducted is that it should
substantially reduce the effort involved in data collection activities
in the future. When EPA has performance test data in hand, there will
likely be fewer or less substantial data collection requests in
conjunction with prospective required residual risk assessments or
technology reviews. This would result in a reduced burden on both
affected facilities (in terms of reduced manpower to respond to data
collection requests) and EPA (in terms of preparing and distributing
data collection requests and assessing the results).
    State, local, and tribal agencies could also benefit from more
streamlined and accurate review of electronic data submitted to them.
The ERT would allow for an electronic review process rather than a
manual data assessment making review and evaluation of the source
provided data and calculations easier and more efficient. Finally,
another benefit of the proposed data submittal to WebFIRE
electronically is that these data would greatly improve the overall
quality of existing and new emissions factors by supplementing the pool
of emissions test data for establishing emissions factors and by
ensuring that the factors are more representative of current industry
operational procedures. A common complaint heard from industry and
regulators is that emission factors are outdated or not representative
of a particular source category. With timely receipt and incorporation
of data from most performance tests, EPA would be able to ensure that
emission factors, when updated, represent the most current range of
operational practices. In summary, in addition to supporting regulation
development, control strategy development, and other air pollution
control activities, having an electronic database populated with
performance test data would save industry, state, local, tribal
agencies, and EPA significant time, money, and effort while also
improving the quality of emission inventories and, as a result, air
quality regulations.

VII. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

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

B. What are the emission reductions?

1. Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing
    Overall, the proposed amendments to the Chromium Electroplating
NESHAP would reduce nationwide emissions of chromium compounds by an
estimated 208 pounds per year (lbs/yr) from the current levels of 1,140
lbs/yr down to 930 lbs/yr. For large hard chromium electroplating, the
proposed amendments would reduce chromium compound emissions by about
121 lbs/yr from 561 lbs/yr down to 440 pounds. For small hard chromium
electroplating, the proposed amendments would reduce chromium compound
emissions by an estimated 41 lbs/yr from 240 lbs/yr to 199 lbs/yr. For
decorative chromium electroplating, the proposed amendments would
reduce chromium compound emissions by an estimated 40 lbs/yr from 280
lbs/yr down to 240 lbs/yr. For chromium anodizing, the proposed
amendments would reduce chromium compound emissions by about 6 lbs/yr
from 66 lbs/yr down to 60 lbs/yr. The proposed amendments would have
negligible impacts on secondary emissions because the additional
control equipment that would be required would not significantly impact
energy use by the affected facilities.
2. Steel Pickling
    We estimate that the proposed amendment to remove the alternative
compliance provision for hydrochloric acid regeneration facilities
would reduce emissions of chlorine by 15 tpy.

C. What are the cost impacts?

1. Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing
    We estimate that these proposed amendments would achieve 208 pounds
reductions in hexavalent chromium emissions, and that the total capital
and total annualized cost for the proposed amendments would be $3.7
million and $3.1 million/yr, respectively. The overall cost
effectiveness would be $14,900 per pound of hexavalent

chromium emissions reductions. A summary of the estimated costs and
reductions of hexavalent chromium emissions are shown in Table 7.

    Table 7--Summary of the Estimated Costs, Reductions, and Cost Effectiveness for Proposed Requirements for
                             Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing Source Categories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Annualized costs
                                            Capital costs   (controls + WAFS      Emissions           Cost
     Source category or subcategory       (controls + WAFS   + all testing),  reductions (lbs/  effectiveness ($/
                                           + all testing)         $/yr               yr)               lb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Hard Chromium Electroplating......        $1,821,000        $2,195,000               121           $18,100
Small Hard Chromium Electroplating......         1,445,000           653,000                41            15,800
Decorative Chromium Electroplating......           183,000           189,000                39             4,800
Chromic Acid Anodizing..................           245,000            54,000                 6             9,100
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................         3,694,000         3,090,000               208            14,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Steel Pickling
    For HCl acid regeneration plants, we estimate that the capital cost
for the proposed amendments would be between $100,000 and $200,000,
depending on whether the existing equipment can be upgraded or will
need to be replaced. The annualized cost are estimated to be between
$11,419 and $22,837 per year. The estimated cost effectiveness would be
$761 to $1,522 per ton of HAP (mainly chlorine and HCl).

D. What are the economic impacts?

1. Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing
    EPA performed a screening analysis for impacts on all affected
small entities by comparing compliance costs to average sales revenues
by employment size category.\12\ This is known as the cost-to-revenue
or cost-to-sales ratio, or the ``sales test.'' The ``sales test'' is
the impact methodology EPA primarily employs in analyzing small entity
impacts as opposed to a ``profits test,'' in which annualized
compliance costs are calculated as a share of profits. The sales test
is frequently used because revenues or sales data are commonly
available for entities impacted by EPA regulations, and profits data
normally made available are often not the true profit earned by firms
because of accounting and tax considerations. The use of a ``sales
test'' for estimating small business impacts for a rulemaking is
consistent with guidance offered by EPA on compliance with SBREFA \13\
and is consistent with guidance published by the U.S. SBA's Office of
Advocacy that suggests that cost as a percentage of total revenues is a
metric for evaluating cost increases on small entities in relation to
increases on large entities (U.S. SBA, 2010).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/data/susb2002.html.
    \13\ The SBREFA compliance guidance to EPA rulewriters regarding
the types of small business analysis that should be considered can
be found at: http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/Guidance-RegFlexAct.pdf. See Table 2 on page 36 for guidance on
interpretations of the magnitude of the cost-to-sales numbers.
    \14\ U.S. SBA, Office of Advocacy. A Guide for Government
Agencies, How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
Implementing the President's Small Business Agenda and Executive
Order 13272, June 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the analysis, we estimate that approximately 96 percent of
all affected facilities have a cost-to-sales ratio of less than 1
percent. In addition, for approximately 1 percent of all affected
facilities, or 9 facilities with fewer than 20 employees, the potential
for cost-to-sales impacts may be between 3 and 8 percent. All of these
facilities are in the hard chromium electroplating category, with 2 of
the facilities in the small hard chromium electroplating category and 7
in the large hard chromium electroplating category. For these
categories, because the average sales receipts used for the analysis
may understate sales for some facilities and because these facilities
are likely to be able to pass cost increases through to their
customers, we do not anticipate the regulatory proposal to result in
firm closures, significant price increases, or substantial profit loss.
We conclude that this proposal will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. More information and
details of this analysis are provided in the technical document
``Economic Impact Analysis for Risk and Technology Review: Chromium
Electroplating,'' which is available in the docket for this proposed
rule.
2. Steel Pickling
    Because only one of the approximately 100 facilities incurs any
cost for controls and that cost is estimated to be less than 1 percent
of sales, no significant price or productivity impacts are anticipated.

E. What are the benefits?

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

VIII. Request for Comments

    We are soliciting comments on all aspects of this proposed action.
All comments received during the comment period will be considered. In
EPA's strive to continue to promote sustainability in our protection of
human health and the environment, we request comment on sustainability
related to the types of fume suppressants and surfactants, depending on
their chemical properties, which may have more or less potential for
negative health and environmental impacts beyond the air emissions
addressed by this supplemental proposal. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are also soliciting additional
information and data (e.g., on emissions, emissions concentrations
results from stack emissions tests, flow rates, facility parameters,
facility types, controls, test reports, etc.) that may help to reduce
the uncertainties inherent in the risk assessments and any additional
data that would inform the other analyses

described in this preamble (such as the analyses of the costs and
reductions that would result from the proposed requirements). Because
our current data set includes test results for only one chromium
anodizing tank, we specifically request additional performance test
data for chromium anodizing sources, including emissions concentration,
exhaust flow rates, rectifier output, and control device type. Finally,
we are requesting additional information on the costs and feasibility
of using WAFS that do not contain PFOS to meet the proposed surface
tension limits. Such data should include supporting documentation in
sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and
representativeness of the data or information. We are not re-opening
the public comment period for the actions proposed in the October 21,
2010 notice.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
    We are not proposing any new paperwork requirements to the Steel
Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration
Plants MACT standards. Revisions and burden associated with amendments
to the Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium
Anodizing Tanks are discussed in the following paragraphs. The OMB has
previously approved the information collection requirements contained
in the existing regulation being amended with this proposed rule (i.e.,
40 CFR part 63, subparts N and CCC) under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    The ICR document prepared by EPA for the amendments to the Hard and
Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks NESHAP
has been assigned EPA ICR number 1611.08. Burden changes associated
with these amendments would result from the emission testing
requirements and compliance demonstrations being proposed with today's
action. The estimated average burden per response is 9 hours; the
frequency of response is one-time for all respondents that must comply
with the rule's reporting requirements and the estimated average number
of likely respondents per year is 485. The cost burden to respondents
resulting from the collection of information includes the total capital
cost annualized over the equipment's expected useful life ($100,958), a
total operation and maintenance component ($0 per year), and a labor
cost component (about $152,116 per year).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this rule, which includes these ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0600. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after February 8, 2012, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it by March 9, 2012. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
is a small industrial entity as defined by the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impact of this supplemental proposed
rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would impose more stringent emissions limits and
lower surface tension requirements. These new proposed requirements and
restrictions to the hard and decorative chromium electroplating and
chromium anodizing tanks MACT standard will impact small entities, but
those impacts have been estimated to be nominal. The proposed emissions
limits reflect the level of performance currently being achieved by
most facilities, and many facilities currently have emissions that are
far below the proposed limits. With regard to the remaining facilities
(those that will need to achieve emissions reductions), most of these
facilities can achieve the proposed limits at low costs (e.g., by using
additional fume suppressants).
    The EPA's analysis estimated that 96 percent of the affected
entities will have an annualized cost of less than 1 percent of sales.
In addition, approximately 1 percent of affected entities, or 9
facilities with fewer than 20 employees, may have cost-to-sales ratios
between 3 to 8 percent. All of these facilities are in the hard
chromium electroplating category, with 2 of the facilities in the small
hard chromium electroplating category and 7 in the large hard chromium
electroplating category.
    Since our analysis indicates that a small subset of facilities
(about 1 percent) may have cost-to-sales ratios greater than 3 percent,
we have conducted additional economic impact analyses on this small
subset of facilities to better understand the potential economic
impacts for these facilities. The additional analyses indicate the
estimates of costs-to-sales ratios in the initial analyses are more
likely to be

overstated rather than understated because the additional analyses
indicate that sales are typically higher for these sources than the
average value used in the initial analysis.
    Moreover, because of the nature of the market, these facilities are
likely to be able to pass cost increases through to their customers. As
such, we do not anticipate the proposal to result in firm closures, or
substantial profit loss. More information and details of this analysis
are provided in the technical document ``Economic Impact Analysis for
Risk and Technology Review: Chromium Electroplating,'' which is
available in the docket for this proposed rule.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. We continue
to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the facilities subject
to this action are owned or operated by State governments, and, because
no new requirements are being promulgated, nothing in this proposal
will supersede State regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.

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

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

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

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as
defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action would
not relax the control measures on existing regulated sources.
Nevertheless, this proposed action would result in reductions in cancer
risks due to chromium emissions for people of all ages, including
children. The EPA's risk assessments (included in the docket for this
proposed rule) demonstrate that these regulations, with the amendments
being proposed in today's action, will be health protective.
    The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to
hexavalent chromium.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when
the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it maintains or
increases the level of environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on any population, including any
minority low-income, or indigenous populations. Further, the EPA is
proposing that, after implementation of the provisions of this rule,
the public health of all demographic groups will be protected with an
ample margin of safety.
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with two of the source categories associated with
today's

proposed rule (Hard Chromium Electroplaters and Decorative Chromium
Electroplaters), we evaluated the percentages of various social,
demographic, and economic groups within the at-risk populations living
near the facilities where these source categories are located and
compared them to national averages. We did not conduct this type of
analysis for the chromic acid anodizing or steel pickling categories
because the numbers of people subjected to cancer risks greater than 1-
in-1 million due to HAP emissions from these source categories were
quite low. The development of demographic analyses to inform the
consideration of environmental justice issues in EPA rulemakings is an
evolving process. The EPA offers the demographic analyses in this
rulemaking as examples of how such analyses might be developed to
inform such consideration, and invites public comment on the approaches
used and the interpretations made from the results, with the hope that
this will support the refinement and improve utility of such analyses
for future rulemakings.
    Our analysis of the demographics of the population with estimated
risks greater than 1-in-1 million indicates potential disparities in
risks between demographic groups, including the African American, Other
and Multiracial, Hispanic, Below the Poverty Level, and the Over 25
without a High School Diploma groups. These groups stand to benefit the
most from the emission reductions achieved by this proposed rulemaking.
    EPA defines ``Environmental Justice'' to include meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To
promote meaningful involvement, after the rule is proposed, EPA will be
conducting a webinar to inform the public about the rule and to outline
how to submit written comments to the docket. Further stakeholder and
public input is expected through public comment and follow-up meetings
with interested stakeholders.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: January 27, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 40,
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart N--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.341 is amended by adding, in alphabetical order in
paragraph (a), definitions for existing affected source and new
affected source.

Sec.  63.341  Definitions and nomenclature.

    (a) * * *
    Existing affected source means an affected hard chromium
electroplating tank, decorative chromium electroplating tank, or
chromium anodizing tank, the construction or reconstruction of which
commenced on or before February 8, 2012.
* * * * *
    New affected source means an affected hard chromium electroplating
tank, decorative chromium electroplating tank, or chromium anodizing
tank, the construction or reconstruction of which commenced after
February 8, 2012.
* * * * *
    3. Section 63.342 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), and (c)(1)(iii);
    b. Adding paragraph (c)(1)(iv);
    c. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), and (c)(2)(iii);
    d. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(vi);
    e. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2); and
    f. Adding paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.342  Standards.

* * * * *
    (c)(1) * * *
    (i) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the exhaust
gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.011 milligrams of
total chromium per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) of ventilation
air (4.8 x 10-6 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/
dscf)) for all open surface hard chromium electroplating tanks that are
existing affected sources and are located at large hard chromium
electroplating facilities; or
    (ii) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the
exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.015 mg/dscm
(6.6 x 10-6 gr/dscf) for all open surface hard chromium
electroplating tanks that are existing affected sources and are located
at small, hard chromium electroplating facilities; or
    (iii) If a chemical fume suppressant containing a wetting agent is
used, not allowing the surface tension of the electroplating or
anodizing bath contained within the affected tank to exceed 40 dynes
per centimeter (dynes/cm) (2.8 x 10-3 pound-force per foot
(lbf/ft)), as measured by a stalagmometer, or 33 dynes/cm (2.3 x
10-3 lbf/ft), as measured by a tensiometer at any time
during tank operation; or
    (iv) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the
exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.006 mg/dscm
of ventilation air (2.6 x 10-6 gr/dscf) for all open surface
hard chromium electroplating tanks that are new affected sources.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the exhaust
gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.011 mg/dscm of
ventilation air (4.8 x 10-6 gr/dscf) for all enclosed hard
chromium electroplating tanks that are existing affected sources and
are located at large hard chromium electroplating facilities; or
    (ii) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the
exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.015 mg/dscm
(6.6 x 10-6 gr/dscf) for all enclosed hard chromium
electroplating tanks that are existing affected sources and are located
at small, hard chromium electroplating facilities; or
    (iii) If a chemical fume suppressant containing a wetting agent is
used, not allowing the surface tension of the electroplating or
anodizing bath contained within the affected tank to exceed 40 dynes/cm
(2.8 x 10-3 lbf/ft), as measured by a stalagmometer, or 33
dynes/cm (2.3 x 10-3 lbf/ft), as measured by a tensiometer
at any time during tank operation; or
* * * * *
    (vi) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the
exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.006 mg/dscm
of ventilation air (2.6 x 10-6 gr/dscf) for all enclosed
hard chromium electroplating tanks that are new affected sources.
* * * * *
    (d) Standards for decorative chromium electroplating tanks using a
chromic acid bath and chromium anodizing tanks. During tank operation,

each owner or operator of an existing, new, or reconstructed affected
source shall control chromium emissions discharged to the atmosphere
from that affected source by either:
    (1) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the exhaust
gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.007 mg/dscm (3.1 x
10-6 gr/dscf) for all existing decorative chromium
electroplating tanks using a chromic acid bath and all existing
chromium anodizing tanks; or
    (2) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the exhaust
gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.006 mg/dscm (2.6 x
10-6 gr/dscf) for all new or reconstructed decorative
chromium electroplating tanks using a chromic acid bath and all new or
reconstructed chromium anodizing tanks;
    (3) If a chemical fume suppressant containing a wetting agent is
used, not allowing the surface tension of the electroplating or
anodizing bath contained within the affected tank to exceed 40 dynes/cm
(2.8 x 10-3 lbf/ft), as measured by a stalagmometer or 33
dynes/cm (2.3 x 10-3 lbf/ft), as measured by a tensiometer
at any time during tank operation, for all existing, new, or
reconstructed decorative chromium electroplating tanks using a chromic
acid bath and all existing, new, or reconstructed chromium anodizing
tanks.
* * * * *
    4. Section 63.343 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(4);
    b. Revising paragraph (b)(1); and
    c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(4)(ii),
(c)(5)(i), (c)(5)(ii), and (c)(6)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.343  Compliance provisions.

    (a)(1) The owner or operator of an existing affected source shall
comply with the emission limitations in Sec.  63.342 no later than
[DATE 2 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN Federal Register].
    (2) The owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected source
that has an initial startup after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], shall comply immediately upon startup of the
source.
* * * * *
    (4) The owner or operator of a new area source (i.e., an area
source for which construction or reconstruction was commenced after
February 8, 2012) that increases actual or potential emissions of
hazardous air pollutants such that the area source becomes a major
source must comply with the provisions for new major sources,
immediately upon becoming a major source.
* * * * *
    (b) Methods to demonstrate initial compliance. (1) Except as
provided in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section, an owner or
operator of an affected source subject to the requirements of this
subpart is required to conduct an initial performance test as required
under Sec.  63.7, using the procedures and test methods listed in
Sec. Sec.  63.7 and 63.344.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
required to be completed under Sec.  63.7, the owner or operator of an
affected source, or group of affected sources under common control,
shall monitor and record the pressure drop across the composite mesh-
pad system once each day that any affected source is operating. To be
in compliance with the standards, the composite mesh-pad system shall
be operated within 2 inches of water column of the pressure
drop value established during the initial performance test, or shall be
operated within the range of compliant values for pressure drop
established during multiple performance tests.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
required to be completed under Sec.  63.7, the owner or operator of an
affected source, or group of affected sources under common control,
shall monitor and record the velocity pressure at the inlet to the
packed-bed system and the pressure drop across the scrubber system once
each day that any affected source is operating. To be in compliance
with the standards, the scrubber system shall be operated within 10 percent of the velocity pressure value established during the
initial performance test, and within 1 inch of water column
of the pressure drop value established during the initial performance
test, or within the range of compliant operating parameter values
established during multiple performance tests.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
required to be completed under Sec.  63.7, the owner or operator of an
affected source, or group of affected sources under common control,
shall monitor and record the pressure drop across the fiber-bed mist
eliminator, and the control device installed upstream of the fiber bed
to prevent plugging, once each day that any affected source is
operating. To be in compliance with the standards, the fiber-bed mist
eliminator and the upstream control device shall be operated within
1 inch of water column of the pressure drop value
established during the initial performance test, or shall be operated
within the range of compliant values for pressure drop established
during multiple performance tests.
* * * * *
    (5) Wetting agent-type or combination wetting agent-type/foam
blanket fume suppressants. (i) During the initial performance test, the
owner or operator of an affected source complying with the emission
limitations in Sec.  63.342 through the use of a wetting agent in the
electroplating or anodizing bath shall determine the outlet chromium
concentration using the procedures in Sec.  63.344(c). The owner or
operator shall establish as the site-specific operating parameter the
surface tension of the bath using Method 306B, appendix A of this part,
setting the maximum value that corresponds to compliance with the
applicable emission limitation. In lieu of establishing the maximum
surface tension during the performance test, the owner or operator may
accept 40 dynes/cm, as measured by a stalagmometer, or 33 dynes/cm, as
measured by a tensiometer, as the maximum surface tension value that
corresponds to compliance with the applicable emission limitation.
However, the owner or operator is exempt from conducting a performance
test only if the criteria of paragraph (b)(2) of this section are met.
    (ii) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
required to be completed under Sec.  63.7, the owner or operator of an
affected source shall monitor the surface tension of the electroplating
or anodizing bath. Operation of the affected source at a surface
tension greater than the value established during the performance test,
or greater than 40 dynes/cm, as measured by a stalagmometer, or 33
dynes/cm, as measured by a tensiometer, if the owner or operator is
using this value in accordance with paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this
section, shall constitute noncompliance with the standards. The surface
tension shall be monitored according to the following schedule:
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
required to be completed under Sec.  63.7, the owner or

operator of an affected source shall monitor the foam blanket thickness
of the electroplating or anodizing bath. Operation of the affected
source at a foam blanket thickness less than the value established
during the performance test, or less than 2.54 cm (1 inch) if the owner
or operator is using this value in accordance with paragraph (c)(6)(i)
of this section, shall constitute noncompliance with the standards. The
foam blanket thickness shall be measured according to the following
schedule:
* * * * *
    5. Section 63.344 is amended by:
    a. Adding paragraphs (b)(1)(v) through (b)(1)(viii); and
    b. Deleting paragraph (b)(2); to read as follows:

Sec.  63.344  Performance test requirements and test methods.

* * * * *
    (b)(1) * * *
    (v) The performance test was conducted after January 25, 1995;
    (vi) As of [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN Federal Register],
the source was using the same emissions controls that were used during
the compliance test; and
    (vii) As of [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN Federal
Register], the source was operating under conditions that are
representative of the conditions under which the source was operating
during the compliance test; and
    (viii) Based on approval from the permitting authority.
* * * * *
    6. Section 63.347 is amended by adding paragraph (f)(3) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.347  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (f)(3)(i) Within 90 days after the date of completing each
performance test (defined in Sec.  63.2) as required by this subpart,
you must submit the results of the performance tests required by this
subpart to EPA's WebFIRE database by using the Compliance and Emissions
Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed through EPA's Central
Data Exchange (CDX) (www.epa.gov/cdx). Performance test data must be
submitted in the file format generated through use of EPA's Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html).
Only data collected using test methods on the ERT Web site are subject
to this requirement for submitting reports electronically to WebFIRE.
Owners or operators who claim that some of the information being
submitted for performance tests is confidential business information
(CBI) must submit a complete ERT file including information claimed to
be CBI on a compact disk or other commonly used electronic storage
media (including, but not limited to, flash drives) to EPA. The
electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/
OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-02,
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file with the CBI
omitted must be submitted to EPA via CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph. At the discretion of the delegated authority, you must also
submit these reports, including the confidential business information,
to the delegated authority in the format specified by the delegated
authority.
    (ii) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the
requirements in paragraphs (3)(i) of this section must be sent to the
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13. The
Administrator or the delegated authority may request a report in any
form suitable for the specific case (e.g., by commonly used electronic
media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The Administrator
retains the right to require submittal of reports subject to paragraph
(3)(i) of this section in paper format.
* * * * *

Subpart CCC--[Amended]

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

Sec.  63.1157  Emission standards for existing sources.

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

Sec.  63.1161  [Amended]

    8. Section 63.1161 is amended by deleting paragraph (c)(2).
    9. Section 63.1164 is amended by revising (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1164  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Reporting results of performance tests. As required by Sec.
63.10(d)(2) of subpart A of this part, the owner or operator of an
affected source shall report the results of any performance test
required by this paragraph to EPA's WebFIRE database by using the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is
accessed through EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (www.epa.gov/cdx).
Performance test data shall be submitted in the file format generated
through use of EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html). Only data collected using test
methods listed on the ERT Web site are subject to this requirement for
submitting reports electronically to WebFIRE. Owners or operators who
claim that some of the performance test information being submitted is
confidential business information (CBI) shall submit a complete ERT
file including information claimed to be CBI on a compact disk or other
commonly used electronic storage media (including, but not limited to,
flash drives) by registered letter to EPA and the same ERT file with
the CBI omitted to EPA via CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
The compact disk shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/
OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-02,
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. At the discretion of the delegated
authority, owners or operators shall also submit these reports to the
delegated authority in the format specified by the delegated authority.
* * * * *

Appendix A--[Amended]

    10. Appendix A to part 63, Method 306-B is amended revising
paragraph <IP_ADDRESS> to read as follows:

    METHOD 306B--SURFACE TENSION MEASUREMENT FOR TANKS USED AT
CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING AND CHROMIUM ANODIZING FACILITIES
* * * * *
    11.0 Analytical Procedure
* * * * *
    <IP_ADDRESS> If a measurement of the surface tension of the solution
is above the 40 dynes per centimeter limit, as measured using a
stalagmometer, or above the 33 dynes per centimeter limit, as
measured using a tensiometer, or above an alternate surface tension
limit established during the performance test, the time interval
shall revert back to the original monitoring schedule of once every
4 hours. A subsequent decrease in frequency would then be allowed
according to Section 11.2.1.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2012-2434 Filed 2-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29374-29375]
[DOCID:fr25my10-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62119; File No. SR-DTC-2010-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Revise Its Procedures Regarding the Participant Tender Offer Program
Function

May 18, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on April 29, 2010, The
Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
primarily by DTC. DTC filed the proposal pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \2\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \3\ thereunder so
that the proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise DTC's
Procedures regarding the Participant Tender Offer Program function.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, DTC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B) and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    DTC distributes information to Participants regarding the
reorganization activity that it handles.\5\ Upon receiving notice of
such reorganization activity, Participants may use DTC's Participant
Tender Offer Program (``PTOP'') function to elect participation in the
reorganization event and to place related instructions for DTC to
process. Current examples of reorganization activity managed through
the PTOP function include the processing of voluntary corporate
actions, tenders and exchanges, cash conversions, and mandatory event
processing of mergers with elections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Generally, this information is distributed through the
Participant Tender Offer Program Function (``PTOP'') or the
Reorganization Inquiry for Participants (``RIPS'') function of the
Participant Terminal System (``PTS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an effort to promote the use of a streamlined and efficient
process for making elections regarding corporate action events, DTC
proposes updating its Procedures to reflect that Participants may use
the PTOP function to facilitate the processing of corporate action
events that DTC deems appropriate.\6\ Because of the large number of
corporate action events in which Participants may make elections, DTC
believes the ability to process such events through the PTOP function
would provide Participants with the efficiency benefits that result
from automation. For instance, Participants could identify appropriate
tax treatment prior to allocation which would help decrease alternative
reliance on the reclaim process. DTC believes this proposal would also
offer greater automation and efficiency to consent solicitation
collection, which is currently a manual and paper-driven process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The proposed changes to DTC's Procedures can be found in
Exhibit 5 to proposed rule change SR-DTC-2010-08 at http://
www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2010/dtc/2010-08.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \7\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to DTC because the proposed rule
change promotes efficiencies in the clearance and settlement of
securities transactions by revising DTC's Procedures to promote use of
the PTOP function for elections in corporate action events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact or impose any burden on competition.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by DTC.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \9\ thereunder
because the proposed rule change effects a change in an existing
service of a registered clearing agency that: (i) Does not adversely
affect the safeguarding of securities or funds in the custody or
control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible and (ii)
does not significantly affect the respective rights or obligations of
the clearing agency or persons using the service. At any time within
sixty days of the filing of such rule change, the Commission may
summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of

investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Electronic comments may be submitted by using the
Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml), or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-DTC-2010-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2010-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of DTC and on DTC's Web
site at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2010/dtc/
2010-08.pdf. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to file number SR-DTC-
2010-08 and should be submitted on or before June 15, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-12508 Filed 5-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P