[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58219-58253]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20642]

Vol. 77

Wednesday,

No. 182

September 19, 2012

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

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

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012
/ Rules and Regulations

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600; FRL-9709-9]
RIN 2060-AQ60

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emissions: Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium
Anodizing Tanks; and Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and
Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
conducted for the following source categories regulated under two
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP): hard
and decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks,
and steel pickling--HCl process facilities and hydrochloric acid
regeneration plants. On October 21, 2010, EPA proposed amendments to
these NESHAP under section 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) of the Clean Air Act.
On February 8, 2012, EPA published a supplemental proposal with new
analyses and results. For hard and decorative chromium electroplating
and chromium anodizing tanks these final amendments addressing Clean
Air Act (CAA) sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) include revisions to the
emissions limits for total chromium; addition of housekeeping
requirements to minimize fugitive emissions; and a requirement to
phase-out the use of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) based fume
suppressants. These requirements will provide greater protection for
public health and the environment by reducing emissions of hexavalent
chromium (a known human carcinogen). In addition, as part of the
October 2010 proposal, we proposed certain actions pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(2) and (3) for hard and decorative chromium
electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks. For these sources, we are
modifying and adding testing and monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements; and revisions to the regulatory provisions
related to emissions during periods of malfunction. For steel pickling
hydrochloric acid regeneration plants, we are finalizing our proposal
to remove the alternative compliance method because we believe it is
inconsistent with the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3).
This amendment will achieve reductions in chlorine emissions.
Additionally, we are adding provisions to the Steel Pickling Facilities
NESHAP requiring that the emission limits of the rule apply at all
times, including during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction.

DATES: This final action is effective on September 19, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet, and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West
Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202)
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final rule,
contact Mr. Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-
02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919)
541-5289; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For specific information regarding the risk
modeling methodology, contact Mr. Mark Morris, Health and Environmental
Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (919)
541-0840; and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For information about the applicability of
these NESHAP to a particular entity, contact the appropriate person
listed in Table 1 to this preamble.

  Table 1--List of EPA Contacts for the NESHAP Addressed in This Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           NESHAP for:             OECA Contact \a\    OAQPS Contact \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard and Decorative Chromium      Sara Ayres, (202)   Phil Mulrine,
 Electroplating and Chromium       564-5391,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
 Anodizing Tanks; and Steel<EMAIL_ADDRESS> mulrine.phil@epa.
 Pickling--HCl Process             v.                  gov.
 Facilities and Hydrochloric
 Acid Regeneration Plants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
\b\ EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

    Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

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

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the emission reductions?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    This action presents the results and final decisions based on EPA's
review of two national regulations for hazardous air pollutants.
Specifically, pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA has completed
risk and technology reviews (RTRs) for four source categories covered
by two separate regulations.
    Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review these
regulations (i.e., national emissions standards) and revise them as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies) no less frequently than every 8 years.
Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires EPA to assess the remaining risks
due to emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from these source
categories and determine whether the emissions standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health within 8 years of
promulgation of the original standards. The two regulations addressed
in this action are the following: National Emissions Standards for
Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and
Chromium Anodizing Tanks; and National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and
Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants.
    In addition to the reviews described above, the EPA also reviewed
these rules to determine if any other corrections or clarifications
were needed pursuant to other Sections the Clean Air Act. As described
below, based on all these reviews, the EPA has determined it is
appropriate and necessary to promulgate some amendments to these rules.
2. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Actions
    With regard to the National Emissions Standards for Chromium
Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium
Anodizing Tanks, based on the reviews under Sections 112(d)(6) and
112(f), the EPA has determined it is appropriate to promulgate
emissions limits and surface tension limits that are moderately lower
than the limits in the current regulation for new and existing hard
chromium electroplating, decorative chromium electroplating, and
chromium anodizing sources. These amendments will reduce chromium
emissions (a known human carcinogen) and the risk associated with those
emissions. This action also includes housekeeping requirements to
minimize fugitive emissions from affected sources. In addition, this
action eliminates the use of fume suppressants that contain
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), which has been shown to be
persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic. Finally, this action amends the
requirements for testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping for
consistency with the other requirements of the NESHAP.
    With regard to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric
Acid Regeneration Plants, the Agency has determined that no amendments
are needed based on the risk and technology reviews under Sections
112(d)(6) and 112(f) of the CAA. However, EPA identified two areas
where amendments were needed to ensure the rules were meeting
requirements of Sections 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3). First, this action
eliminates an alternative compliance option that was inconsistent with
the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). Secondly, we are
adding provisions to require the emission limits of the rule to apply
at all times, including during periods of startup, shutdown and
malfunction.
3. Costs and Emissions Reductions
    Table 2 summarizes the costs and emissions reductions for this
action. See section V of this preamble for further discussion of the
costs and impacts.

  Table 2--Summary of the Estimated Costs and Emissions Reductions for the Final Chromium Electroplating NESHAP
                                   and Final Steel Pickling NESHAP Amendments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Emissions
           Source category                Number of       Capital costs  $   Annualized costs   reductions  lbs/
                                       affected plants                             $/yr                yr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Chromium Electroplating NESHAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large hard chromium electroplating..                 57         $6,377,000         $1,686,000                148
Small hard chromium electroplating..                 91          1,424,000            476,000                 33
Decorative chromium electroplating..                313            163,000            166,000                 35
Chromium anodizing..................                 74            235,000             51,000                  8
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................                535          8,200,000          2,380,000                224
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Steel Pickling NESHAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrochloric acid regeneration                        1    100,000-200,000      11,419-22,837             30,000
 facilities.........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Does this action apply to me?

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

                 Table 3--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           NESHAP and Source Category                             NAICS Code \1\   MACT Code \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium Electroplating NESHAP, Subpart N.....  Chromium Anodizing Tanks........          332813            1607
                                                Decorative Chromium                       332813            1610
                                                 Electroplating.
                                                Hard Chromium Electroplating....          332813            1615
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities And Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants      3311, 3312            0310
 NESHAP, Subpart CCC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature by
the EPA Administrator, a copy of this final action will be posted on
the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated
rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in
various areas of air pollution control.
    Additional information is available on the residual risk and
technology review (RTR) Web page at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes source category descriptions and
detailed emissions and other data that were used as inputs to the risk
assessments.

D. Judicial Review

    Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action
is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by November 19,
2012. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this
final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy
to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S.
EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background Information

A. Overview of the Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing
Source Categories

    The 1995 Chromium Electroplating NESHAP regulate emissions of
chromium compounds from three source categories: Hard chromium
electroplating, decorative chromium electroplating, and chromium
anodizing. The NESHAP apply to both major sources and area sources. The
NESHAP were promulgated on January 25, 1995, (60 FR 4963) and codified
at 40 CFR part 63, subpart N. We amended the NESHAP to address issues
related to changes in control technology, monitoring and implementation
on July 19, 2004 (69 FR 42885).
1. Hard Chromium Electroplating
    The Hard Chromium Electroplating source category consists of
facilities that plate base metals with a relatively thick layer of
chromium using an electrolytic process. Hard chromium electroplating
provides a finish that is resistant to wear, abrasion, heat, and
corrosion. These facilities plate large cylinders and industrial rolls
used in construction equipment and printing presses, hydraulic
cylinders and rods, zinc die castings, plastic molds, engine
components, and marine hardware.
    The NESHAP distinguish between large hard chromium electroplating
facilities and small hard chromium electroplating facilities. Large
hard chromium electroplating facilities are defined as any such
facility with a cumulative annual rectifier capacity equal to or
greater than 60 million ampere-hours per year (amp-hr/yr). Small hard
chromium electroplating facilities are defined as any facility with a
cumulative annual rectifier capacity less than 60 million amp-hr/yr.
The 1995 NESHAP require all affected tanks located at large hard
chromium electroplating facilities to meet an emissions limit of 0.015
milligrams of total chromium per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm).
Alternatively, large hard chromium facilities also can comply with the
NESHAP by maintaining the surface tension in affected tanks equal to or
less than 45 dynes per centimeter (dynes/cm), if measured using a
stalagmometer, or 35 dynes/cm, if measured using a tensiometer.
Compliance with the applicable surface tension limit ensures compliance
with the emission limit.
    The Chromium Electroplating NESHAP require affected tanks at
existing small hard chromium electroplating facilities to meet an
emissions limit of 0.030 mg/dscm and affected tanks at new small hard
chromium electroplating facilities to meet a limit of 0.015 mg/dscm.

Alternatively, these sources have the option of complying with surface
tension limits equal to or less than 45 dynes per centimeter (dynes/
cm), if measured using a stalagmometer, or 35 dynes/cm, if measured
using a tensiometer. Under the current NESHAP, any small hard chromium
electroplating tank for which construction or reconstruction was
commenced on or before December 16, 1993 (i.e., the proposal date for
the original NESHAP), is subject to the existing source standards, and
any small hard chromium electroplating tank constructed or
reconstructed after December 16, 1993, is subject to new source
standards.
    We estimate that there currently are approximately 188 large hard
chromium electroplating facilities and 394 small hard chromium
electroplating facilities in operation in the U.S. outside of
California. Of the 394 small hard chromium electroplating facilities,
we estimate that 131 of these facilities have one or more tanks that
are subject to the new source standards, and the affected sources at
the other 263 facilities are subject to the existing source standards.
Additionally, there are about 70 hard chromium electroplating
facilities operating in California.
2. Decorative Chromium Electroplating
    The Decorative Chromium Electroplating source category consists of
facilities that plate base materials such as brass, steel, aluminum, or
plastic with layers of copper and nickel, followed by a relatively thin
layer of chromium to provide a bright, tarnish- and wear-resistant
surface. Decorative chromium electroplating is used for items such as
automotive trim, metal furniture, bicycles, hand tools, and plumbing
fixtures. We estimate that there currently are approximately 517
decorative chromium electroplating plants in operation in the U.S. The
1995 NESHAP require all existing and new decorative chromium
electroplating sources to meet a total chromium emissions limit of 0.01
mg/dscm or meet the surface tension limits of 45 dynes/cm, if measured
using a stalagmometer, or 35 dynes/cm, if measured using a tensiometer.
3. Chromium Anodizing
    The Chromium Anodizing source category consists of facilities that
use chromic acid to form an oxide layer on aluminum to provide
resistance to corrosion. The chromium anodizing process is used to coat
aircraft parts (such as wings and landing gears) as well as
architectural structures that are subject to high stress and corrosive
conditions. We estimate that there currently are about 170 chromium
anodizing plants in operation in the U.S. The NESHAP require all
existing and new chromium anodizing sources to meet a total chromium
emissions limit of 0.01 mg/dscm, or meet the surface tension limits of
45 dynes/cm, if measured using a stalagmometer, or 35 dynes/cm, if
measured using a tensiometer.

B. Summary of the Proposed Amendments to the Chromium Electroplating
and Chromium Anodizing Source Categories

1. The October 2010 Proposal
    In 2010, pursuant to section 112(f)(2) of the CAA, we evaluated the
residual risk associated with the NESHAP. At that time, we also
conducted a technology review, as required by section 112(d)(6). Based
on the results of our initial residual risk and technology reviews, we
proposed on October 21, 2010 (75 FR 65071), that the risks due to HAP
emissions from these source categories were acceptable. The basis for
this decision is explained in the October 21, 2010 Federal Register
Notice. Furthermore, we proposed that no additional controls were
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety (AMOS) to protect public
health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect because we
concluded that the costs of the options analyzed were not reasonable
considering the emissions and risk reductions potentially achieved with
the controls. Thus, we did not propose to revise the NESHAP under
112(f)(2). However, as explained in that proposal publication, we
remained concerned about the potential cancer risks due to emissions
from these source categories and asked for additional information and
comments on this issue. See 75 FR 65071.
    As a result of our technology review in 2010, we proposed the
following amendments to the NESHAP for all three source categories:
     Incorporate housekeeping practices into 40 CFR 63.342(f);
and,
     Phase out the use of wetting agent fume suppressants
(WAFS) that use perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS);
    We proposed the housekeeping practices because they will help
reduce and minimize fugitive emissions of chromium compounds from
chromium electroplating and anodizing facilities and we had determined
at the time of the proposal that they could be implemented at
relatively low costs. We proposed to revise the rule to no longer allow
the addition of PFOS-based WAFS to tanks as a method to meet the MACT
requirements for these source categories. The basis for this proposal
is described in the October 2010 Federal Register Notice (75 FR 65068).
We explained that alternatives to PFOS-based WAFS had been successfully
used in the hard and decorative chrome source categories and stated
that while alternatives had not been used extensively in chromium
anodizing, we were unaware of any technical reason that precluded such
use. We specifically solicited comment on this issue.
    We also proposed some additional changes in the 2010 proposal under
Section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), including:
     Revise the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM)
provisions in the rule;
     Revise the monitoring and testing requirements; and
     Make technical corrections to the NESHAP.
    The proposed changes to the SSM provisions will ensure that the
standards apply at all times, even during periods of malfunction.
Regarding the monitoring and testing requirements, we proposed to
revise the compliance provisions for multiple sources controlled by a
common add-on air pollution control device, clarify that testing can be
performed by either Method 306 or Method 306A, revise Method 306B to
clarify that the method also applies to hard chromium electroplating
tanks and include procedures for checking the accuracy of, and cleaning
of, a stalagmometer (See 75 FR 65095 for a more detailed discussion of
the proposed monitoring revisions).
    We also proposed to add a provision to provide an affirmative
defense against civil penalties for violations of emission standards
caused by malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing the
affirmative defense, which is the same affirmative defense provision we
have proposed or promulgated in several other recent MACT rules.
    In our 2010 proposal, we provided further explanation of the basis
for proposing these amendments to the NESHAP pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6). See 75 FR 65093. We proposed that existing sources could not
use PFOS-based WAFS 3 years after publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register and that new sources cannot use PFOS-based WAFS as a
method to meet the NESHAP requirements.
2. The February 8, 2012 Supplemental Proposal
    In response to the 2010 proposal, several commenters expressed
concern that the data set used in the risk assessment was not
sufficient and not

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

77 FR 6649-50. We proposed that the revised reporting requirements
would apply upon promulgation of the final rule.

C. Overview of the Steel Pickling Source Category

    Steel pickling is a treatment process in which the heavy oxide
crust or mill scale that develops on the steel surface during hot
forming or heat treating is removed chemically in a bath of aqueous
acid solution. There are two specific processes regulated under the
Steel Pickling NESHAP. Pickling is a process applied to metallic
substances that removes surface impurities, stains, or crusts to
prepare the metal for subsequent plating (e.g., with chromium) or other
treatment, such as galvanization or painting. A pickling line is
defined in the rule as using an acid solution in any tank in which
hydrochloric acid is at a concentration of 6 percent by weight or
greater and has a temperature of 100 [deg]F or greater. An acid
regeneration plant is defined in the rule as the equipment and
processes that regenerate fresh hydrochloric acid (HCl) pickling
solution from spent pickle liquor using a thermal treatment process.
The HAP emission points from the steel pickling process include steel
pickling baths, steel pickling sprays, and tank vents. The HAP emission
point from acid regeneration plants is the spray roaster.
    We estimate that there are approximately 100 facilities subject to
the Steel Pickling NESHAP. Many of these facilities are located
adjacent to integrated iron and steel manufacturing plants or electric
arc furnace steelmaking facilities (minimills) that produce steel from
scrap. Acid Regeneration facilities may or may not be located at steel
pickling operations.

D. Summary of the Proposed Amendments to the Steel Pickling Source
Category

    In 2010, pursuant to section 112(f)(2) of the CAA, we evaluated the
residual risk associated with the NESHAP. We also conducted a
technology review, as required by section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. Based
on our risk analysis, we determined that there were no cancer risks
attributable to emissions from the steel pickling source category. We
also estimated the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value to be 2 based
on emissions of chlorine and the maximum off-facility-site acute Hazard
Quotient (HQ) value could be up to 0.4, based on actual emission levels
and the reference exposure level (REL) value for chlorine. 75 FR at
65122-24. We proposed on October 21, 2010 that the risks were
acceptable based on our determination that facilities in this source
category emit no HAPs that are carcinogens and because the acute risks
were low. While the chronic non-cancer TOSHI level for one facility
exceeded the reference level, we noted that this facility has had
compliance issues with the standard and that the actual emissions we
relied on for this facility included emissions in excess of what is
allowed under the MACT standard. We estimate that if emissions were
maintained at levels equal to or lower than the level allowed by the
MACT limit (6 ppm) then the TOSHI would be no higher than 1. The next
highest HI from any facility in the source category is 0.1.
    We identified one development in practices, processes or control
technologies for this source category, but determined that it was not
technically feasible for the industry. 75 FR at 65124. Thus, we
proposed that no amendments were necessary under both the second part
of the section 112(f) review, determining whether the standard provides
an ample margin of safety and prevents an adverse environmental effect,
and for the 112(d)(6) review. 75 FR at 65124. However, under section
112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3), we proposed to eliminate the startup, shutdown
and malfunction (SSM) exemption in the Steel Pickling NESHAP in light
of the court's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA (Sierra Club v. EPA, 551
F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008) 130 S. Ct. 1735 (2010)). We proposed several
revisions to the regulations regarding SSM, including:
     Revising Table 1 to indicate that the requirements in 40
CFR 63.6(e) of the General Provisions, regarding the ``duty to
minimize'' emissions do not apply and instead proposed to incorporate
it in 40 CFR 63.1159(c).
     Removing the SSM Plan requirement requiring affected
sources to calculate their emissions during startup and shutdown and to
maintain records of the startup and shutdown emission calculations.
     Revising the SSM-associated monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements to require reporting and recordkeeping for
periods of malfunction.
     Adding provisions to provide an affirmative defense
against civil penalties for violations of emission standards caused by
malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing the affirmative
defense.
    In the February 2012 supplemental proposal (77 FR 6628) we proposed
two additional actions for the Steel Pickling source category. First,
we proposed to remove a compliance alternative established in the
original MACT rule. The alternative compliance option allowed existing
HCl regeneration facilities to request approval for an alternative
source-specific chlorine concentration standard from their permitting
authority. We stated that we believe that this alternative compliance
option was not appropriate under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) and
that the option had been adopted inappropriately. Second, we proposed
to require electronic reporting for the Steel Pickling and HCl Acid
Regeneration source category similar to that described above for the
chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing source categories and
for the same reasons.

III. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What are the final rule amendments for the Chromium Electroplating
and Chromium Anodizing source categories?

1. Risk and Technology Review
    For all three chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing source
categories, we are finalizing the emission and surface tension limits
as proposed in the supplemental proposal under Sections 112(d)(6) and
112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act. However, as noted in the following
paragraphs, we performed additional analyses based on issues raised and
information submitted during the comment period, which add further
support for this final action.
    Additional information on emissions and controls from chromium
electroplating and chromic acid anodizing sources was submitted to EPA
during the comment period, and we also obtained additional data and
information from some States and industry shortly after the close of
the comment period. The information supported the data and analyses we
had performed to develop the emissions limits for the supplemental
proposal. For example, we obtained data from two additional chromic
acid anodizing plants that showed they had emissions well below the
limits we are promulgating and that indicates the anodizing plants can
easily meet the limits with readily available common control
technologies. We also obtained additional data from hard chromium
electroplating plants that shows even more plants than we estimated in
the proposal are already meeting the lower emissions limits.
    We also performed new analyses of the costs of the proposed
requirements and the emissions reductions that would be achieved based
on the information that became available after we issued the
supplemental proposal.

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

                 Table 4--Summary of Costs and Risk Reductions for the Various Options Considered for Large Hard Chromium Electroplating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       MIR \1\  (in-a-                  Number of   Number of
                                            Emission      Total           million)                       people     people w/                  Cost-
                  Option                   reductions   emissions ------------------------  Incidence   with risk  risk > 10-  Annualized  effectiveness
                                            in lbs/yr   in lbs/yr                          (cases/yr)   > 1-in-1      in-1        costs       (per lb)
                                                                     Actual     Allowable                million     million
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline: current situation..............           0         454          20          50        0.03      88,000         740           0            NA
Option 1--Final: limit of 0.011 mg/dscm..         148         306      \2\ 20          40        0.02      59,000         500      $1.7 M       $11,000
Option 2: limit of 0.0075 mg/dscm........         169         285          10          30    \2\ 0.02      55,000         470      $4.1 M       $24,700
Option 3: limit of 0.006 mg/dscm.........         180         274           8          20    \2\ 0.02      53,000         450      $5.3 M       $29,900
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MIR estimates are derived from estimates of actual and allowable emissions. Population risk estimates are derived from estimates of actual
  emissions.
\2\ There are further risk reductions associated with this option compared to the previous option, but they are not large enough to change the risk
  values as presented to one significant figure.

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

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

                 Table 5--Summary of Costs and Risk Reductions for the Various Options Considered for Small Hard Chromium Electroplating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       MIR \1\  (in-a-                  Number of   Number of
                                            Emission      Total           million)                       people      people                    Cost-
                  Option                   reductions   emissions ------------------------  Incidence   with risk   with risk  Annualized  effectiveness
                                            in lbs/yr   in lbs/yr                          (cases/yr)   > 1-in-1    > 10-in-1     costs       (per lb)
                                                                     Actual     Allowable                million     million
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline: current situation..............           0         223          20          50        0.02      43,300         360           0            NA
Option 1--Final (0.015 mg/dscm)..........          33         190          10          30        0.01      36,800         306      $0.5 M       $15,000
Option 2: 0.01 mg/dscm...................          71         152           7          20    \2\ 0.01      29,000         245      $1.5 M       $21,000
Option 3: 0.006 mg/dscm..................         116         107           4          10       0.008      22,500         190      $2.2 M       $19,300
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MIR estimates are derived from estimates of actual and allowable emissions. Population risk estimates are derived from estimates of actual
  emissions.
\2\ The incidence estimate under Option 2 is less than the incidence estimate under option 1, but the estimates are reported as the same when rounded to
  one significant figure.

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

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

                 Table 6--Summary of Costs and Risk Reductions for the Various Options Considered for Decorative Chromium Electroplating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   MIR \1\ (in-a-million)               Number of   Number of
                                            Emission      Total   ------------------------               people      people                    Cost-
                  Option                   reductions   emissions                           Incidence   with risk   with risk  Annualized  effectiveness
                                            in lbs/yr   in lbs/yr    Actual     Allowable  (cases/yr)   > 1-in-1    > 10-in-1     costs       (per lb)
                                                                                million     million
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline: Current situation..............           0         222          10          70        0.02      43,000         100           0            NA
Option 1 (0.007 mg/dscm).................          35         187           7          50    \2\ 0.02      36,000          80       $170K        $5,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MIR estimates are derived from estimates of actual and allowable emissions. Population risk estimates are derived from estimates of actual
  emissions.
\2\ The incidence estimate under Option 1 is less than the baseline estimate, but the estimates are reported as the same when rounded to one significant
  figure.

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

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

                         Table 7--Summary of Costs and Risk Reductions for the Various Options Considered for Chromium Anodizing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   MIR \1\ (in-a-million)                Number      Number
                                            Emission      Total   ------------------------               people      people                    Cost-
                  Option                   reductions   emissions                           Incidence   with risk   with risk  Annualized  effectiveness
                                            in lbs/yr   in lbs/yr    Actual     Allowable  (cases/yr)   > 1-in-1    > 10-in-1     costs       (per lb)
                                                                                million     million
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline: Current situation..............           0          57           5          60       0.003       5,000           0          NA            NA
Option 1 (0.007 mg/dscm).................           8          49           3          40   \2\ 0.003       4,000           0        $50K        $6,580
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MIR estimates are derived from estimates of actual and allowable emissions. Population risk estimates are derived from estimates of actual
  emissions.
\2\ The incidence estimate under Option 1 is less than the baseline incidence estimate, but the estimates are reported as the same when rounded to one
  significant figure.

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

grinding, or polishing operations and electroplating or anodizing
operations; and requirements for the storage, disposal, recovery, or
recycling of chromium-containing wastes. The main changes that were
made to the housekeeping requirements since the 2010 proposal based on
public comments include removing routine housekeeping measures from
recordkeeping, adding that cleanup must be initiated within one hour of
the spill, and allowing facilities to collect dragout using other
methods when drip trays are not practical. The compliance date for
implementing the housekeeping procedures will be 6 months after
promulgation of the final amendments. More details on the housekeeping
requirements are explained in the 2010 proposal and in the RTC
document.
Phase-Out of PFOS WAFS
    Also pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are specifying that PFOS
WAFS cannot be added to any affected hard chromium electroplating tank,
decorative chromium electroplating tank, or chromium anodizing tank as
a method to meet the NESHAP requirements for these source categories.
In response to public comments about the effectiveness and feasibility
of non-PFOS WAFS, we collected information from several chromium
electroplating plants in Minnesota that have been using non-PFOS WAFS
for several years, and that information confirmed that the non-PFOS
substitutes are effective and feasible alternatives to PFOS-based
chemicals. See Information on non-PFOS Fume Suppressants in Minnesota
Chromium Electroplating Facilities. Further details are also provided
in the responses to comments provided in Section IV of this FR notice
and in the RTC document.
Other Amendments
    We are finalizing the changes to the SSM requirements, electronic
reporting requirements, test procedures, and monitoring requirements as
proposed. We are also finalizing the addition of a provision to provide
an affirmative defense against civil penalties for violations of
emission standards caused by malfunctions, as well as criteria for
establishing the affirmative defense.

B. What are the effective and compliance dates for the Chromium
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing source category amendments?

    The effective date for the final rule amendments is September 19,
2012. The compliance date for implementing the housekeeping
requirements is March 19, 2013. The compliance date for the revised
emission limits and surface tension limits is September 19, 2014. The
compliance date for eliminating the use of PFOS-based fume suppressants
is September 21, 2015.

C. What are the final rule amendments for the Steel Pickling source
category?

1. Revisions Pursuant to CAA Section 112(d)(2) & (3)
    At the time we promulgated the original MACT standard, we also
established an alternative compliance option for the steel pickling
source category that allowed HCl regeneration facilities to apply for a
site specific alternative chlorine concentration standard for existing
acid regeneration plants. In this final rule, we are removing the
alternative compliance option. After reviewing public comments and
evaluating additional information received since proposal, we continue
to believe that the alternative compliance option provided in the
original rule was not appropriate and therefore should be removed from
the rule because it allowed a source to establish a source specific
limit which could be less stringent than the MACT Floor level of
control. Based on our review and analysis of available information, EPA
concludes that the emission limit for chlorine can be met using
available control technologies such as alkaline scrubbers, and that
this level of control is consistent with the MACT floor level of
control established in the original NESHAP. We estimate that the
amendment to remove the alternative compliance provision will reduce
emissions of chlorine by 15 tons per year (tpy).
2. Risk and Technology Review
    As provided in the proposed rule, we are not revising the Steel
Pickling NESHAP pursuant to CAA sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6). While
the chronic non-cancer TOSHI level for one facility exceeded the
reference level, we noted that this facility has had compliance issues
with the standard and that the actual emissions we relied on for this
facility included emissions in excess of what is allowed under the
NESHAP.
    Given the amendment to remove the alternative compliance option
under Section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3) as described above, and assuming
that the one facility will apply the necessary controls to achieve
compliance with the NESHAP, we estimate that the maximum chronic non-
cancer TOSHI for any facility in the category will be less than 1.
Therefore, the maximum TOSHI allowed by the NESHAP will be no higher
than 1.
    Based on consideration of all the risk assessment results,
including the fact that the maximum TOSHI allowed by the rule will be
no higher than 1, we conclude that risks are acceptable and that the
NESHAP will provide an ample margin of safety given the amendments we
are promulgating in this action.
    Therefore, we are not amending the NESHAP under Section 112(f)
because risks are acceptable and the NESHAP, as revised pursuant to
112(d)(2) and (d)(3), provides an ample margin of safety. We are also
not amending the NESHAP under section 112(d)(6) because we have not
identified new developments in practices, processes or control
technologies. We have determined that the Steel Pickling NESHAP, given
the amendments we are promulgating in this action, provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse
environmental effect, and that there have been no advances in
practices, processes, and control technologies feasible for this source
category.
3. Electronic Reporting
    The final rule amendments require owners and operators of affected
facilities to submit electronic copies of required performance test
reports to EPA's WebFIRE database through an electronic emissions test
report structure called the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). The ERT
generates an electronic report which would be submitted using the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The
submitted report will be transmitted through EPA's Central Data
Exchange (CDX) network for storage in the WebFIRE database making
submittal of data very straightforward and easy. The requirement to
submit performance test data electronically to EPA applies only to
those performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported
by the ERT.

D. What are the effective and compliance dates for the Steel Pickling
source category amendments?

    The effective and compliance date for the final rule amendments is
September 19, 2012.

IV. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

A. Comments and Responses Associated With the Chromium Electroplating
and Chromium Anodizing Source Categories

    Many of the significant comments and our responses are summarized
in this preamble. A summary of the public

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

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

to use the surface tension limit compliance alternative.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA reviewed data from only 17
decorative chromium facilities and one anodizing facility, and
concluded that all decorative and anodizing facilities already comply
with the new proposed emissions limits (77 FR at 6642-6644.) The
commenter goes on to say that EPA acknowledged that 8 decorative
facilities may need to make adjustments and achieve reductions to meet
the new emissions limits, but dismissed these data by claiming that
these facilities would choose to comply with the new NESHAP with the
surface tension levels rather than the new emissions limits. The
commenter noted that EPA admitted that it did not perform any detailed
analysis for anodizing facilities. Rather, EPA concluded that anodizing
processes are similar enough to decorative processes so the proposed
limits would also be appropriate. The commenter stated that EPA had
limited data and had weak scientific and technical basis to support or
justify the proposed limits for decorative and anodizing facilities.
    Response: In evaluating the impacts of the proposed requirements on
the existing decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing
facilities that comply with emissions limits (as opposed to those
plants that comply with the surface tension limits), we reviewed the
available data. For the 17 decorative tanks in our data set, all of
these tanks have emissions below 0.007 mg/dscm and many have emissions
more than 10 times below this level. Although all of the emissions data
indicated that existing facilities would meet the more stringent
emissions limit of 0.007 mg/dscm, we conservatively assumed that at
least some facilities would not meet this limit and would require
further controls. The commenter is not correct that we assumed the 8
facilities would choose to comply with the surface tension levels
rather than the new emissions limits. However, we did assume those
facilities would choose to use fume suppressants to achieve some
emissions reductions to comply with the more stringent emissions
limits, but we disagree that this assumption means that we dismissed
those plants. Using fume suppressant in combination with add-on
controls is a relatively common practice for meeting emissions limits
in the chromium electroplating industry.
    Regarding the data on chromium anodizing, we have obtained emission
test data for two additional chromium anodizing plants, one of which is
located in Connecticut that reported emissions as 0.0007 mg/dscm, and
the other located in Massachusetts that reported a concentration of
0.001 mg/dscm. In addition, we reviewed emission test data we had
previously received for three chromium anodizing plants located in
California. The data show emissions for tanks controlled with HEPA
filters to range from 0.0000097 to 0.00056 mg/dscm. Based on the
control efficiencies reported by California, we estimate that, if these
tanks were controlled with CMPs instead of HEPA filters, emissions
would range from 0.000097 to 0.0056 mg/dscm. As shown in the cost
analysis technical memo, we already had data for a plant in Oklahoma
with reported emissions of 0.0016 mg/dscm.
    With regard to add-on controls, based on available information we
conclude that the CMP is a readily available control technology that
can be applied to anodizing plants and can easily meet a limit of 0.007
mg/dscm for these type of plants. Other technologies can also likely
meet this limit. For example, the Connecticut and Massachusetts plants
have chromium mist eliminators (and have emissions of 0.0007 mg/dscm,
and 0.001 mg/dscm, respectively) and the plant from Oklahoma, which has
emissions of 0.0016 mg/dscm, is controlled with a wet scrubber. The
data from the Connecticut plant, Massachusetts plant, Oklahoma plant,
and the plants in California all support our assumption that most
existing chromium anodizing plants that are currently complying with
the existing emission limit could easily meet the revised emissions
limit of 0.007 mg/dscm without additional controls. We received no data
for any decorative or anodizing plants that would not be able to meet
these lower limits.
2. Risk Assessment
    Comment: One commenter contended that EPA did not assess
multipathway health risk for chrome plating because hexavalent chromium
is not on the outdated list of 14 PB-HAPs that EPA has used for this
risk assessment. The commenter noted EPA's statement that, ``PB-HAP
emissions were not identified from the chromium anodizing, decorative
chromium electroplating, and hard chromium electroplating source
categories, indicating that exposures due to non-inhalation routes of
exposure are not significant.'' The commenter argued that this is
unlawful, arbitrary and capricious because the science demonstrates
this pollutant can indeed cause health effects when a person is exposed
through a pathway other than inhalation. Evolving research continues to
show risk to animals and thus, potentially, both to the environment and
to human health, from oral and systemic exposure through water-based
ingestion, rather than just inhalation. EPA therefore must assess the
multipathway health risk.
    The commenter supported this argument by referring to California
EPA's Office of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)'s recent revisions to
Risk Assessment Guidelines, which, according to the commenter, provide
evidence that under some environmental conditions hexavalent chromium
contamination can persist in soil presenting an exposure risk via
ingestion and dermal exposure to contaminated soils, creating a cancer
risk.\1\ The commenter noted that EPA's failure to consider cancer risk
from ingestion in its analysis is unlawful, arbitrary and capricious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cal. EPA, OEHHA, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk
Assessment Guidelines, Technical Support, Document for Exposure
Assessment and Stochastic Analysis, Scientific Review Panel Draft at
F-27, E-5 (Feb. 2012), http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/SRP/index.html), http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/SRP/index.html; see
also id. at E-12 tbl. E3 (describing exposure pathways for
analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter recommended that the EPA perform a multipathway
analysis for this source category that fully accounts for exposure that
can occur to a child in an urban or residential setting. The commenter
suggested that the EPA assess multipathway risk based on the allowable
emissions, as it has done for inhalation risk. Further, the commenter
reported that the OEHHA's scientists found that there is the potential
for hexavalent chromium uptake in plants and fish and concluded that to
protect public health, exposure via ingestion of contaminated crops and
fish must also be considered.
    Response: The current persistent and bioaccumulative HAP (PB-HAP)
list in the Air Toxics Assessment Library (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_main.html), was developed considering all of the
available information on persistence and bioaccumulation. This list was
peer-reviewed by the SAB, and it is reasonable to use it in the RTR
program. In addition, the Agency does not have information, nor did the
commenter provide information, that would enable the EPA to determine
whether the deposition of airborne hexavalent chromium from chromium
electroplaters and the subsequent movement of the hexavalent chromium
in the environment would result in human exposures that could be of
concern. With regard to the environment, the limited available

information on the persistence and bioaccumulation of hexavalent
chromium suggests that there is no indication of the biomagnifications
of hexavalent chromium along the aquatic food chain, and that chromium
has low mobility for translocation from roots to aboveground parts of
plants. (ATSDRs Tox profile 2008 http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp7.pdf).
    Comment: One commenter stated that the residual risk assessment
underestimates risk to the developing child and fetus. The commenter
observed that biological differences in the developing child and fetus
can result in increased cancer and non-cancer risk due to both
increased exposure and increased vulnerability, and emphasizes that the
EPA must account for the increased susceptibility of children to HAP
emissions from this source category in the risk assessment. The
commenter noted that according to OEHHA, there is an increased risk
indicated from early life exposures and asserted that EPA's failure to
include an adequate evaluation of increased early life susceptibility
to HAP emissions systematically underestimates risk from hexavalent
chromium emissions of this source category. The commenter stated that
the EPA must follow the lead of OEHHA and include additional factors to
address early life exposure in its risk assessment. The commenter also
cited a recent EPA toxicological review and cancer toxicity reviews
from California EPA (CalEPA) that provide evidence for the mutagenic
activity of hexavalent chromium compounds, and developmental, female
reproductive and male reproductive toxicity.2 3 4 The
commenter suggested that under the 2005 Guidance, risk assessments of
exposure to hexavalent chromium should include adjustment for early
life exposures and the estimates included in the residual risk
assessment fail to include the full health risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA, IRIS, Draft, Technological Review of Hexavalent
Chromium (CAS No. 18540-29-9), In Support of Summary Information on
the Integrated Risk Information System at 238 (Sept. 2010).
    \3\ Cal. EPA OEHHA, Public Health Goal for Hexavalent Chromium
in Drinking Water (July 2011).
    \4\ Cal. EPA, OEHHA, Evidence of the Developmental and
Reproductive Toxicity of Chromium (Hexavalent Compounds) 3 (Aug.
2009), http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/hazard_ident/pdf_zip/chrome0908.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter noted that the EPA restricted its application of age-
dependent adjustment factors to those HAPs included in EPA's 2006 list
of carcinogenic HAPs that act by a mutagenic mode of action, and did
not apply age-dependent adjustment factors to assess cancer risk from
chromium. The commenter recommended that the EPA update both its 2005
Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life
Exposure to Carcinogens (attached to comment letter), and EPA's 2006
list of carcinogenic HAPs that act by a mutagenic mode of action to use
age-dependent adjustment factors for hexavalent chromium in the
Supplemental Guidance and incorporate more recent evaluations of
carcinogenic modes of action in the list of carcinogenic HAPs. The
commenter also suggested that the EPA should consult with multiple
scientific bodies on the scientific basis of the proposed rulemaking:
National Academy of Sciences, the Office of Children's Health
Protection, the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee, and
scientists in the Office of Research and Development who focus on
children's and community health (such as experts in the National Center
for Environmental Research). The commenter asked the EPA to consider
and follow its 2008 handbook on child-specific exposure factors in this
rulemaking, and follow the Science Advisory Board's recommendations
regarding the greater exposure and vulnerability of children.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ U.S. EPA, Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook (Sept.
2008), EPA/600/R-06/096F, http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=199243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also pointed out that Congress recognized this
science in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) for pesticide
chemical residue, where Congress used a ten-fold margin of safety for
infants and children. The commenter also provided a table of
comparisons between OEHHA child-health reference values and those of
EPA.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that the
risk assessment underestimates risk to children and lacks consideration
of early-life susceptibility. The EPA agrees that biological
differences across lifestages may lead to differences in the
susceptibility to HAP, as can differences among population groups due
to pre-existing disease states or other factors. Accordingly, the
methods we use in risk assessments have taken this into account. For
the dose-response component of HAP assessments for RTR, the EPA uses
exposure reference concentrations and unit risk estimates (UREs) that
are expressly derived with the objective of protecting sensitive
populations and lifestages, including children (see U.S. EPA, 2002). A
Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes.
EPA/630/P-02/002F. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington DC. Available
online at http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/rfd-final.pdf). For
example, a review of the chronic reference value process concluded that
the Agency's reference concentration (RfC) derivation process
adequately considers potential susceptibility of different subgroups
with specific consideration of children, such that the resultant RfC
values pertain to the full human population including ``sensitive
subgroups,'' inclusive of childhood. With respect to cancer risk
assessments, assessments are performed in accordance with EPA's
Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-life
Exposure to Carcinogens (US EPA, 2005). This Guidance recommends the
application of age-dependent adjustment factors for assessing cancer
risk from carcinogenic pollutants concluded to act via a mutagenic mode
of action and for which information on early-life susceptibility is
lacking. The basis for this methodology is provided in the 2005
Supplemental Guidance. With regard to other carcinogenic pollutants for
which early-life susceptibility data are lacking, it is the Agency's
long-standing science policy position that use of the linear low-dose
extrapolation approach (without further adjustment) provides adequate
public health conservatism in the absence of chemical-specific data
indicating differential early-life susceptibility or when the mode of
action is not mutagenicity (U.S. EPA, 2005).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The EPA has not yet determined whether hexavalent chromium
poses disproportionate risks to children, but is currently
developing an assessment of hexavalent chromium which likely will
address that issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA should use California
EPA's child-specific reference doses for school site risk assessments
\7\ in order to address the potential for early-life susceptibility.
EPA methods for assessing hazard and dose-response relationships for
HAPs and developing RfCs and cancer risk estimates, as noted above,
specifically address the potential for early-life susceptibility.
Whenever data indicate increased susceptibility of a developmental
lifestage or of a population group, those data are

factored into the analysis. When data are inadequate to understand the
effects of a specific pollutant on sensitive subpopulations, which, for
some pollutants, may include children, the Agency's risk assessment
methods take that into account to ensure that resulting assessments
address the possibility that such subpopulations might be more or less
sensitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ We note that California EPA's use of these numerical values,
which do not exist for inhalation exposures, is limited to the
context of risk assessment at proposed or existing California school
sites and does not extend to their Air Hot Spots Risk Assessment
program. Further the guidance for the California EPA school site
assessment program specifies the use of California OEHHA or U.S. EPA
IRIS values in the absence of the school site risk assessment child-
specific values (Cal OEHHA, 2004--http://www.oehha.ca.gov/public_info/public/kids/pdf/SchoolscreenFinal.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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