commenter also suggested that the burdens of the proposed changes
clearly outweigh any perceived benefits. The commenter believes PFOS is
a very effective fume suppressant because of its persistent and bio-
accumulative nature and acknowledged that PFOS and other long-chain
perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) are being phased out by EPA and by
other regulatory agencies globally because of the environmental impacts
that may result from the use of PFOS. The commenter, however, feels
that the biggest challenge in meeting the revised surface tension
levels stems from the phase-out of PFOS. The commenter stated that
facilities that have switched to non-PFOS fume suppressants have
achieved moderate success in meeting the current surface tension
levels, but many challenges and problems persist. The commenter
believes the switch to non-PFOS fume suppressants diminishes a
facility's margin of compliance in meeting the current surface tension
levels. The commenter goes on to say that where non-PFOS has shown
promise in lowering surface tension levels, it requires more frequent
additions, more frequent monitoring, and more labor to maintain surface
tension levels compared to the use of PFOS fume suppressants.
    Response: Fume suppressants are used to lower the surface tension
of electroplating baths, which in turn, reduces the size of gas bubbles
generated during electrolysis. These smaller bubbles travel more slowly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

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

B. What are the emission reductions?

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

C. What are the cost impacts?

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

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

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

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

D. What are the economic impacts?

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

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

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

E. What are the benefits?

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection
requirements related to the Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and
Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants MACT standards. However, the OMB
has previously approved the information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCC under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq
and assigned OMB Control Number 2060-0419.
    The information collection requirements in this rule for the Hard
and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks
NESHAP have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document prepared was assigned EPA ICR number 1611.10.
Burden changes associated with these amendments would result from the
emission testing requirements and compliance demonstrations being
promulgated with today's action. The estimated average burden per
response is 9 hours; the frequency of response is one-time for all
respondents that must comply with the rule's reporting requirements and
the estimated average number of likely respondents per year is 485. The
cost burden to respondents resulting from the collection of information
includes the total capital cost annualized over the equipment's
expected useful life ($100,958), a total operation and maintenance
component ($0 per year), and a labor cost component (about $152,116 per
year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this
final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a
small industrial entity as defined by the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impact of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule
imposes more stringent emissions limits and lower surface tension
requirements. These new requirements and restrictions to the hard and
decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks MACT
standard will impact small entities, but those impacts have been
estimated to be nominal. The emissions limits reflect the level of
performance currently being achieved by most facilities, and many
facilities currently have emissions that are far below the limits. With
regard to the remaining facilities (those that will need to achieve
emissions reductions), most of these facilities can achieve the limits
at low costs (e.g., by using additional fume suppressants).
    The EPA's analysis estimated that 97 percent of the affected
entities will have an annualized cost of less than 1 percent of sales.
In addition, approximately 1 percent of affected entities, or 9
facilities with fewer than 20 employees, may have cost-to-sales ratios
between 3 to 9 percent. All of these facilities are in the hard
chromium electroplating category, with 3 of the facilities in the small
hard chromium electroplating category and 6 in the large hard chromium
electroplating category.
    Since our analysis indicates that a small subset of facilities
(about 1 percent) may have cost-to-sales ratios greater than 3 percent,
we have conducted additional economic impact analyses on this small
subset of facilities to better understand the potential economic
impacts for these facilities. The additional analyses indicate the
estimates of costs-to-sales ratios in the initial analyses are more
likely to be overstated rather than understated because the additional
analyses indicate that sales are typically higher for these sources
than the average value used in the initial analysis.
    Moreover, because of the nature of the market, these facilities are
likely to be able to pass cost increases through to their customers. As
such, we do not anticipate the rule to result in firm closures, or
substantial profit loss. More information and details of this analysis
are provided in the technical document ``Economic Impact Analysis for
Risk and Technology Review: Chromium Electroplating,'' which is
available in the docket for this final rule.
    Although this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the facilities subject to
this action are owned or operated by State governments and do not
impose significant economic costs on state or local governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

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

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with two of the source categories associated with
today's rule (Hard Chromium Electroplaters and Decorative Chromium
Electroplaters), we evaluated the percentages of various social,
demographic, and economic groups within the at-risk populations living
near the facilities where these source categories are located and
compared them to national averages. We did not conduct this type of
analysis for the chromic acid anodizing or steel pickling categories
because the numbers of people for whom cancer risks were greater than
1-in-1 million due to HAP emissions from these source categories were
low.
    The analysis indicated that certain minority groups and low-income
populations may be disproportionately exposed to emissions from these
categories and to any risks that may result due to these emissions
because the communities most proximate to facilities within these
categories have a higher proportion of these groups than the national
demographic profile. We did not, however, identify any vulnerability or
susceptibility to risks particular to minority and low income
populations from pollutants emitted from this source category.
    We determined that this rule will not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-
income populations because it maintains or increases the level of
environmental protection for all affected populations without having
any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority low-income, or
indigenous populations. Further, after implementation of the provisions
of this rule, the public health of all demographic groups will be
protected with an ample margin of safety.
    The development of demographic analyses to inform the consideration
of environmental justice issues in EPA rulemakings is an evolving
process. The EPA offers the demographic analyses in this rulemaking as
examples of how such analyses might be developed to inform such
consideration, with the hope that this will support the refinement and
improve utility of such analyses for future rulemakings.
    Our analysis of the demographics of the population with estimated
risks greater than 1-in-1 million indicates potential disparities in
risks between demographic groups, including the African American, Other
and Multiracial, Hispanic, Below the Poverty Level, and the Over 25
without a High School Diploma groups. These groups stand to benefit the
most from the emission reductions achieved by this rulemaking.
    EPA defines ``Environmental Justice'' to include meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and polices. To promote
meaningful involvement, after the rule was proposed, EPA conducted a
webinar to inform the public about the rule and to outline how to
submit written comments to the docket. Further stakeholder and public
input occurred through public comment and follow-up meetings with
interested stakeholders.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that, before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing
this final rule and other required information to the United States
Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days
after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rules will be
effective on September 19, 2012.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sec.  63.341  Definitions and nomenclature.

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

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

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

Sec.  63.342  Standards.

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

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

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

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

Sec.  63.343  Compliance provisions.

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

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

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

Sec.  63.344  Performance test requirements and test methods.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sec.  63.346  Recordkeeping requirements.

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

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

Sec.  63.347  Reporting requirements.

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

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

  Table 1 to Subpart N of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
                                Subpart N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Applies to  subpart
General provisions reference            N                  Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subpart CCC--[AMENDED]

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

Sec.  63.1155  Applicability.

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

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

Sec.  63.1156  Definitions.

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

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

Sec.  63.1157  Emission standards for existing sources.

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

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

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

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

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

Sec.  63.1160  Compliance dates and maintenance requirements.

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

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

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

Sec.  63.1161  Performance testing and test methods.

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

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

Sec.  63.1164  Reporting requirements.

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

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

Sec.  63.1165  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) * * *

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

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

 Table 1 to Subpart CCC of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
               (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart CCC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Applies to  subpart
          Reference                    CCC               Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

1.0 Scope and Application

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

6.0 Equipment and Supplies

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

11.0 Analytical Procedure

    11.1 Procedure. The surface tension of the tank bath may be
measured using a tensiometer, stalagmometer, or any other equivalent
surface tension measuring device for measuring surface tension in
dynes per centimeter.
    11.1.1 If a tensiometer is used, the procedures specified in
ASTM Method D 1331-89 must be followed.
    11.1.2 If a stalagmometer is used, the procedures specified in
Sections <IP_ADDRESS> through <IP_ADDRESS> must be followed.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Check the stalagmometer for visual signs of damage. If
the stalagmometer appears to be chipped, cracked, or otherwise in
disrepair, the instrument shall not be used.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Using distilled or deionized water and following the
procedures provided by the manufacturer, count the number of drops
corresponding to the distilled/deionized water liquid volume between
the upper and lower etched marks on the stalagmometer. If the number
of drops for the distilled/deionized water is not within 1 drop of the number indicated on the instrument, the
stalagmometer must be cleaned, using the procedures specified in
Section 11.1.3 of this method, before using the instrument to
measure the surface tension of the tank liquid.
    <IP_ADDRESS>.1 If the stalagmometer must be cleaned, as indicated in
Section <IP_ADDRESS>, repeat the procedure specified in Section <IP_ADDRESS>
before proceeding.
    <IP_ADDRESS>.2 If, after cleaning and performing the procedure in
Section <IP_ADDRESS>, the number of drops indicated for the distilled/
deionized water is not within 1 drop of the number
indicated on the instrument, either use the number of drops
corresponding to the distilled/deionized water volume as the
reference number of drops, or replace the instrument.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Determine the surface tension of the tank liquid using
the procedures specified by the manufacturer of the stalagmometer.
    11.1.3 Stalagmometer cleaning procedures. The procedures
specified in Sections <IP_ADDRESS> through <IP_ADDRESS> shall be used for
cleaning a stalagmometer, as required by Section <IP_ADDRESS>.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Set up the stalagmometer on its stand in a fume hood.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Place a clean 150 (mL) beaker underneath the
stalagmometer and fill the beaker with reagent grade concentrated
nitric acid.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Immerse the bottom tip of the stalagmometer
(approximately 1 centimeter (0.5 inches)) into the beaker.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Squeeze the rubber bulb and pinch at the arrow up (1)
position to collapse.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Place the bulb end securely on top end of stalagmometer
and carefully draw the nitric acid by pinching the arrow up (1)
position until the level is above the top etched line.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Allow the nitric acid to remain in stalagmometer for 5
minutes, then carefully remove the bulb, allowing the acid to
completely drain.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Fill a clean 150 mL beaker with distilled or deionized
water.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Using the rubber bulb per the instructions in Sections
<IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS>, rinse and drain stalagmometer with deionized
or distilled water.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Fill a clean 150 mL beaker with isopropyl alcohol.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Again using the rubber bulb per the instructions in
Sections <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS>, rinse and drain stalagmometer twice
with isopropyl alcohol and allow the stalagmometer to dry
completely.
    11.2 * * *
* * * * *
    11.2.2 If a measurement of the surface tension of the solution
is above the 40 dynes per centimeter limit when measured using a
stalagmometer, above 33 dynes per centimeter when measured using a
tensiometer, or above an alternate surface tension limit established
during the performance test, the time interval shall revert back to
the original monitoring schedule of once every 4 hours. A subsequent
decrease in frequency would then be allowed according to Section
11.2.1.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-20642 Filed 9-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P