6560­
50­
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Parts
63,
70,
and
71
[
OAR­
2004­
0010;
FRL­
­
]

RIN
2060­
AM31
Exemption
of
Certain
Area
Sources
from
Title
V
Operating
Permit
Programs
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
The
EPA
is
finalizing
permanent
exemptions
from
the
title
V
operating
permit
program
for
five
categories
of
nonmajor
(
area)
sources
that
are
subject
to
national
emission
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP).
The
EPA
is
making
a
finding
for
these
categories,
consistent
with
the
Clean
Air
Act
requirement
for
making
such
exemptions,
that
compliance
with
title
V
permitting
requirements
is
impracticable,

infeasible,
or
unnecessarily
burdensome
on
the
source
categories.
The
five
source
categories
are
dry
cleaners,
halogenated
solvent
degreasers,
chrome
electroplaters,

ethylene
oxide
(
EO)
sterilizers
and
secondary
aluminum
smelters.
The
EPA
declines
to
make
a
finding
for
a
sixth
category,
area
sources
subject
to
the
NESHAP
for
secondary
lead
smelters.
A
previous
deferral
from
permitting
for
this
category
expired
on
December
9,
2004,
subjecting
all
such
sources
to
the
title
V
program.

EFFECTIVE
DATE:
This
final
rule
is
effective
on
[
insert
date
of
publication
in
the
Federal
Register].

ADDRESSES:
Docket.
Docket
No.
OAR­
2004­
0010,
containing
supporting
information
2
used
to
develop
the
proposed
and
final
rules,
is
available
for
public
inspection
and
copying
between
8:
00
a.
m.
and
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday
(
except
government
holidays)

at
the
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
(
Air
Docket)
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center,
(
EPA/
DC)
EPA
West
Building,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20004.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Mr.
Jeff
Herring,
U.
S.
EPA,
Information
Transfer
and
Program
Implementation
Division,
C304­
04,
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
27711,
telephone
number
(
919)
541­
3195,
facsimile
number
(
919)
541­
5509,
or
electronic
mail
at
herring.
jeff@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
General
Information
A.
Does
This
Action
Apply
to
Me?

The
entities
affected
by
this
rulemaking
are
area
sources
subject
to
a
NESHAP
promulgated
under
section
112
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
Act)
since
1990,
listed
in
the
table
below.
An
"
area
source"
under
the
NESHAP
regulations
is
a
source
that
is
not
a
"
major
source"
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
HAP).
A
"
major
source"
under
the
NESHAP
regulations
is
"
any
stationary
source
or
group
of
stationary
sources
located
within
a
contiguous
area
and
under
common
control
that
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
considering
controls,
in
the
aggregate,
10
tons
per
year
or
more
of
any
[
HAP]
or
25
tons
per
year
or
more
of
any
combination
of
[
HAP].
.
."
See
definitions
of
"
area
source"
and
"
major
source"
at
40
CFR
63.2.

This
final
rule
affects
only
whether
area
sources
regulated
by
certain
NESHAP
are
required
to
obtain
a
title
V
operating
permit
and
whether
title
V
permits
may
be
issued
to
3
1
This
estimated
number
includes
both
major
and
area
sources,
even
though
only
area
sources
will
be
affected
by
this
rulemaking.
Almost
all
dry
cleaners
are
area
sources.
Also,
EPA
believes
less
than
half
of
EO
sterilizers
are
area
sources
(
see
docket
item
106).
For
other
categories
listed
here,
EPA
does
not
have
information
on
the
number
of
area
sources.

2
The
proposal
of
March
25,
2005
estimated
up
to
30,000
dry
cleaners
would
be
affected
by
this
rulemaking.
Based
on
new
information
available
to
EPA,
we
now
believe
up
to
28,000
dry
cleaners
are
potentially
affected
by
this
rulemaking.
these
and
other
area
sources
once
EPA
has
promulgated
exemptions
from
title
V
for
them.

It
has
no
other
effect
on
any
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
regulations,
nor
on
the
requirements
of
State
or
Federal
title
V
operating
permit
programs.

The
affected
categories
are:

Category
NESHAP
Estimated
number
of
sources1
Perchloroethylene
dry
cleaning
Part
63,
Subpart
M
28,0002
Hard
and
decorative
chromium
electroplating
and
chromium
anodizing
Part
63,
Subpart
N
5,000
Commercial
ethylene
oxide
sterilization
Part
63,
Subpart
O
100
Halogenated
solvent
cleaning
Part
63,
Subpart
T
3,800
Secondary
aluminum
production
Part
63,
Subpart
RRR
1,316
Secondary
lead
smelting
Part
63,
Subpart
X
3
B.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
of
this
Document
and
other
Related
Information?

1.
Docket.
The
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2004­
0010.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
4
include
confidential
business
information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
Documents
in
the
official
public
docket
are
listed
in
the
index
list
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EDOCKET.
Documents
are
available
both
electronically
and
in
hard
copy.
Electronic
documents
may
be
obtained
through
EDOCKET.
Hard
copy
documents
may
be
viewed
at
the
Air
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center,
(
EPA/
DC)
EPA
West
Building,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,

NW,
Washington,
DC,
20004.
This
docket
facility
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,

Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Public
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)

566­
1742.
A
reasonable
fee
may
be
charged
for
copying
docket
materials.

2.
Electronic
Access.
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
"
Federal
Register"
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/
or
the
federal­
wide
eRulemaking
site
at
www.
regulations.
gov.

An
electronic
version
of
a
portion
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EDOCKET
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/.
To
view
public
comments,
review
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Publicly
available
docket
materials
that
are
not
available
electronically
may
be
viewed
at
the
docket
facility
identified
above.
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.

C.
Where
Can
I
Obtain
Additional
Information?

In
addition
to
being
available
in
the
docket,
an
electronic
copy
of
today's
notice
is
5
also
available
on
the
World
Wide
Web
through
the
Technology
Transfer
Network
(
TTN).

Following
signature
by
the
EPA
Administrator,
a
copy
of
today's
notice
will
be
posted
on
the
TTN's
policy
and
guidance
page
for
newly
proposed
or
promulgated
rules
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
oarpg.
The
TTN
provides
information
and
technology
exchange
in
various
areas
of
air
pollution
control.
If
more
information
regarding
the
TTN
is
needed,

call
the
TTN
HELP
line
at
(
919)
541­
5384.

D.
How
Is
this
Preamble
Organized?

The
information
presented
in
this
preamble
is
organized
as
follows:

I.
General
Information
A.
Does
this
Action
Apply
to
Me?
B.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
Of
this
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?
1.
Docket
2.
Electronic
Access
C.
Where
Can
I
Obtain
Additional
Information?
D.
How
Is
this
Preamble
Organized?
II.
Background
III.
What
Does
Today's
Action
Involve?
A.
What
Revisions
are
Being
Made
to
Part
63?
B.
What
Revisions
are
Being
Made
to
Parts
70
and
71?
IV.
What
are
the
Reasons
for
Title
V
Exemptions?
A.
General
Approach
B.
Dry
Cleaners
C.
Chrome
Electroplaters
D.
Solvent
Degreasers
E.
EO
Sterilizers
F.
Secondary
Aluminum
V.
What
is
EPA's
Decision
for
Secondary
Lead
Smelters?
VI.
May
Title
V
Permits
be
Issued
to
Exempt
Area
Sources?
VII.
May
General
Permits
be
Issued
as
an
Alternative
to
Title
V
Exemptions?
VIII.
What
are
EPA's
Responses
to
Significant
Comments?
A.
Is
EPA's
General
Approach
to
Exemptions
Consistent
with
the
Act?
B.
Does
the
First
Factor
Acknowledge
Key
Title
V
Requirements?
C.
Does
this
Rulemaking
Adequately
Address
Title
V
Costs?
D.
What
is
our
Analysis
of
Factor
Four
for
the
Final
Rule?
E.
Are
these
Exemptions
Consistent
with
the
Legislative
History
of
the
Act?
6
F.
Is
it
Reasonable
for
EPA
to
Rely
on
the
Information
Cited
in
Support
of
the
Proposal?
G.
Are
Permits
Necessary
to
Define
Monitoring
for
Chrome
Electroplaters?
H.
May
Degreasers
be
Exempted
when
there
are
Multiple
Applicable
Requirements?
I.
Are
the
Compliance
Requirements
of
the
EO
Sterilizer
and
Secondary
Aluminum
NESHAP
Substantially
Equivalent
to
Title
V?
J.
Are
the
Proposed
Revisions
to
EO
Sterilizer
NESHAP
Appropriate?
K.
Are
Title
V
Permits
Allowed
for
Area
Sources
Exempted
from
Title
V?
L.
Does
this
Rulemaking
Disregard
Cost
Estimates
for
General
Permits?
IX.
Effective
Date
of
Today's
Final
Rule
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
X.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.
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
and
Safety
Risks
H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
Covering
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
J.
Congressional
Review
Act
II.
Background
Section
502(
a)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
Act)
sets
forth
the
sources
required
to
obtain
operating
permits
under
title
V.
These
sources
include:
(
1)
any
affected
source
subject
to
the
acid
deposition
provisions
of
title
IV
of
the
Act;
(
2)
any
major
source;
(
3)
any
source
required
to
have
a
permit
under
Part
C
or
D
of
title
I
of
the
Act;
(
4)
"
any
other
source
(
including
an
area
source)
subject
to
standards
or
regulations
under
section
111
[
new
source
performance
standards]
or
112
[
NESHAP)]"
and
(
5)
any
other
stationary
source
in
a
category
designated
by
regulations
promulgated
by
the
Administrator.
See
40
CFR
7
70.3(
a)
and
71.3(
a).
The
requirements
of
section
502(
a)
are
primarily
implemented
through
the
operating
permit
program
rules:
Part
70,
which
sets
out
the
minimum
requirements
for
title
V
operating
permit
programs
administered
by
State,
local,
and
tribal
permitting
authorities
(
57
FR
32261,
July
21,
1992),
and
part
71,
the
federal
operating
permit
program
requirements
that
apply
where
EPA
or
a
delegate
agency
authorized
by
EPA
to
carry
out
a
Federal
permit
program
is
the
title
V
permitting
authority
(
61
FR
34228,
July
1,
1996).
The
area
sources
subject
to
NSPS
under
section
111
or
NESHAP
under
section
112
[
addressed
in
category
(
4)
above]
are
identified
in
§
§
70.3(
a)(
2)
and
(
3)

and
§
§
71.3(
a)(
2)
and
(
3)
as
among
the
sources
subject
to
title
V
permitting
requirements.

Section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
also
provides
that
"
the
Administrator
may,
in
the
Administrator's
discretion
and
consistent
with
the
applicable
provisions
of
[
the
Clean
Air
Act],
promulgate
regulations
to
exempt
one
or
more
source
categories
(
in
whole
or
in
part)
from
the
requirements
[
of
title
V]
if
the
Administrator
finds
that
compliance
with
such
requirements
is
impracticable,
infeasible,
or
unnecessarily
burdensome
on
such
categories,
except
that
the
Administrator
may
not
exempt
any
major
source
from
such
requirements."

In
the
part
70
final
rule
of
July
21,
1992,
EPA
permanently
exempted
from
title
V
two
categories
of
area
sources
that
are
subject
to
section
111
and
112
standards
established
prior
to
the
part
70
rule
(
pre­
1992
standards):
New
residential
wood
heaters
subject
to
subpart
AAA
of
part
60
(
NSPS),
and
asbestos
demolition
and
renovation
operations
subject
to
subpart
M
of
part
61
(
NESHAP).
See
§
§
70.3(
b)(
4)
and
71.3(
b)(
4).

The
EPA
also
allowed
permitting
authorities
under
part
70
the
option
to
defer
permitting
8
for
other
area
sources
subject
to
pre­
1992
standards,
while
for
part
71
purposes,
we
simply
deferred
issuing
permits
to
them.
See
57
FR
32261­
32263
(
July
21,
1992),
and
§
§

70.3(
b)(
1)
and
71.3(
b)(
1).

The
post­
1992
standards,
including
the
NESHAP
for
area
sources
that
are
the
subject
of
today's
final
rule,
previously
have
been
addressed
in
§
§
70.3(
b)(
2)
and
71.3(
b)(
2),
which
state
that
EPA
will
determine
whether
to
exempt
from
title
V
permitting
any
or
all
area
sources
subject
to
post­
1992
NSPS
or
NESHAP
at
the
time
each
new
standard
is
promulgated.
Subsequently,
EPA
issued
title
V
exemptions
for
several
area
sources
subject
to
NESHAP
in
final
rules
under
part
63:

°
All
area
sources
within
the
NESHAP
for
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTW),
Subpart
VVV.
See
§
63.1592
(
63
FR
64742,
October
21,
2002).

°
Those
area
sources
conducting
cold
batch
cleaning
within
the
NESHAP
for
halogenated
solvent
cleaning,
Subpart
T.
See
§
63.468(
j)
(
59
FR
61802,

December
2,
1994).

°
Three
types
of
area
sources
within
the
NESHAP
for
hard
and
decorative
chromium
electroplating
and
chromium
anodizing
tanks,
Subpart
T.
See
§

63.340(
e)(
1)
(
61
FR
27785,
June
3,
1996).

The
EPA
has
issued
three
post­
1992
NESHAP
that
defer
the
requirement
for
area
sources
to
obtain
title
V
permits:

°
Area
sources
subject
to
the
NESHAP
for
perchloroethylene
dry
cleaning,
subpart
M;
chromium
electroplating
and
anodizing,
subpart
N;
commercial
ethylene
oxide
sterilization,
subpart
O;
and
secondary
lead
smelting,
subpart
X.
See
61
FR
9
27785,
June
3,
1996;

°
Area
sources
subject
to
the
NESHAP
for
halogenated
solvent
cleaning,
subpart
T.

See
59
FR
61801,
December
2,
1994,
as
amended
by
60
FR
29484,
June
5,
1995;

and
°
Area
sources
subject
to
the
NESHAP
for
secondary
aluminum
production,
subpart
RRR.
See
65
FR
15690,
March
23,
2000.

The
first
two
rules
established
deferrals
of
area
source
permitting,
which
expired
on
December
9,
1999.
The
expiration
date
for
these
deferrals
was
extended
to
December
9,

2004
in
another
final
rule
(
64
FR
69637,
December
14,
1999).
The
third
rule
provided
deferrals
for
secondary
aluminum
area
sources,
which
also
expired
on
December
9,
2004.

Thus,
today's
final
rule
addresses
all
six
categories
of
area
sources
subject
to
a
post­
1992
NESHAP
that
were
subject
to
deferrals
from
permitting
that
expired
on
December
9,

2004.

The
EPA
published
a
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
on
March
25,
2005
(
70
FR
15250),
where
we
proposed
to
exempt
from
title
V
five
categories
of
area
sources
subject
to
NESHAP:
Dry
cleaners,
halogenated
solvent
degreasers,
chrome
electroplaters,

ethylene
oxide
(
EO)
sterilizers
and
secondary
aluminum
smelters.
As
support
for
the
proposed
exemptions,
we
discussed
why
compliance
with
title
V
appeared
to
be
impracticable,
infeasible,
or
unnecessarily
burdensome
on
the
area
sources,
consistent
with
the
exemption
criteria
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.
Also,
we
discussed
a
sixth
category,

area
sources
subject
to
the
NESHAP
for
secondary
lead
smelters,
but
we
did
not
propose
to
exempt
them.
10
Today's
final
rule
is
unchanged
from
the
proposal,
except
for
a
revision
to
§

63.360(
f),
which
sets
forth
the
title
V
exemption
for
area
sources
subject
to
the
NESHAP
for
EO
sterilizers.
The
change
to
the
EO
sterilizer
rule
is
needed
to
clarify
which
sources
under
the
NESHAP
are
subject
to
today's
title
V
exemptions,
and
it
is
discussed
further
in
section
VIII.
J
of
this
preamble.

III.
What
Does
Today's
Action
Involve?

A.
What
Revisions
are
Being
Made
to
Part
63?

Today's
final
rule
exempts
five
categories
of
area
sources
from
title
V
by
revising
certain
language
in
the
NESHAP
rules
under
part
63,
as
we
proposed
on
March
25,
2005
(
70
FR
15250).
This
is
achieved
through
two
types
of
changes
to
the
NESHAP
rules.

First,
we
have
revised
each
of
the
five
NESHAP
to
say
that
area
sources
subject
to
the
NESHAP
are
exempt
from
the
obligation
to
obtain
permits
under
parts
70
or
71,

unless
the
source
would
be
required
to
obtain
these
permits
for
another
reason,
as
defined
in
the
part
70
or
71
rules,
such
as
when
the
source
triggers
another
applicability
provision
of
§
§
70.3(
a)
or
71.3(
a).
For
example,
if
an
exempt
area
source
increases
its
HAP
emissions
such
that
it
becomes
a
major
source,
the
former
area
source
will
be
required
to
get
a
title
V
permit
because
it
is
a
major
source,
consistent
with
§
§
70.3(
a)(
1)
and
71.3(
a)(
1).
Consequently,
when
a
former
area
source
becomes
a
major
source,
the
major
source
permit
must
include
all
NESHAP
requirements
that
apply
to
the
major
source,

including
the
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
that
formerly
provided
for
the
title
V
11
3
Note
that
when
an
area
source
becomes
a
major
source,
depending
on
the
specific
requirements
of
the
NESHAP,
the
emissions
standards
may
change
from
generally
achievable
control
technology
(
GACT),
which
may
be
established
for
area
sources,
to
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT),
which
is
required
for
major
sources,
but
also
may
be
established
for
area
sources.
Also,
see
§
63.1(
c)(
5).
exemption.
3
This
is
so
because
§
§
70.3(
c)(
1)
and
71.3(
c)(
1)
require
permits
for
major
source
to
include
"
all
applicable
requirements
for
all
relevant
emissions
units
in
the
major
source."
Also,
we
added
a
second
sentence
to
each
NESHAP
to
say
"
notwithstanding
the
previous
sentence,"
the
source
"
must
continue
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
this
subpart
applicable
to
area
sources."
The
purpose
of
this
sentence
is
to
explain
that
area
sources
that
are
exempted
from
title
V
are
not
exempted
from
any
emission
limitations,

standards,
or
any
other
requirements
of
the
NESHAP.

Second,
we
have
revised
the
table
in
each
NESHAP
that
shows
how
the
general
provisions
of
subpart
A
of
part
63
apply
to
that
particular
NESHAP,
except
for
the
dry
cleaning
NESHAP,
which
has
no
such
table.
For
sources
other
than
dry
cleaners,
the
"
comment"
column
for
the
§
63.1(
c)(
2)
entry
in
the
tables
simply
states
that
area
sources
subject
to
the
subpart
are
exempt
from
title
V
permitting
obligations.

We
have
made
one
change
to
the
rule
language
of
the
proposal.
In
the
final
rule,

we
have
revised
the
regulatory
language
of
§
63.360(
f),
which
sets
forth
the
title
V
exemption
for
EO
sterilizers.
For
more
discussion
of
the
proposed
regulatory
language
and
why
we
are
changing
it
in
the
final
rule,
see
section
VIII.
J
below.

Also,
we
are
not
making
any
changes
to
the
NESHAP
for
secondary
lead
smelters,

consistent
with
our
proposal,
because
we
are
not
establishing
a
title
V
exemption
for
area
sources
subject
to
it.
See
section
V
below
for
a
more
detailed
explanation
of
our
decision
12
regarding
lead
smelters.

B.
What
Revisions
are
being
Made
to
Parts
70
and
71?

Today's
final
rule
also
revises
parts
70
and
71,
as
we
proposed,
to
make
the
rules
more
consistent
with
our
interpretation
that
State
and
local
agencies,
tribes,
and
EPA
(
permitting
authorities)
may
not
issue
title
V
permits
to
area
sources
after
we
promulgate
title
V
exemptions
for
them.
In
the
proposal,
we
explained
that
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
provides
that
only
those
area
sources
required
to
get
permits,
and
not
exempted
by
EPA
through
notice
and
comment
rulemaking,
are
properly
subject
to
title
V
requirements.

Also,
we
explained
that
section
506(
a)
of
the
Act,
which
provides
that
permitting
authorities
"
may
establish
additional
permitting
requirements
not
inconsistent
with
this
Act,"
does
not
override
the
more
specific
language
of
section
502(
a).
We
also
explained
that
section
506(
a)
preserves
the
ability
for
permitting
authorities
to
establish
additional
permitting
requirements,
such
as
procedural
requirements,
for
sources
properly
covered
by
the
program,
and
that
section
116
of
the
Act
allows
State
and
other
non­
federal
permitting
agencies
(
State
agencies)
to
issue
non­
title
V
permits
to
area
sources
that
have
been
exempted
from
title
V.
See
section
VI
below
for
further
discussion
of
our
interpretations
of
the
Act
in
this
regard.

First,
we
proposed
to
delete
the
"
at
least"
language
of
§
70.3(
a)
that
has
been
interpreted
to
allow
State
agencies
to
require
permits
from
area
sources,
once
we
have
exempted
the
area
sources
from
title
V,
because
this
language
is
inconsistent
with
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.
No
similar
changes
are
necessary
for
part
71.
Second,
we
proposed
to
delete
language
in
§
70.3(
b)(
3)
and
§
71.3(
b)(
3)
that
allows
exempt
sources
to
"
opt
to
13
apply
for
a
permit
under
a
part
70
program,"
as
it
is
inconsistent
with
section
502(
a)
to
let
exempted
area
sources
volunteer
for
a
title
V
permit.
Third,
we
proposed
to
delete
the
prefatory
phrase
of
§
70.3(
b)(
4),
"
Unless
otherwise
required
by
the
state
to
obtain
a
part
70
permit,"
because
it
suggests
that
States
agencies
may
require
title
V
permits
for
exempted
area
sources,
such
as
for
residential
wood
heaters
and
asbestos
demolition
and
renovation,
which
would
be
inconsistent
with
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.
Today's
rule
makes
these
revisions
final,
unchanged
from
the
proposal.

IV.
What
are
the
Reasons
for
the
Title
V
Exemptions?

A.
General
Approach
In
the
proposal
of
March
25,
2005
(
70
FR
15250),
we
explained
our
general
approach
to
implementing
the
exemption
criteria
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.
Section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
provides,
in
part,
that
the
Administrator
may
"
promulgate
regulations
to
exempt
one
or
more
source
categories
(
in
whole
or
in
part)
from
the
requirements
of
this
subsection
if
the
Administrator
finds
that
compliance
with
such
requirements
is
impracticable,
infeasible,
or
unnecessarily
burdensome
on
such
categories,
except
that
the
Administrator
may
not
exempt
any
major
source
from
such
requirements."
In
addition,

EPA
explained
that
the
legislative
history
of
Section
502(
a)
suggests
that
EPA
should
not
grant
exemptions
where
doing
so
would
adversely
affect
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment.
See
Chafee­
Baucus
Statement
of
Senate
Managers,
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
Policy
Division
1990
CAA
Leg.
Hist.
905,
Compiled
November,
1993
(
in
that
"[
t]
he
Act
requires
EPA
to
protect
the
public
health,
welfare
and
the
environment,

.
.
.
this
provision
of
the
permits
title
prevents
EPA
from
exempting
sources
or
source
14
categories
from
the
requirements
of
the
permit
program
if
such
exemptions
would
adversely
affect
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment").

In
developing
this
rulemaking,
EPA
sought
and
relied
on
information
from
State
and
local
agencies
on
the
level
of
oversight
they
perform
on
these
area
sources.
They
responded
with
information
on
whether
they
issue
permits,
perform
routine
inspections,

provide
compliance
assistance,
and
on
compliance
rates
for
them.
We
also
received
input
from
State
small
business
ombudsmen
and
several
trade
associations
representing
dry
cleaning,
metal
finishing,
solvent
cleaning,
and
the
aluminum
industry,
including
information
on
the
sources
and
the
compliance
assistance
programs
currently
available
for
them.
In
addition,
the
proposal
provided
a
60­
day
public
comment
period
and
public
citizens,
non­
profit
organizations,
State
agency
representatives,
and
affected
industry
representatives
responded
with
comments,
which
are
included
in
the
docket.

In
the
proposal,
we
discussed
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
the
extent
to
which
one
or
more
of
the
four
factors
supported
title
V
exemptions
for
a
given
source
category,
and
then
we
assessed
whether
considered
together
those
factors
demonstrated
that
compliance
with
title
V
requirements
would
be
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
on
the
category,

consistent
with
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.
See
70
FR
15253,
March
25,
2005.

One
commenter
said
we
should
have
evaluated
and
discussed
all
four
factors
for
each
category
of
area
sources,
suggesting
that
we
ignored
factors
that
did
not
support
title
V
exemptions
for
each
category
of
area
sources.
In
response,
we
have
considered,
and
discuss
in
this
preamble,
all
four
factors
for
each
category
of
area
sources
for
today's
final
rule.
See
the
explanation
below
for
an
overview
of
our
analysis
of
each
factor.
Also,
see
15
section
IV.
B
through
F
for
detailed
discussion
of
the
four
factors
for
each
category
of
area
sources,
section
VIII.
A
for
detailed
EPA
response
to
this
comment,
and
section
VIII.
D,

which
provides
detailed
EPA
response
to
this
comment,
and
other
comments,
on
proposed
factor
four.

The
first
factor
discussed
in
the
proposal
is
whether
title
V
would
result
in
significant
improvements
to
the
compliance
requirements,
including
monitoring,

recordkeeping,
and
reporting,
that
are
already
required
by
the
NESHAP.
This
preamble
refers
to
this
evaluation
as
probing
whether
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
to
improve
compliance
for
these
NESHAP
requirements
at
area
sources.
Thus,
a
finding
that
title
V
does
not
result
in
significant
improvements
to
compliance,
as
compared
to
operating
subject
to
the
NESHAP
without
a
title
V
permit,
is
described
as
supporting
a
conclusion
that
title
V
permitting
is
"
unnecessary"
for
area
sources
in
that
category,
consistent
with
the
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
criterion
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.
Title
V
provides
authority
to
add
monitoring
requirements
in
permits
in
appropriate
circumstances,
and
also
imposes
a
number
of
monitoring,
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
that
are
designed
to
enhance
compliance.
We
analyze
below
the
extent
to
which
Title
V
could
improve
compliance
for
the
area
sources
covered
by
today's
rule.

Part
70
and
71
set
forth,
in
three
principal
sections,
monitoring
requirements
that
may
be
included
in
title
V
permits
for
area
sources.
Section
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
A)
requires
that
title
V
permits
include
"[
a]
ll
monitoring
and
analysis
procedures
or
test
methods
required
under
applicable
monitoring
and
testing
requirements."
This
means,
for
example,
that
monitoring
required
by
a
NESHAP
must
be
included
in
a
title
V
permit
issued
to
a
source
16
4
Similar
provisions
appear
in
EPA
regulations
in
Part
71
stipulating
monitoring
provisions
for
federally­
issued
title
V
permits.
covered
by
a
NESHAP.
Second,
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)
goes
further,
and
provides
that
"[
w]
here
the
applicable
requirement
does
not
require
periodic
testing
or
instrumental
or
noninstrumental
monitoring
(
which
may
consist
of
recordkeeping
designed
to
serve
as
monitoring),
periodic
monitoring
sufficient
to
yield
reliable
data
from
the
relevant
time
period
that
are
representative
of
the
source's
compliance
with
the
permit"
may
be
included
in
a
title
V
permit.
Importantly,
however,
where
periodic
monitoring
exists
in
the
underlying
requirement,
such
as
a
NESHAP,
permit
writers
are
not
authorized
by
this
regulation
to
add
additional
periodic
monitoring
in
a
permit.
See
Appalachian
Power
Co.

v.
EPA,
208
F.
3d
1015,
1028
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2000).
Finally,
§
70.6(
c)(
1),
provides
that
permits
must
contain
"
consistent
with
[
the
periodic
monitoring
rule
in
§
70.6(
a)(
3)],

compliance
certification,
testing,
monitoring,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
requirements
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
permit."
4
The
EPA's
interpretation
of
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
has
evolved
over
time.
In
November
and
December
2000,
EPA
partially
granted
two
petitions
for
objections
to
State­
issued
part
70
permits.
See
In
the
Matter
of
Pacificorp,
Petition
No.
VIII­
00­
1
(
November
16,

2000);
In
the
Matter
of
Fort
James
Camas
Mill,
Petition
No.
X­
19999­
1
(
December
22,

2000).
In
both
decisions,
EPA
held
that
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
empowers
State
permitting
authorities
to
review,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
the
sufficiency
of
each
permittee's
monitoring
requirements,
independent
of
the
authority
provided
by
the
periodic
monitoring
rule.
On
September
17,
2002,
EPA
published
a
proposed
rule
that
would
have
17
codified
this
interpretation
of
§
70.6(
c)(
1).
See
67
FR
58561.
After
considering
comments,
however,
EPA
issued
a
final
rule
(
the
"
umbrella
monitoring
rule")
providing
that
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
does
not
allow
permit
writers
to
add
monitoring
requirements
beyond
those
that
are
authorized
by
the
periodic
monitoring
rule.
See
69
FR
3202,
3204
(
January
22,
2004).
This
rule
was
the
subject
of
litigation
in
the
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
(
DC
Circuit),
and
the
Court
recently
vacated
and
remanded
the
rule
on
the
basis
that
EPA
failed
to
provide
adequate
notice
in
its
proposal
of
the
option
that
it
adopted
in
its
final
rule.
See
Environmental
Integrity
Project
v.
EPA,

205
U.
S.
App.
LEXIS
21930
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2005).

In
EPA's
March
25,
2005
proposal
to
exempt
five
categories
of
area
sources
from
title
V
requirements,
EPA
explained
that
"
under
the
umbrella
monitoring
rule
and
the
periodic
monitoring
rule,
title
V
permits
would
not
typically
add
any
new
monitoring
requirements
for
post­
1992
NESHAP,
including
the
NESHAP
addressed
in
today's
proposal."
See
70
FR
15254.
The
recent
decision
in
Environmental
Integrity
Project
vacating
the
umbrella
monitoring
rule
does
not
change
our
view
that
subjecting
these
area
sources
to
title
V
will
not
likely
lead
to
monitoring
beyond
that
required
by
the
underlying
NESHAP.
All
of
the
NESHAP
were
issued
after
the
1990
amendments
to
the
Act,
and
were
therefore
designed
to
meet
all
of
the
Act's
current
monitoring
requirements.

Interested
parties
that
believed
those
regulations
failed
to
provide
for
sufficient
monitoring
had
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
proposed
NESHAP
and
to
challenge
EPA's
rulemaking
decisions
in
court.
Any
such
opportunity
has
now
passed.
Thus,
even
if
§

70.6(
c)(
1)
is
interpreted
to
allow
"
sufficiency"
monitoring
independent
of
the
authority
18
5
It
has
been
EPA's
consistent
position
that
post­
1990
NESHAP
include
all
monitoring
required
under
the
Act.
See,
e.
g.,
the
preamble
to
EPA's
compliance
assurance
monitoring
rule,
64
FR
54940
(
October
22,
1997)
and
EPA's
advance
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
soliciting
comments
on
Clean
Air
Act
requirements
that
may
include
inadequate
monitoring
requirements,
70
FR
7905
(
February
16,
2005)
(
specifically
not
soliciting
comment
on
standards
promulgated
after
1990
because
they
contain
adequate
monitoring
under
the
Act).
that
exists
through
the
periodic
monitoring
rule,
EPA
is
confident
that
no
such
additional
monitoring
would
appropriately
be
added
in
title
V
permits
issued
to
the
five
categories
of
area
sources
we
exempt
from
title
V
today.
5
Therefore,
the
monitoring
component
of
the
first
factor
favors
title
V
exemptions
for
all
of
the
categories
of
sources
for
which
exemptions
are
provided
in
this
rule,
because
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
to
provide
adequate
monitoring
for
them.
Also,
see
EPA
response
to
comment
that
title
V
permits
are
needed
to
define
monitoring
for
electroplaters,
in
section
VIII.
G.

As
part
of
the
first
factor,
we
have
also
considered
the
extent
to
which
title
V
could
potentially
enhance
compliance
for
area
sources
covered
by
today's
rule
through
recordkeeping
or
reporting
requirements,
including
requirements
for
a
six­
month
monitoring
report,
deviation
reports,
and
an
annual
compliance
certification.
See
§
§

70.6(
a)(
3)
and
71.6(
a)(
3),
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1),
and
§
§
70.6(
c)(
5)
and
71.6(
c)(
5).

In
the
proposal,
we
stated
that
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
for
electroplaters,
EO
sterilizers,
and
secondary
aluminum
smelters
are
substantially
equivalent
to
those
of
title
V.
After
considering
comments
received
on
the
proposal,
we
continue
to
believe
the
compliance
requirements
for
these
NESHAP
are
substantially
equivalent
to
those
of
title
V.
Also,
see
EPA
response
to
comments
on
issues
related
to
factor
one,
including
section
VIII.
I,
concerning
comment
that
the
compliance
19
requirements
for
EO
sterilizers
and
secondary
aluminum
are
not
substantially
equivalent
to
those
of
title
V.

In
the
proposal,
we
did
not
discuss
recordkeeping
and
reporting
in
the
context
of
factor
one
for
dry
cleaners
or
degreasers,
but
we
do
so
in
today's
final
rule
in
response
to
comment.
As
mentioned
above,
these
NESHAP
have
monitoring
requirements
consistent
with
the
title
V
monitoring
requirements.
However,
they
do
not
contain
reporting
requirements
that
are
substantially
equivalent
to
the
title
V
requirements
for
deviation
reports,
six­
month
monitoring
reports,
and
annual
compliance
certification.
[
See
§
§

70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii).]

The
NESHAP
for
dry
cleaners
requires
a
log
to
be
keep
on­
site
to
document
the
dates
that
weekly
leak
detection
and
repair
activities
are
conducted,
the
results
of
weekly
monitoring
of
temperature
and
perchloroethylene
concentrations,
and
a
rolling
monthly
calculation
of
annual
perchlorethylene
consumption.
It
does
not
require
a
6­
month
monitoring
report,
"
prompt"
deviation
reports,
or
annual
compliance
certification,
directly
comparable
to
the
compliance
requirements
of
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
and
(
B),
and
§

70.6(
c)(
5).

The
NESHAP
for
degreasers
requires
exceedances
of
monitoring
parameters
to
be
reported
at
least
semiannually
and
it
requires
an
annual
compliance
report,
which
for
most
sources,
is
composed
of
a
statement
that
operators
have
been
trained
on
operation
of
cleaning
machines
and
their
control
devices
and
an
estimate
of
solvent
consumption
on
an
annual
basis,
but
it
does
not
require
a
6­
month
monitoring
report,
"
prompt"
deviation
reports,
or
annual
compliance
certification,
directly
comparable
to
the
requirements
of
§
20
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
and
(
B),
and
§
70.6(
c)(
5).

Although
the
reporting
requirements
of
these
two
NESHAP
are
not
substantially
equivalent
to
those
of
title
V,
this
does
not
mean
that
the
compliance
requirements
of
these
two
NESHAP
are
necessarily
inadequate
to
achieve
compliance
on
their
own,
or
that
they
are
in
anyway
deficient
with
respect
to
the
requirements
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.

Indeed,
in
issuing
the
NESHAP
for
these
sources,
EPA
determined
that
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
contained
therein
were
adequate,
and
EPA
continues
to
believe
that
this
is
the
case.
The
EPA
acknowledges
these
additional
title
V
reporting
measures
may
provide
some
marginal
compliance
benefits.
However,
however,
EPA
believes
that
they
would
not
be
significant.
Because
the
monitoring
required
by
the
two
NESHAP
is
consistent
with
the
monitoring
requirements
of
title
V,
and
because
each
NESHAP
has
adequate
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
tailored
to
the
NESHAP,
and
therefore
we
concludeconcludes
that
the
first
factor
does
not
completely
supports
a
title
V
exemption
for
these
sources.
[
See
additional
explanation
for
dry
cleaners
and
degreasers
in
sections
IV.
B
and
D
below.]

The
second
factor
considered
in
determining
whether
title
V
is
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
for
these
categories
is
whether
title
V
permitting
would
impose
significant
burdens
on
these
area
sources
and
whether
these
burdens
would
be
aggravated
by
difficulty
they
may
have
in
obtaining
assistance
from
permitting
agencies.
We
used
this
factor
to
assess
whether
title
V
satisfies
the
"
burdensome"
component
of
the
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
criterion
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.
We
discussed
this
factor
in
the
proposal
as
supporting
our
exemption
findings
for
dry
cleaners,
chrome
21
electroplaters,
solvent
degreasers,
and
secondary
aluminum
smelters,
but
we
did
not
specifically
discuss
it
with
respect
to
EO
sterilizers.
However,
in
the
proposal,
we
stated
a
belief
that
title
V
burdens
and
costs
would
be
significant
for
all
five
categories
of
area
sources,
and
this
statement
included
EO
sterilizers.
See
discussion
of
the
second
factor
in
the
proposal,
70
FR
15254.

To
help
us
assess
factor
two,
we
collected
information
on
the
burdens
and
costs
of
title
V
and
economic
data
for
the
area
sources,
and
we
placed
this
information
in
the
docket
prior
to
our
proposal.
See
economic
information
for
the
five
industry
groups
(
docket
item
04),
and
information
on
burdens
and
costs
of
title
V
in
the
information
collection
requests
(
ICRs)
for
part
70
and
71
(
docket
items
80
and
81).
Note
that
the
economic
information
is
for
the
broad
industry
group,
which
includes
both
area
sources
and
major
sources
under
title
V.
However,
despite
this,
certain
assumptions
about
their
economic
characteristics
are
possible
because
mostalmost
all
of
them
are
small
businesses
with
limited
resources.
For
example,
many
dry
cleaners
are
small
"
mom­
and­
pop"
retail
establishments,
which
will
have
greater
difficulty
in
meeting
regulatory
demands
than
large
corporations
with
trained
environmental
staffs
and
greater
resources.
The
ICRs
for
part
70
and
71
describe
title
V
burdens
and
costs
in
the
aggregate,
they
are
not
designed
for
use
in
estimating
title
V
burdens
and
costs
for
any
particular
sources.
The
ICRs
do
not
include
specific
estimates
of
burdens
and
costs
for
area
sources
because
area
sources
were
subject
to
title
V
deferrals
at
the
time
the
ICRs
were
approved.
However,
the
ICRs
describe
in
detail
various
activities
undertaken
at
title
V
sources,
including
activities
for
major
sources
with
standard
permits,
and
certain
activities
for
major
sources
with
general
22
permits,
and
area
sources
may
be
issued
either
standard
or
general
permits,
so
many
of
the
same
burdens
and
costs
described
in
the
ICRs
will
also
apply
to
these
area
sources.
See
general
permit
rules,
§
§
70.6(
d)
and
71.6(
d).
In
the
proposal,
we
included
a
list
of
source
activities
associated
with
part
70
and
71
that
impose
title
V
burdens
and
costs,
whether
the
source
has
a
standard
or
general
permit,
and
we
described
how
permits
for
area
sources
may
have
a
somewhat
reduced
scope,
based
on
§
§
70.3(
c)(
2)
and
71.3(
c)(
2),

compared
to
major
source
permits.
Despite
the
potential
for
reduction
of
burdens
for
area
sources,
we
proposed
finding
that
the
burdens
and
costs
of
title
V
would
be
significant
for
these
area
sources,
similar
to
those
for
major
sources.
Thus,
we
proposed
finding
that
V
is
"
burdensome"
for
these
area
sources,
consistent
with
the
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"

criterion
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.

Our
review
of
comments
and
further
consideration
of
these
issues
has
not
led
us
to
a
different
view
for
all
categories
of
area
sources.
For
EO
sterilizers,
as
in
the
proposal,

EPA
has
no
reliable
information
on
the
economic
resources
of
area
sources
but,
as
described
below,
believes
that
a
number
of
area
sources
are
small
businesses
with
limited
economic
resources.
See
section
IV.
E.
Given
the
lack
of
specific
economic
information
for
EO
sterilizers,
EPA
is
not
making
a
specific
finding
as
to
whether
factor
two
supports
an
exemption
for
this
source
category.
Thus,
we
find
today
that
factor
two
supports
title
V
exemptions
for
all
categories
of
area
sources,
except
for
EO
sterilizers,
where
other
factors
support
the
exemption.
See
70
FR
15258­
15259
for
more
on
the
burdens
of
general
permitting
for
area
sources.
Also,
see
sections
VII
and
VIII.
K
below
for
more
on
our
alternative
proposal
to
require
general
permits
for
area
sources
in
lieu
of
exempting
23
them,
section
VIII.
C
below
for
more
on
title
V
cost
estimates
for
area
sources,
and
section
VIII.
L
below
for
more
on
title
V
costs
estimates
for
sources
with
general
permits.

EPA's
general
belief,
stated
in
the
proposal,
that
title
V
burdens
and
costs
would
be
significant
for
EO
sterilizers
was
not
based
on
any
particular
study
or
docket
support,

but
instead
on
a
general
assessment
of
the
types
of
smaller
establishments
likely
to
meet
the
"
area
source"
definition
of
part
63
and
conduct
EO
sterilization
activities,
e.
g.,
small
contract
sterilization
businesses,
conducting
off­
site
sterilization
services
for
manufacturers
of
medical
equipment
and
supplies,
pharmaceuticals,
spices,
and
cosmetics.

See
docket
items
88
and
106.

In
response
to
the
comment
that
we
should
consider
all
four
factors
in
evaluating
each
category
of
area
sources
for
exemptions,
we
note
that
the
docket
does
not
contain
reliable
information
on
the
economic
resources
of
area
sources
in
this
category,
but
EPA
reaffirms
the
general
belief
that
there
are
area
sources
in
the
EO
sterilizer
category
that
would
be
small
businesses
or
other
small
establishments
with
limited
economic
resources.

Nevertheless,
because
specific
information
on
the
economic
resources
of
EO
sterilizers
is
lacking,
EPA
is
basing
its
decision
to
exempt
this
category
from
title
V
on
its
assessment
of
the
other
three
factors
and
additional
rationale
noted
in
its
evaluation
of
the
legislative
history
of
title
V.
[
See
section
IV.
D.].
Also,
see
section
VIII.
A
for
more
detailed
EPA
response
to
the
comment
that
we
should
consider
all
four
factors
in
evaluating
each
category
of
area
sources
for
exemptions.

The
third
factor,
which
is
closely
related
to
the
second
factor,
is
whether
the
costs
of
title
V
permitting
for
these
area
sources
would
be
justified,
taking
into
consideration
24
any
potential
gains
in
compliance
likely
to
occur
for
such
sources.
We
discussed
factor
three
in
the
proposal
as
supporting
our
exemption
findings
for
dry
cleaners,
but
we
did
not
discuss
it
with
respect
to
the
other
four
categories
of
area
sources
we
proposed
for
title
V
exemption.
See
more
discussion
on
factor
three
in
the
proposal,
including
a
detailed
listing
of
many
of
the
mandatory
activities
imposed
by
title
V
for
area
sources,
70
FR
15254.
As
described
above
in
the
context
of
our
discussion
of
factor
two,
we
find
that
costs
of
title
V
are
significant
for
all
categories
except
for
EO
sterilizer,
where
sufficient
economic
data
are
lacking
for
such
a
finding.
Nevertheless,
the
types
of
enterprises
within
the
EO
sterilizer
category
are
strongly
suggestive
that
title
V
would
be
an
economic
burden
for
some,
if
not
all,
of
the
area
sources.
Also,
through
factor
one
and/
or
revised
factor
four
for
each
category
of
area
sources
in
the
proposal,
both
of
which
examine
the
ability
of
title
V
permits
to
improve
compliance
over
that
required
by
the
NESHAP,
we
established
that
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
for
NESHAP
compliance.
Although
there
may
be
some
compliance
benefits
from
title
V
for
some
area
sources,
we
believe
they
will
be
small,
and
not
justified
by
title
V
costs
and
burdens
for
them.

Accordingly,
for
all
categories
of
area
sources
we
exempt
today,
we
conclude
that
title
V
costs
are
not
justified
considering
the
potential
for
gains
in
compliance
from
title
V,

and
thus,
factor
three
supports
title
V
exemptions
for
all
five
categories
of
area
sources,

consistent
with
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.
See
economic
data
for
all
industry
groups,

docket
item
04,
and
information
on
title
V
burdens
and
costs,
docket
items
80
and
81.

See
section
VIII.
A
for
more
detailed
EPA
response
to
the
comment
that
we
should
consider
all
four
factors
in
evaluating
each
category
of
area
sources
for
exemptions.
25
The
fourth
factor
considered
in
the
proposal
is
whether
oversight,
outreach,
and
compliance
assistance
programs
by
the
EPA,
or
a
delegate
State
or
local
agency,
primarily
responsible
for
implementing
and
enforcing
the
NESHAP,
could
achieve
high
compliance
with
particular
NESHAP,
without
relying
on
title
V
permitting.
We
used
this
factor
to
help
examine
whether
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
for
NESHAP
compliance
for
these
area
sources.
See
the
discussion
of
factor
four
in
the
proposal,
70
FR
15254,
March
25,
2005.

We
discussed
this
factor
as
supporting
our
exemption
findings
of
the
proposal
for
dry
cleaners,
solvent
degreasers
and
EO
sterilizers,
but
we
did
not
discuss
it
for
electroplaters
and
secondary
aluminum.

To
help
us
assess
this
factor
we
collected
information
from
State
and
local
air
pollution
control
agencies
(
State
agencies),
summarized
in
the
"
State
survey"
which
we
placed
in
the
docket
for
this
rulemaking
(
docket
item
02).
The
State
survey
shows
that
many
State
agencies
have
compliance
oversight
programs
that
result
in
high
compliance
for
the
dry
cleaners,
solvent
degreasers
and
EO
sterilizers,
and
that
high
compliance
for
them
does
not
necessarily
depend
on
title
V.
This
point
was
repeated
by
State
and
local
agencies
who
submitted
comments
on
the
proposal,
all
of
which
are
in
support
of
the
proposed
exemptions
for
the
five
categories
of
area
sources,
see
docket
items,
11,
16,
59,

61,
and
65.

One
commenter
opined
that
factor
four
is
inconsistent
with
Congressional
intent
concerning
the
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
criterion
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act,
because
it
examines
the
future
possibility
that
a
State
might
adopt
alternatives
to
title
V
that
are
sufficient
to
achieve
compliance
with
the
NESHAP,
without
title
V,
rather
than
examining
26
whether
actual
programs
are
in
place
to
achieve
compliance
with
the
NESHAP,
without
title
V
permits.
In
response,
we
have
revised
factor
four
in
the
final
rule,
and
we
have
analyzed
all
five
categories
of
area
sources
based
on
the
revised
factor.
Revised
factor
four
is
whether
there
are
implementation
and
enforcement
programs
in
place
that
are
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
the
NESHAP
for
area
sources,
without
relying
on
title
V
permits.
As
further
described
in
section
VIII.
D
below,
there
are
implementation
and
enforcement
programs
in
place
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
the
NESHAP
for
all
five
categories
of
area
sources
addressed
in
today's
final
rule,
in
all
parts
of
the
nation,

without
title
V
permits.
These
programs
take
several
forms,
including
programs
of
implementation
and
enforcement
conducted
by
EPA
under
the
statutory
authority
of
sections
112,
113,
and
114,
and
State
delegation
of
this
responsibility
under
section
112(
l)

of
the
Act,
implemented
through
subpart
E
of
part
63.
Second,
section
507
of
the
Act
requires
a
small
business
assistance
program
(
SBAP)
for
each
State
and
for
EPA,
and
these
programs
are
in
place,
and
they
may
be
used
to
assist
area
sources
subject
to
NESHAP
that
have
been
exempted
from
title
V
permitting.
Third,
States
and
EPA
often
conduct
voluntary
compliance
assistance,
outreach,
and
education
programs
(
compliance
assistance
programs),
which
are
not
required
by
statute.
The
statutory
requirements
for
implementation
and
enforcement
of
NESHAP
in
section
112
apply
to
NESHAP
that
regulate
all
sources,
including
area
sources.
Thus
factor
four
is
satisfied
for
each
of
these
categories
of
area
sources
by
the
statutory
requirements
alone.
However,
additional
voluntary
programs
conducted
by
State
and
local
agencies
supplement
the
mandated
programs
and
enhance
the
success
of
the
programs.
27
We
used
the
compliance
rate
information
in
the
State
survey
as
a
check
on
our
assumption
that
the
statutory
programs
for
implementation
and
enforcement
of
NESHAP,

together
with
other
efforts
by
State
agencies
would
result
in
adequate
compliance
for
these
sources,
without
relying
on
title
V
permits.
The
State
survey
lists
various
State
oversight
programs,
without
indicating
whether
they
are
conducted
voluntarily
or
under
statutory
authority.
Also,
the
compliance
rate
information
in
the
survey
suggests
that
adequate
compliance
is
being
achieved
in
practice
for
all
of
these
categories
of
area
sources
(
with
more
than
half
of
the
agencies
that
responded
reported
high
compliance
for
each
category).
[
See
the
State
survey,
docket
item
02.]

However,
for
secondary
aluminum,
fewer
State
and
local
agencies
responded
with
examples
of
compliance
oversight
programs
and
information
on
compliance
rates,

compared
to
other
categories.
We
believe
these
data
are
explained
by
the
timing
of
the
State
survey
relative
to
the
effective
date
of
the
secondary
aluminum
standard,
rather
than
suggesting
any
deficiencies
in
State
implementation
and
enforcement
for
the
NESHAP.

The
earliest
date
that
compliance
with
the
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP
was
required
for
sources
was
about
the
same
time
as
the
data
collection
phase
of
the
State
survey,
and
thus,

State
and
local
agencies
did
not
have
much
experience
with
compliance
oversight
for
them,
or
much
compliance
data
upon
which
to
base
their
survey
responses
for
secondary
aluminum.
The
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP
did
not
require
sources
to
be
in
compliance
until
March
24,
2003
(
all
other
NESHAP
were
effective
much
earlier
than
this),
while
the
majority
of
State
and
local
input
for
the
State
survey
occurred
from
March
to
June
of
2003.
[
See
the
final
rule
for
secondary
aluminum,
65
FR
15690,
March
23,
28
2000,
docket
item
77,
and
documentation
of
the
data
collection
phase
of
the
State
survey,

docket
items
93
and
94.]
We
believe
that
State
agencies
are
implementing
this
NESHAP
in
the
same
manner
as
others
and,
based
on
that
belief,
the
statutory
program,
and
the
information
in
the
State
survey,
we
conclude
that
factor
four
supports
title
V
exemptions
for
area
sources
subject
to
the
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP.

The
analysis
of
factor
four
we
performed
for
the
final
rule
continues
to
support
title
V
exemptions
for
dry
cleaners,
degreasers,
and
EO
sterilizers,
as
we
proposed,
and
it
additionally
supports
exemptions
for
electroplaters
and
secondary
aluminum
smelters.

Thus,
for
the
final
rule,
factor
four
helps
to
demonstrate
that
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
for
NESHAP
compliance,
consistent
with
the
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
criterion
of
section
502(
a)
of
for
all
area
sources
we
exempt
today.
Also,
see
section
VIII.
A
for
more
detailed
EPA
response
to
the
comment
that
we
should
consider
all
four
factors
in
evaluating
each
category
of
area
sources
for
exemptions,
and
section
VIII.
D
for
additional
EPA
responses
to
comments
on
proposed
factor
four.

In
the
proposal,
we
stated
our
belief
that
exempting
these
five
categories
of
area
sources
from
title
V
permitting
would
not
adversely
affect
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment,
consistent
with
the
legislative
history
of
section
502(
a).
The
reasons
EPA
explained
in
the
proposal
were
the
factors
supporting
exemptions
discussed
above
and
two
other
reasons:
(
1)
that
placing
all
requirements
for
these
sources
in
permits
would
do
little
to
help
improve
their
compliance
with
the
NESHAP,
because
of
the
simplicity
of
the
sources
and
the
NESHAP,
and
the
fact
that
these
sources
are
not
typically
subject
to
more
than
one
NESHAP,
and
few
other
requirements
under
the
Act,
and
(
2)
because
requiring
29
permits
for
them
could,
at
least
in
the
first
few
years
of
implementation,
potentially
adversely
affect
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment
by
shifting
State
agency
resources
away
from
assuring
compliance
for
major
sources
with
existing
permits
to
issuing
new
permits
for
these
area
sources,
potentially
reducing
overall
air
program
effectiveness.
For
the
final
rule,
we
continue
to
believe
that
title
V
exemptions
for
these
five
categories
of
area
sources
will
not
adversely
affect
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment
for
the
same
reasons
discussed
in
the
proposal.
See
the
proposal,
70
FR
152554­
15255,
and
EPA
response
to
comments
on
this
issue
in
section
VIII.
E
below.

In
conclusion,
the
four
factors
and
other
rationale
of
the
final
rule
are
appropriate
to
analyze
whether
title
V
permitting
is
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
for
these
five
categories
of
area
sources,
and
we
finalize
title
V
exemptions
for
them
based
on
our
analyses
of
these
four
factors
and
other
rationale.
The
clarification
of
the
factors
we
did
not
discuss
in
the
proposal,
including
the
revision
of
factor
four,
contained
in
today's
final
rule,
does
not
change
our
view,
as
stated
in
the
proposal,
that
title
V
is
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
for
the
five
categories
of
area
sources
we
exempt
today.
Thus,
for
these
reasons
we
are
exempting
from
title
V
area
sources
subject
to
the
part
63
NESHAP
for
dry
cleaners,
halogenated
solvent
degreasers,
chrome
electroplaters,
EO
sterilizers
and
secondary
aluminum
smelters.
See
sections
IV.
B
through
F,
below
for
more
detail
on
our
analysis
of
the
four
factors
for
each
category
of
area
sources
we
exempt
today.

B.
Dry
Cleaners
In
the
proposal,
we
described
how
factors
two,
three,
and
four
support
title
V
exemptions
for
area
sources
subject
to
the
NESHAP
for
perchlorethylene
dry
cleaners,
30
subpart
M.
We
did
not
discuss
factor
one
for
dry
cleaners,
other
than
to
note
that
title
V
would
not
result
in
additional
monitoring
for
these
sources,
but
we
do
so
today
below
in
response
to
comment.
See
the
general
discussion
of
monitoring
and
the
specific
discussion
of
dry
cleaners
in
the
proposal,
70
FR
15254­
15256,
March
25,
2005.

First,
in
the
proposal,
we
explained
that
title
V
burdens
and
costs
are
significant
for
dry
cleaners
(
factor
two),
and
thus
title
V
will
be
"
burdensome"
for
them.
Dry
cleaners
are
typically
small
"
mom
and
pop"
retail
establishments
employing
only
five
people
on
average,
with
extremely
limited
technical
and
economic
resources,
and
low
profit
margins,

and
title
V
costs
would
represent
an
excessively
high
percentage
of
sales
for
them.
See
the
economic
profile
for
dry
cleaners,
docket
item
04.
In
addition,
concerning
factor
two,

the
burdens
of
title
V
for
dry
cleaners
would
not
likely
be
mitigated
by
assistance
from
permitting
authorities
because
the
authorities
would
likely
not
be
able
to
meet
the
high
demand
caused
by
title
V
permitting
for
up
to
28,000
dry
cleaners
nationally.
Thus,
we
believe
title
V
costs
are
significant
for
dry
cleaners,
and
that
title
V
is
"
burdensome"
for
them,
because
most
are
small
businesses
with
limited
resources,
that
would
be
subject
to
numerous
mandatory
source
activities
under
part
70
or
71
that
would
represent
significant
costs
to
them
in
light
of
their
resources,
whether
they
have
standard
or
general
permits.

Second,
as
described
in
the
proposal,
factor
four,
whether
adequate
oversight
by
State
agencies
could
achieve
high
compliance
with
NESHAP,
without
relying
on
title
V
permits,
supports
a
conclusion
that
title
V
will
be
"
unnecessary"
for
NESHAP
compliance,

and
thus,
that
title
V
exemptions
are
appropriate
for
dry
cleaners.
However,
in
response
31
to
comments,
we
have
revised
factor
four
(
explained
below),
and
revised
factor
four
continues
to
support
the
conclusion
that
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
for
compliance
with
the
NESHAP
for
dry
cleaners.
Revised
factor
four
is
whether
there
are
implementation
and
enforcement
programs
in
place
that
are
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
the
NESHAP
for
area
sources,
without
relying
on
title
V
permits.
As
further
described
in
section
VIII.
D
below,
there
are
implementation
and
enforcement
programs
in
place
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
the
dry
cleaning
NESHAP,
without
title
V,
in
all
parts
of
the
nation.

Also,
the
State
survey
(
docket
item
02)
shows
that
most
States
and
local
agencies
report
that
they
conduct
State
permitting
programs,
programs
of
routine
inspection,
and
provide
different
types
of
compliance
assistance
tools
to
help
assure
compliance
with
the
NESHAP,
often
in
combination,
and
that
more
than
half
of
the
agencies
that
reported
compliance
rate
information
reported
high
compliance
for
dry
cleaners
Also,
many
State
and
local
agencies
reported
to
us
that
compliance
with
the
dry
cleaning
NESHAP
can
best
be
achieved
through
compliance
assistance
efforts,
such
as
compliance
outreach
and
education
programs,
and
compliance
tools,
including
such
tools
as
calendars
designed
to
schedule
NESHAP
compliance
activities,
and
inspection
checklists
for
the
NESHAP,

rather
than
by
using
title
V
permits.
See
State
and
local
input
on
compliance
assistance
programs
for
area
sources,
including
dry
cleaners
(
docket
items
02,
03,
06,
and
08);
an
example
of
a
compliance
calendar
for
dry
cleaners
(
docket
item
90),
and
an
inspection
checklist
for
dry
cleaners
(
docket
item
95);
and
State
and
local
agency
comments
in
support
of
the
proposed
exemptions
(
docket
items
11,
16,
59,
61,
and
65).
The
EPA
agrees
with
those
commenters
who
stated
that
non­
title
V
compliance
approaches
are
32
more
likely
to
be
successful
for
implementing
the
dry
cleaning
NESHAP.
Also,
see
section
VIII.
D
below
for
more
on
our
decision
to
revise
factor
four.

Third,
in
the
proposal,
we
explained
that
the
costs
of
title
V
for
dry
cleaners
are
not
justified
taking
into
consideration
the
potential
gains
in
compliance
likely
to
occur
from
title
V
(
the
third
factor).
Consistent
with
the
explanation
above
of
factor
two
for
dry
cleaners,
title
V
costs
will
be
significant
for
them.
Also,
consistent
with
revised
factor
four
for
dry
cleaners,
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
for
NESHAP
compliance
for
them,
so
it
follows
that
the
potential
for
gains
in
compliance
is
low.
Thus,
for
dry
cleaners,
title
V
costs
are
high
and
the
potential
for
compliance
gains
from
title
V
are
low.
Although
there
may
be
some
compliance
benefits
from
title
V
for
dry
cleaners
(
discussed
below),
we
believe
they
will
be
small,
and
not
justified
by
title
V
costs
and
burdens
for
them.

Accordingly,
for
dry
cleaners,
we
conclude
that
title
V
costs
are
not
justified
taking
into
consideration
the
potential
for
gains
in
compliance
from
title
V.

In
addition,
as
we
explained
in
the
proposal,
the
large
number
of
dry
cleaners
that
are
area
sources
(
up
to
28,000
nationally)
makes
it
likely
that
permitting
them
would
strain
the
resources
of
State
agencies,
potentially
reducing
overall
air
program
effectiveness,
and
thus,
potentially
adversely
affecting
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment.

With
respect
to
factor
one
for
dry
cleaners,
we
explained
in
the
proposal
that
title
V
would
not
result
in
additional
monitoring
for
these
sources,
and
we
have
reaffirmed
this
conclusion
today.
See
section
IV.
A.
We
did
not
discuss
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
component
of
factor
one
in
the
proposal,
but
we
do
so
here
in
response
to
comment.
As
discussed
in
section
IV.
A,
the
dry
cleaning
NESHAP
does
not
contain
reporting
33
requirements
that
are
substantially
equivalent
to
the
title
V
requirements
for
deviation
reports,
six­
month
monitoring
reports,
and
annual
compliance
certification.
[
See
§
§

70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii).]
Although
the
compliance
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
for
dry
cleaners
are
not
substantially
equivalent
to
those
of
title
V
However,

this
does
not
mean
that
compliance
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
are
necessarily
inadequate
to
achieve
compliance
on
their
own,
or
that
they
are
in
anyway
deficient
with
respect
to
the
requirements
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
such
as
section
112
requirements.
Indeed,
EPA
believes
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
in
the
NESHAP
are
adequate
under
the
Act.
Indeed,
in
issuing
the
NESHAP
for
these
sources,

EPA
determined
that
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
contained
therein
were
adequate,
and
EPA
continues
to
believe
that
this
is
the
case.
[
See
58
FR
49354,

September
22,
1993.]
We
acknowledge,
however,
that
the
additional
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
that
would
be
provided
through
title
V
may
have
some
marginal
potential
to
improve
compliance
benefits,
however,
we
believe
they
would
not
be
significant.
Because
the
monitoring
required
by
the
NESHAP
is
consistent
with
the
monitoring
requirements
of
title
V,
and
because
the
NESHAP
itself
has
adequate
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
tailored
to
the
NESHAP
at
the
time
it
was
promulgated;
thus,
we
conclude
that
factor
one
only
partially
supports
an
exemption
for
dry
cleaners.
Also
for
dry
cleaners,
factor
four
(
described
above)
independently
supports
that
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
for
NESHAP
compliance.
Consequently,
our
view
of
the
appropriateness
of
a
title
V
exemption
for
dry
cleaners
is
unaffected
by
our
expanded
analysis
of
factor
one
for
them,
and
we
exempt
them
in
today's
final
rule.
34
Thus,
factors
one,
two,
three,
and
revised
factor
four,
fully
support
the
exemption
findings
of
the
proposal,
and
EPA
concludes
that
title
V
exemptions
are
appropriate
for
area
sources
subject
to
the
NESHAP
for
dry
cleaners,
consistent
with
the
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
criterion
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.
In
addition,
factor
one
partially
supports
an
exemption.

C.
Chrome
Electroplaters
In
the
proposal
we
described
how
factors
one
and
two
support
title
V
exemptions
for
area
sources
subject
to
the
NESHAP
for
hard
and
decorative
chrome
electroplating
and
chromic
acid
anodizing
(
electroplaters),
subpart
N.
We
did
not
discuss
factors
three
and
four
for
electroplaters
in
the
proposal,
but
we
do
so
below
in
response
to
comment.

See
the
discussion
of
electroplaters
in
the
proposal,
70
FR
15256,
March
25,
2005.

First,
in
the
proposal,
we
stated
that
title
V
would
impose
significant
burdens
(
including
costs)
for
electroplaters
(
the
second
factor),
and
thus,
title
V
will
be
"
burdensome"
for
them.
We
based
this
view
on
our
review
of
economic
information
(
docket
item
04),
and
information
on
title
V
burdens
and
costs
(
docket
items
80
and
81).

After
viewing
the
comments
received,
and
upon
further
consideration
we
continue
to
believe
that
title
V
burdens
and
costs
are
significant
for
electroplaters
that
are
area
sources
because
most
are
small
businesses
with
limited
resources,
that
would
be
subject
to
numerous
mandatory
activities
under
parts
70
or
71,
that
would
impose
significant
costs
in
lights
of
their
resources,
whether
they
had
a
general
or
standard
permit.
Also,
see
discussion
of
the
second
factor
in
section
IV.
A
above.

Second,
in
the
proposal,
we
explained
that
the
compliance
requirements
of
title
V
35
and
the
NESHAP
for
electroplaters
are
substantially
equivalent,
so
title
V
will
not
result
in
any
new
significant
compliance
requirements
over
those
already
required
by
the
NESHAP
(
the
first
factor),
and
thus,
title
V
will
be
"
unnecessary"
for
NESHAP
compliance.
We
reaffirm
this
finding
today
with
respect
to
monitoring,
in
section
IV.
A.
See
section
VIII.
B
for
response
to
a
comment
that
the
interpretation
of
title
V's
monitoring
requirements
in
the
proposal
was
flawed,
and
section
VIII.
G
below
for
EPA
response
to
a
comment
that
title
V
permits
are
needed
to
define
monitoring
requirements
for
electroplaters.
With
respect
to
recordkeeping
and
reporting,
the
electroplating
NESHAP
requires
area
sources
to
submit
on­
going
compliance
status
reports,
including
a
description
of
the
NESHAP
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
standards,
the
operating
parameters
monitored
to
show
compliance,
information
about
the
results
of
monitoring,
including
about
excess
emissions
and
exceedances
of
monitoring
parameters,
and
a
certification
by
a
responsible
official
that
work
practices
are
followed.
This
report
is
required
on
an
annual
or
sixmonth
basis,
depending
on
the
frequency
of
periods
of
excess
emissions.
These
reports
result
in
information
that
is
substantially
equivalent
with
respect
to
assuring
compliance
as
that
required
in
six­
month
monitoring
reports,
deviation
reports,
and
annual
compliance
certification
reports
under
title
V.

In
the
proposal,
we
did
not
discuss
factor
three,
whether
title
V
costs
are
justified,

for
electroplaters,
taking
into
consideration
any
potential
gains
in
compliance
likely
to
occur
through
title
V,
but
our
analysis
of
factor
three
for
the
final
rule
is
that
it
supports
title
V
exemptions
for
them.
Consistent
with
the
explanation
above
of
factor
two,
title
V
costs
are
significant
for
electroplaters.
Also,
for
electroplaters,
consistent
with
factors
one
36
(
discussed
above)
and
revised
factor
four
(
discussed
below),
both
of
which
examine
the
ability
of
title
V
permits
to
improve
compliance
over
that
required
by
the
NESHAP,
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
for
NESHAP
compliance,
so
it
follows
that
the
potential
for
gains
in
compliance
from
title
V
will
be
low.
Thus,
for
electroplaters,
title
V
costs
are
high
and
the
potential
for
gains
in
compliance
from
title
V
is
low.
Although
there
may
be
some
compliance
benefits
from
title
V
for
electroplaters,
we
believe
they
will
be
small,
and
not
justified
by
title
V
costs
and
burdens
for
them.
Accordingly,
for
electroplaters,
we
conclude
that
title
V
costs
are
not
justified
considering
the
potential
for
gains
in
compliance
from
title
V.

Also,
in
the
proposal,
we
did
not
discuss
factor
four,
whether
adequate
oversight
by
State
agencies
could
achieve
high
compliance
with
NESHAP,
without
relying
on
title
V
permits,
for
electroplaters.
In
response
to
comments,
we
have
revised
factor
four,
and
revised
factor
four
supports
the
title
V
exemption
findings
of
the
proposal
for
electroplaters.
Revised
factor
four
is
whether
there
are
implementation
and
enforcement
programs
in
place
that
are
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
the
NESHAP
for
area
sources,
without
relying
on
title
V
permits.
As
further
described
in
section
VIII.
D
below,

there
are
implementation
and
enforcement
programs
in
place
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
the
electroplating
NESHAP,
in
all
part
of
the
nation,
without
title
V.

Also,
the
State
survey
(
docket
item
02)
shows
that
most
States
and
local
agencies
report
that
they
conduct
State
permitting
programs,
programs
of
routine
inspection,
and
provide
different
types
of
compliance
assistance
tools
to
help
assure
compliance
with
the
electroplating
NESHAP,
often
in
combination,
and
that
more
than
half
of
the
agencies
that
37
reported
compliance
rate
information
reported
high
compliance
for
electroplaters.
Also,

many
State
and
local
agencies
reported
to
us
that
compliance
with
the
NESHAP
for
area
sources,
including
for
the
electroplating
NESHAP,
can
best
be
achieved
through
compliance
assistance
efforts,
such
as
compliance
outreach
and
education
programs,
and
compliance
tools,
rather
than
by
using
title
V
permits.
See
State
and
local
input
on
compliance
assistance
programs
for
area
sources
(
docket
items
02,
03,
06
and
08);
and
State
and
local
agency
comments
on
the
proposal,
all
of
which
are
in
support
of
the
proposed
title
V
exemptions
for
the
five
categories
of
area
sources
(
docket
Items,
11,
16,

59,
61,
and
65).
Also,
see
section
VIII.
D
below
for
EPA
response
to
comments
on
factor
four.

Thus,
factors
one,
two,
three,
and
revised
factor
four,
support
the
exemption
findings
of
the
proposal,
and
consequently,
title
V
exemptions
are
appropriate
for
area
sources
subject
to
the
NESHAP
for
electroplating,
consistent
with
the
"
unnecessarily
burdensome
""
criterion
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.

D.
Solvent
Degreasers
In
the
proposal,
we
discussed
how
factors
two
and
four
support
title
V
exemptions
for
area
sources
subject
to
the
NESHAP
for
halogenated
solvent
degreasing,
subpart
T.

With
respect
to
factor
one,
we
explained
that
title
V
would
not
result
in
additional
monitoring
for
these
sources,
and
we
have
reaffirmed
this
conclusion
today.
See
Section
IV.
A..
We
did
not
discuss
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
component
of
factor
one
or
factor
three
for
degreasers,
but
we
do
so
below
in
response
to
comment.
See
the
discussion
of
degreasers
in
the
proposal,
70
FR
15256­
15257,
March
25,
2005.
38
First,
in
the
proposal,
we
explained
that
requiring
title
V
permits
would
impose
a
significant
burden
on
degreasers
that
they
will
have
difficulty
meeting
with
current
resources
(
factor
two),
and
thus,
title
V
will
be
"
burdensome"
for
them.
Area
source
degreasers
are
typically
small
operations
employing
only
a
few
people,
with
limited
technical
and
economic
resources,
and
little
experience
in
environmental
regulations.

Also,
unlike
the
larger
major
sources,
area
source
degreasing
operations
typically
have
no
staff
trained
in
environmental
requirements
and
are
generally
unable
to
afford
to
hire
outside
professionals
to
assist
them
with
understanding
and
meeting
the
permitting
requirements.
See
the
economic
profile
for
degreasers,
docket
item
04.
We
received
comment
supporting
this
view
(
see
docket
item
31),
and
now
we
conclude
that
degreasers
are
small
businesses
with
limited
resources,
subject
to
numerous
mandatory
activities
under
parts
70
or
71,
that
will
be
burdensome
for
them
to
meet,
whether
they
have
a
general
or
standard
permit;
and
that
this
means
title
V
is
"
burdensome"
for
them.
Also,

see
discussion
of
the
second
factor
in
section
IV.
A
above.

Second,
in
the
proposal,
we
explained
that
factor
four,
whether
adequate
oversight
by
State
agencies
could
achieve
high
compliance
with
NESHAP,
without
relying
on
title
V
permits,
supports
title
V
exemptions
for
degreasers.
In
response
to
comments,
we
have
revised
factor
four
and
revised
factor
four
is
whether
there
are
implementation
and
enforcement
programs
in
place
that
are
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
the
solvent
degreasing
NESHAP
for
area
sources,
without
relying
on
title
V
permits.
The
EPA
concludes
that
there
are
implementation
and
enforcement
programs
in
place
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
the
degreasing
NESHAP,
in
all
parts
of
the
nation,
without
title
V
39
(
further
described
in
section
VIII.
D
below).
Also,
the
State
survey
(
docket
item
02)

shows
that
most
States
and
local
agencies
report
that
they
conduct
State
permitting
programs,
programs
of
routine
inspection,
and
provide
different
types
of
compliance
assistance
tools
to
help
assure
compliance
with
the
degreasing
NESHAP,
often
in
combination,
and
that
more
than
half
of
the
agencies
that
reported
compliance
rate
information
reported
high
compliance
for
degreasers.
In
addition,
many
State
and
local
agencies
reported
to
us
that
compliance
with
the
degreaser
NESHAP
can
best
be
achieved
through
compliance
assistance
efforts,
such
as
compliance
outreach
and
education
programs,
and
compliance
tools,
rather
than
by
using
title
V
permits.
[
For
example,
see
docket
item
92,
an
inspection
checklist
for
degreasers
developed
by
a
local
air
pollution
control
agency.]
Thus,
for
the
final
rule,
revised
factor
four
supports
that
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
for
NESHAP
compliance
for
degreasers.
See
State
and
local
agency
input
on
compliance
assistance
programs
(
docket
items
02.
03,
06,
and
08),
and
State
and
local
agency
comments
submitted
in
support
of
the
proposed
exemptions
(
docket
items
11,
16,

59,
61,
and
65).
Also,
see
section
VIII.
D
below
for
more
on
our
decision
to
revise
factor
four;
and
section
VIII.
H
below
for
EPA's
response
to
comment
on
the
appropriateness
of
title
V
exemptions
when
multiple
applicable
requirements
apply
to
degreasers.

We
did
not
thoroughly
discuss
factor
one
for
degreasers
in
the
proposal,
but
we
do
so
here
in
response
to
comment.
For
the
reasons
explained
in
section
IV.
A,
the
degreasing
NESHAP
contains
monitoring
requirements
for
area
sources
that
satisfy
the
requirements
of
the
Act,
and
are
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
the
NESHAP.

However,
as
discussed
in
section
IV.
A,
the
degreasing
NESHAP
does
not
contain
40
reporting
requirements
that
are
substantially
equivalent
to
the
title
V
requirements
for
deviation
reports,
six­
month
monitoring
reports,
and
annual
compliance
certification.
[
See
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii).]
Although
the
compliance
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
for
degreasers
are
not
substantially
equivalent
to
those
of
title
V
However,
this
does
not
mean
that
compliance
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
are
necessarily
inadequate
to
achieve
compliance
on
their
own,
or
that
they
are
in
anyway
deficient
with
respect
to
the
requirements
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
such
as
section
112
requirements.
In
fact,
as
mentioned
in
Section
IV.
A,
EPA
believes
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
in
the
degreaser
NESHAP
are
adequate,
and
satisfy
the
requirements
of
the
Act.

Nevertheless,
the
additional
title
V
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
have
some
potential
to
improve
compliance,
so
EPA
concludes
that
factor
one
does
not
completely
support
an
exemption
for
degreasers.
Indeed,
in
issuing
the
NESHAP
for
these
sources,

EPA
determined
that
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
contained
therein
were
adequate,
and
EPA
continues
to
believe
that
this
is
the
case.
[
See
59
FR
61801,

December
2,
1994.]
The
EPA
acknowledges
these
additional
title
V
reporting
measures
may
provide
some
marginal
compliance
benefits,
however
we
believe
they
would
not
be
significant.
Because
the
monitoring
required
by
the
NESHAP
is
consistent
with
the
monitoring
requirements
of
title
V,
and
because
the
NESHAP
itself
has
adequate
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
tailored
to
the
NESHAP,
we
conclude
that
the
first
factor
supports
a
title
V
exemption
for
degreasers.
Also,
factor
four
(
described
above)
independently
supports
the
conclusion
that
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
for
NESHAP
compliance
for
degreasers,
and
thus,
that
a
title
V
exemption
is
appropriate
for
them.
41
Also,
in
the
proposal,
we
did
not
discuss
factor
three,
whether
title
V
costs
are
justified,
taking
into
consideration
any
potential
gains
in
compliance
likely
to
occur
for
degreasers,
but
our
analysis
of
factor
three
for
the
final
rule
is
that
it
supports
title
V
exemptions
for
them.
Consistent
with
our
analysis
of
factor
two
for
degreasers
(
discussed
above),
title
V
costs
are
significant
for
them.
Also,
for
degreasers,
revised
factor
four
(
discussed
above),
which
examines
the
ability
of
title
V
permits
to
improve
compliance
over
that
required
by
the
NESHAP,
supports
that
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
for
NESHAP
compliance,
so
it
follows
that
the
potential
for
gains
in
compliance
from
title
V
are
low.

Although
there
may
be
some
compliance
benefits
from
title
V
for
degreasers,
we
believe
they
will
be
small,
and
not
justified
by
title
V
burdens
and
costs
for
them.
Accordingly,

for
degreasers,
title
V
costs
are
not
justified
taking
into
consideration
the
potential
for
gains
in
compliance
from
title
V,
and
thus,
factor
three
also
supports
title
V
exemptions
for
degreasers.

Thus,
factors
one,
two,
three,
and
four
fully
support
the
exemption
findings
of
the
proposal,
and
factor
one
partially
does.
EPA
concludes
that
title
V
exemption
is
appropriate
for
area
sources
subject
to
the
NESHAP
for
solvent
degreasing,
consistent
with
the
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
criterion
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.

E.
EO
Sterilizers
In
the
proposal,
we
described
how
factors
one
and
four
support
a
title
V
exemption
for
area
sources
subject
to
the
NESHAP
for
EO
sterilizers,
subpart
O.
We
did
not
discuss
factors
two
and
three
for
EO
sterilizers,
but
we
do
so
below
in
response
to
comments.
See
the
discussion
of
EO
sterilizers
in
the
proposal,
70
FR
15256,
March
25,
42
2005.

First,
in
the
proposal,
we
compared
the
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
of
the
EO
sterilizer
NESHAP
with
those
of
title
V,
and
we
stated
that
the
requirements
are
substantially
equivalent
(
the
first
factor),
when
sources
employ
continuous
monitoring
methods
to
assure
proper
operation
and
maintenance
of
control
equipment,
such
as
thermal
oxidizers.
Also,
we
said
that
sources
that
use
scrubbers
employ
noncontinuous
monitoring
methods
(
e.
g.,
weekly
readings
of
glycol
levels
in
tanks),
and
thus,
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
them
would
not
be
substantially
equivalent
to
title
V.
Although
we
were
not
certain
of
the
number
of
area
sources
that
employ
continuous
monitoring
methods
under
the
NESHAP,
we
stated
a
belief
that
most
sources
would
employ
such
methods,
and
we
asked
for
comment
on
the
percentage
of
sources
that
employ
them.
In
addition,
we
noted
that
the
EO
sterilizer
NESHAP
does
not
require
an
annual
compliance
certification
(
as
does
title
V),
and
we
asked
for
comment
on
the
extent
to
which
the
lack
of
an
annual
compliance
certification
report
requirement
in
the
NESHAP
would
negatively
affect
compliance
with
the
NESHAP.

For
the
final
rule,
we
reviewed
the
EO
sterilizer
NESHAP
once
again,
and
we
now
conclude
that
sources
with
scrubbers
are
required
to
conduct
"
continuous"
monitoring
under
the
NESHAP,
and
therefore,
that
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
of
title
V
and
the
NESHAP
are
substantially
similar
for
all
sources
in
the
category.
The
EO
sterilizer
NESHAP
at
§
63.363(
f)
requires
all
sources
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance,
and
it
sets
forth
the
monitoring
requirements
for
demonstrating
continuous
compliance
when
the
source
employs
scrubbers
as
emissions
controls
at
§
63.364(
b).
[
See
43
Table
1
of
§
63.360,
for
a
list
of
the
general
provisions,
subpart
A
of
part
63,
including
definitions
and
reporting
requirements,
that
apply
for
this
NESHAP.]
Because
they
conduct
"
continuous"
monitoring,
they
are
required
to
submit
excess
emissions
and
continuous
monitoring
system
performance
report
and
summary
reports,
to
assess
their
compliance
status
on
a
semiannual
basis,
consistent
with
§
63.10(
e)(
3),
the
same
as
sources
that
use
thermal
oxidizers
as
emissions
controls
under
the
NESHAP.
These
reports
provides
compliance
information
that
is
substantially
equivalent
to
that
of
§
§

70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)
for
deviation
reports
and
six­
month
monitoring
reports
(
see
explanation
below).

The
EO
sterilizer
NESHAP
requires
sources
to
submit
considerable
information
to
EPA,
or
its
delegate
agency,
to
assess
compliance
with
its
emission
limitations
and
standards.
Section
63.366(
a)(
3)
requires
an
excess
emissions
and
continuous
monitoring
system
performance
report
and
summary
report
of
all
sources
with
a
continuous
monitoring
system
(
CMS),
on
a
semiannual
basis,
consistent
with
§
63.366(
e)(
3).
The
excess
emissions
and
continuous
monitoring
system
performance
report
requires
information
on
periods
when
the
CMS
is
inoperative,
periods
of
excess
emissions
and
parameter
monitoring
exceedances,
the
nature
and
cause
of
each
malfunction,
any
corrective
actions
taken,
including
repairs
or
adjustment
made,
and
a
certification
of
accuracy
by
a
responsible
official.
The
summary
report,
consistent
with
§
63.10(
e)(
3),
is
required
to
include
an
emissions
data
summary
for
control
system
parameters
and
a
CMS
performance
summary,
which
provides
detailed
information
on
periods
of
monitoring
system
downtime
and
the
reasons
the
system
was
inoperative,
including
a
certification
of
44
accuracy
by
a
responsible
official.
[
See
63.10(
c)(
5)
through
(
13);
and
Table
1
of
§

63.360.]

As
described
above,
the
compliance
information
already
required
to
be
reported
by
the
EO
sterilizer
NESHAP
is
substantial,
and
it
is
similar
to
that
required
for
annual
compliance
certification
under
title
V
[
see
§
§
70.6(
c)(
5)
and
71.6(
c)(
5)].
Also,
the
compliance
reports
required
by
the
NESHAP
require
certification
by
a
responsible
official,

which
is
defined
similarly
in
the
two
programs
(
see
§
63.2,
and
§
§
70.2
and
71.2).
For
these
reasons,
we
conclude
that
the
lack
of
an
annual
compliance
certification
report
under
title
V
will
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
compliance
for
the
EO
sterilizer
NESHAP.
In
addition,
as
described
in
section
IV.
A,
title
V
would
not
add
any
monitoring
requirements
for
these
sources.

Accordingly,
we
conclude
that
the
EO
sterilizer
NESHAP
provides
compliance
information
that
is
substantially
equivalent
to
the
information
required
under
title
V.
Thus,

our
analysis
of
factor
one
for
the
final
rule
is
that
it
supports
that
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"

for
NESHAP
compliance
for
EO
sterilizers.
Also,
see
section
VIII.
I
below
for
EPA
response
to
comments
on
EPA's
analysis
of
the
compliance
requirements
of
the
EO
sterilizer
NESHAP.

Second,
in
the
proposal,
we
explained
that
factor
four,
whether
adequate
oversight
by
State
agencies
could
achieve
high
compliance
with
NESHAP,
without
relying
on
title
V
permits,
supports
title
V
exemptions
for
EO
sterilizers.
In
response
to
comment,
we
have
revised
factor
four
(
explained
below),
and
revised
factor
four
continues
to
support
that
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
for
compliance
with
the
NESHAP
for
EO
sterilizers,
and
thus,
it
45
supports
title
V
exemptions
for
them.
In
the
final
rule,
revised
factor
four
is
whether
there
are
implementation
and
enforcement
programs
in
place
that
are
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
the
NESHAP
for
area
sources,
without
relying
on
title
V
permits.
As
further
described
in
section
VIII.
D
below,
there
are
implementation
and
enforcement
programs
in
place
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
the
EO
sterilizer
NESHAP,
in
all
parts
of
the
nation,
without
relying
on
title
V
permits.
Also,
the
State
survey
(
docket
item
02)
shows
that
most
States
and
local
agencies
report
that
they
conduct
State
permitting
programs,
programs
of
routine
inspection,
and
provide
different
types
of
compliance
assistance
tools
to
help
assure
compliance
with
the
EO
sterilizer
NESHAP,
often
in
combination,
and
that
more
than
half
of
the
agencies
that
reported
compliance
rate
information
reported
high
compliance
for
EO
sterilizers.
Also,
many
State
and
local
agencies
reported
that
compliance
with
the
EO
sterilizer
NESHAP
can
best
be
achieved
through
compliance
assistance
efforts,
such
as
compliance
outreach
and
education
programs,
and
compliance
tools,
rather
than
by
using
title
V
permits.
See
State
and
local
input
on
compliance
assistance
programs
(
docket
items
02,
03,
06,
and
08);
and
comments
submitted
by
State
and
local
agencies,
all
of
which
are
in
support
the
proposed
exemptions
for
the
five
categories
of
area
sources
(
docket
items
11,16,
59,
61,
and
65).
Also,
see
section
VIII.
D
below
for
more
on
our
decision
to
revise
factor
four,
and
section
VIII.
H
and
VIII.
J
below
for
EPA
responses
to
comments
on
the
proposed
exemption
for
EO
sterilizers.

In
the
proposal,
concerning
factor
two,
whether
title
V
is
a
significant
burden
for
these
area
sources,
we
stated
a
general
belief
that
title
V
burdens
and
costs
would
be
46
significant
for
all
five
categories
of
area
source,
and
this
statement
included
EO
sterilizers.

For
EO
sterilizers,
this
general
belief
was
not
based
on
any
particular
study
or
docket
support,
but
instead
on
a
general
assessment
of
the
types
of
smaller
establishments
likely
to
meet
the
"
area
source"
definition
of
part
63
and
conduct
EO
sterilization
activities,
e.
g.,

libraries
and
museums
conducting
fumigation
of
books
and
artifacts
for
conservation
purposes,
and
small
contract
sterilization
businesses,
conducting
off­
site
sterilization
services
for
manufacturers
of
medical
equipment
and
supplies,
pharmaceuticals,
spices,

and
cosmetics.
See
docket
items
88
and
106.

In
response
to
the
comment
that
we
should
consider
all
four
factors
in
evaluating
each
category
of
area
sources
for
exemptions,
we
note
that
the
docket
does
not
contain
reliable
information
on
the
economic
resources
of
area
sources
in
the
EO
sterilizer
category,
but
EPA
reaffirms
the
general
belief
that
these
types
of
sources
are
likely
to
include
relatively
small
businesses
or
other
establishments
with
limited
economic
resources.
EPA
is
basing
its
decision
to
exempt
EO
sterilizer
area
sources
from
title
V
on
a
consideration
of
the
limited
information
in
the
record
on
the
types
of
establishments
subject
to
the
area
source
rule,
and
on
its
assessment
of
the
other
three
factors
and
additional
rationale
noted
in
its
evaluation
of
the
legislative
history
of
title
V.
[
See
section
IV.
D.]
EPA
believes
title
V
would
be
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
for
EO
sterilizer
area
sources,
because
title
V
would
impose
burdens
that
EPA
believes
would
significantly
outweigh
the
small
compliance
benefits
expected
from
title
V
permitting
for
this
category,

satisfying
the
exemption
criterion
in
section
502(
a).

Also,
in
the
proposal,
we
did
not
discuss
factor
three,
whether
title
V
costs
are
47
justified,
taking
into
consideration
any
potential
gains
in
compliance
likely
to
occur,
for
EO
sterilizers,
but
we
clarify
in
today's
final
rule
that
factor
three
supports
title
V
exemptions
for
them.
We
described
above
in
the
context
of
factor
one
and
revised
factor
four,
both
of
which
examine
the
ability
of
title
V
permits
to
improve
compliance
over
that
required
by
the
NESHAP,
why
we
believe
that
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
for
NESHAP
compliance
for
them,
so
it
follows
that
the
potential
for
gains
in
compliance
is
low.

Although
there
may
be
some
compliance
benefits
from
title
V
for
EO
sterilizers,
we
believe
they
will
be
small,
and
not
justified
by
title
V
costs
and
burdens
for
them.

Although
we
do
not
have
reliable
data
on
the
economic
resources
of
EO
sterilizers,
the
costs
of
title
V
will
be
the
same
for
these
sources
as
other
area
sources
addressed
in
this
rule.
In
light
of
the
low
compliance
benefits
provided
by
title
V
for
these
sources,
we
do
not
believe
that
those
costs
are
justified.
Accordingly,
for
EO
sterilizers,
we
conclude
that
title
V
costs
are
not
justified
taking
into
consideration
the
potential
for
gains
in
compliance
from
title
V,
and
thus,
factor
three
supports
title
V
exemptions
for
them.

Thus,
factors
one,
three,
and
four
support
the
title
V
exemption
findings
of
the
proposal
for
area
sources
subject
to
the
EO
sterilizers
NESHAP.
There
is
insufficientinformation
to
conclude
that
factor
two
supports
an
exemption
for
EO
sterilizers,
but
title
V
will
impose
some
burdens
regardless
of
the
financial
resources
of
EO
sterilizers,
and
any
burdens
associated
with
title
V
compliance
will
be
unnecessary,
since
title
V
will
not
provide
any
significant
compliance
benefits
for
them.
Therefore,
a
title
V
exemption
is
appropriate
for
them,
consistent
with
the
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"

criterion
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.
48
F.
Secondary
Aluminum
In
the
proposal,
we
described
how
factors
one
and
two
support
title
V
exemptions
for
area
sources
subject
to
the
NESHAP
for
secondary
aluminum,
subpart
RRR.
We
did
not
discuss
factors
three
and
four
for
them,
but
we
do
so
below
in
response
to
comment.

See
the
discussion
of
secondary
aluminum
in
the
proposal,
70
FR
15258,
March
25,
2005.

First,
in
the
proposal,
we
compared
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
of
the
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP
with
those
of
title
V,
and
we
stated
that
the
requirements
are
substantially
equivalent
(
the
first
factor),
when
sources
employ
continuous
monitoring
methods
to
assure
proper
operation
and
maintenance
of
control
equipment,
such
as
when
sources
use
thermal
oxidizers
for
emission
controls.
Also,
we
said
that
sources
that
use
scrubbers
as
emissions
control
do
not
employ
continuous
methods,
and
thus,
the
compliance
requirements
for
them
are
not
substantially
equivalent
to
title
V.
Although
we
were
not
certain
of
the
number
of
area
sources
that
employ
continuous
monitoring
methods
under
the
NESHAP,
we
stated
a
belief
that
most
sources
would
employ
such
methods,
and
we
asked
for
comment
on
the
percentage
of
sources
that
employ
them.
In
addition,
we
noted
that
the
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP
does
not
require
an
annual
compliance
certification
(
as
does
title
V),
and
we
asked
for
comment
on
the
extent
that
the
lack
of
an
annual
compliance
certification
report
requirement
in
the
NESHAP
would
negatively
affect
compliance
with
the
NESHAP.

For
the
final
rule,
we
reviewed
the
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP
once
again
and
we
now
conclude
that
sources
with
scrubbers
are
required
to
conduct
"
continuous"

monitoring
under
the
NESHAP.
The
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP
requires
CMS
for
49
each
add­
on
control
device,
including
for
scrubbers,
when
they
are
approved
as
an
alternative
monitoring
method
[
e.
g.,
§
63.1510(
w)].
[
See
Appendix
A
of
subpart
RRR,

for
a
list
of
the
general
provisions
of
subpart
A
of
part
63,
including
definitions
and
reporting
requirements,
that
apply
for
this
NESHAP;
and
the
preamble
for
the
final
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP,
65
FR
15693,
March
23,
2000,
for
more
on
the
requirement
for
continuous
compliance
under
the
NESHAP.]
Because
they
conduct
"
continuous"
monitoring,
they
are
required
to
submit
excess
emissions/
summary
reports
to
assess
their
compliance
status,
on
a
semiannual
basis,
consistent
with
§
63.10(
e)(
3),
the
same
as
other
sources
that
use
add­
on
controls,
such
as
thermal
oxidizers,
under
the
NESHAP.
These
reports
provide
compliance
information
that
is
substantially
equivalent
to
the
requirements
of
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)
for
deviation
reports
and
sixmonth
monitoring
reports
(
see
detailed
explanation
below).

The
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP
requires
sources
to
submit
considerable
information
to
EPA,
or
its
delegate
agency,
to
assess
compliance
with
its
emission
limitations
and
standards.
Section
63.1516(
b)
of
the
NESHAP
requires
an
excess
emissions/
summary
report
for
all
sources
with
a
CMS,
on
a
semiannual
basis,
consistent
with
§
§
63.10(
e)(
3)
and
63.10(
c).
The
excess
emissions
report
requires
all
monitoring
data,
information
on
periods
when
the
CMS
is
inoperative,
periods
of
excess
emissions
and
parameter
monitoring
exceedances,
the
nature
and
cause
of
each
malfunctions,
any
corrective
actions
taken,
including
repairs
or
adjustment
made,
certifications
by
a
responsible
official
that
certain
work
practices
were
performed,
and
the
results
of
any
performance
tests
conducted
during
the
reporting
period.
The
summary
report,
consistent
50
with
§
63.10(
e)(
3),
is
required
to
include
an
emissions
data
summary
for
control
system
parameters
and
a
CMS
performance
summary,
which
provides
detailed
information
on
periods
of
monitoring
system
downtime
and
the
reasons
the
system
was
inoperative,

including
a
certification
of
accuracy
by
a
responsible
official.
[
See
§
§
63.1516(
b)(
2)
and
(
3);
and
§
63.1518].

As
described
above,
the
compliance
information
already
required
to
be
reported
by
the
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP
is
substantial,
and
similar
to
that
required
for
annual
compliance
certification
under
title
V
[
see
§
§
70.6(
c)(
5)
and
71.6(
c)(
5)].
Also,
the
compliance
reports
required
by
the
NESHAP
require
certification
by
a
responsible
official,

which
is
defined
similarly
in
the
two
programs
(
see
§
63.2;
and
§
§
70.2
and
71.2).

Because
of
the
substantial
information
concerning
compliance
required
to
be
reported
by
the
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP,
the
lack
of
an
annual
compliance
certification
report
under
title
V
will
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
compliance
for
the
NESHAP,
and
we
are
satisfied
that
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
component
of
factor
one
supports
an
exemption
for
area
sources
subject
to
this
NESHAP.
[
Also,
see
docket
item
89,
a
summary
in
tabular
form
of
the
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
reporting,
and
other
compliance
requirements
of
the
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP.]
As
discussed
in
Section
IV.
A.,
the
monitoring
component
of
factor
one
also
supports
a
title
V
exemption
for
secondary
aluminum
smelters.

Accordingly,
we
conclude
that
the
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP
provides
compliance
information
that
is
substantially
equivalent
to
the
information
required
under
title
V.
Thus,
our
analysis
of
factor
one
for
the
final
rule
is
that
it
supports
that
title
V
is
51
"
unnecessary"
for
NESHAP
compliance
for
secondary
aluminum.
[
Also,
see
section
VIII.
I
below
for
EPA's
response
to
significant
comments
on
the
proposed
exemption
for
secondary
aluminum
smelters.]

Second,
in
the
proposal,
we
discussed
that
title
V
permitting
would
impose
a
significant
burden
on
these
area
sources
that
would
be
difficult
for
them
to
meet
with
current
resources
(
the
second
factor).
In
2001,
there
were
over
1,300
facilities
in
the
secondary
aluminum
industry.
Half
of
these
facilities
employed
fewer
than
20
employees.

These
small
sources
will
likely
lack
the
technical
resources
needed
to
comprehend
and
comply
with
permitting
requirements
and
the
financial
resources
needed
to
hire
the
necessary
staff
or
outside
consultants.
Accordingly,
we
conclude
that
title
V
is
"
burdensome"
for
them
because
mostalmost
all
of
them
are
small
businesses
with
limited
resources,
and
they
will
be
subject
to
numerous
mandatory
sources
activities
under
part
70
and
71,
that
it
will
be
burdensome
for
them
to
meet,
whether
they
have
a
standard
or
general
permit.
Thus,
for
the
final
rule,
we
believe
factor
two
supports
title
V
exemptions
for
secondary
aluminum
smelters.

We
did
not
discuss
factor
three
in
the
proposal,
whether
title
V
costs
are
justified,

taking
into
consideration
any
potential
gains
in
compliance
likely
to
occur,
for
area
sources
subject
to
the
NESHAP
for
secondary
aluminum,
but
we
clarify
in
today's
final
rule
that
factor
three
supports
title
V
exemptions
for
them.
We
explained
above
that
title
V
imposes
significant
burdens
and
costs
on
these
area
sources
(
factor
two).
Also,
for
secondary
aluminum
area
sources,
consistent
with
factor
one
(
described
above)
and
revised
factor
four
(
discussed
below),
both
of
which
examine
the
ability
of
title
V
permits
52
to
improve
compliance
over
that
required
by
the
NESHAP,
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
for
NESHAP
compliance,
so
it
follows
that
the
potential
for
gains
in
compliance
for
them
is
low.
Although
there
may
be
some
compliance
benefits
from
title
V
for
secondary
aluminum
area
sources,
we
believe
they
are
small,
and
not
justified
by
title
V
costs
and
burdens
for
them.
Accordingly,
for
secondary
aluminum,
title
V
costs
are
not
justified
for
area
sources
taking
into
consideration
the
potential
for
gains
in
compliance
from
title
V,

and
thus,
factor
three
supports
title
V
exemptions
for
them.

In
the
proposal,
we
did
not
discuss
factor
four
for
secondary
aluminum
smelters,

whether
adequate
oversight
by
State
agencies
could
achieve
high
compliance
with
NESHAP,
without
relying
on
title
V
permits,
for
secondary
aluminum.
In
response
to
comments,
we
have
revised
factor
four,
and
revised
factor
four
supports
the
conclusion
that
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
for
compliance
with
the
NESHAP
for
secondary
aluminum,

and
thus,
it
supports
a
finding
that
title
V
exemptions
are
appropriate
for
them.
Revised
factor
four
is
whether
there
are
implementation
and
enforcement
programs
in
place
that
are
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
the
NESHAP
for
area
sources,
without
relying
on
title
V
permits.
As
further
described
in
section
VIII.
D
below,
there
are
implementation
and
enforcement
programs
in
place
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
the
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP,
in
all
parts
of
the
nation,
without
relying
on
title
V.
These
programs
take
several
forms,
including
programs
conducted
under
the
statutory
authority
of
sections
112,
113,
and
114
of
the
Act,
State
delegations
under
section
112(
l),
SBAP
under
section
507,
and
voluntary
compliance
assistance,
outreach,
and
education
programs.
Factor
four
is
satisfied
for
this
category
by
the
statutory
requirement
for
implementation
and
53
enforcement
of
NESHAP
in
section
112,
which
applies
to
all
NESHAP,
including
this
one.

For
secondary
aluminum,
the
State
survey
confirms
that
adequate
compliance
is
being
achieved
in
practice
by
States
(
more
than
half
of
the
agencies
that
reported
compliance
rate
information
reported
high
compliance),
but
there
were
fewer
examples
of
compliance
oversight
programs
and
fewer
responses
to
the
compliance
rate
question
for
this
category,

compared
to
other
categories.
We
believe
these
data
are
explained
by
the
timing
of
the
State
survey
relative
to
the
effective
date
of
the
secondary
aluminum
standard,
rather
than
suggesting
any
deficiencies
in
State
implementation
and
enforcement
for
the
NESHAP.

The
timing
of
the
State
survey
explains
the
response
to
questions
concerning
secondary
aluminum
because
the
earliest
date
that
compliance
with
the
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP
was
required
was
about
the
same
time
as
the
data
collection
phase
of
the
State
survey.
Thus,
State
and
local
agencies
did
not
have
much
experience
with
compliance
oversight
for
secondary
aluminum,
or
much
compliance
data
upon
which
to
base
their
survey
responses
for
this
category
at
the
time
the
State
survey
was
conducted.
The
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP
did
not
require
sources
to
be
in
compliance
until
March
24,
2003
(
all
other
NESHAP
were
effective
much
earlier
than
this),
while
the
majority
of
State
and
local
input
for
the
State
survey
occurred
from
March
to
June
of
2003.
[
See
the
final
rule
for
secondary
aluminum,
65
FR
15690,
March
23,
2000,
docket
item
77,
and
documentation
of
the
data
collection
phase
of
the
State
survey,
docket
items
93
and
94.]

Also,
many
State
and
local
agencies
reported
to
us
that
compliance
with
the
NESHAP
for
area
sources,
including
for
the
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP,
can
best
be
achieved
through
compliance
assistance
efforts,
such
as
compliance
outreach
and
education
54
programs,
and
compliance
tools,
rather
than
by
using
title
V
permits.
See
State
and
local
input
on
compliance
assistance
programs
for
area
sources
(
docket
items
02,
03,
06
and
08);
and
State
and
local
agency
comments
on
the
proposal,
all
of
which
are
in
support
of
the
proposed
title
V
exemptions
for
the
five
categories
of
area
sources
(
docket
Items,
11,

16,
59,
61,
and
65).
For
these
reasons,
we
conclude
in
the
final
rule
that
factor
four
supports
title
V
exemptions
for
area
sources
subject
to
the
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP.

[
Also,
see
section
VIII.
D
for
EPA
response
to
comments
on
proposed
factor
four.]

Thus,
factors
one,
two,
three,
and
four
support
the
title
V
exemption
findings,
and,

consequently,
title
V
exemptions
are
appropriate
for
area
sources
subject
to
the
NESHAP
for
secondary
aluminum,
consistent
with
the
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
criterion
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.

V.
What
is
EPA's
Decision
for
Secondary
Lead
Smelters?

In
the
proposal,
we
declined
to
make
a
finding
that
title
V
permitting
for
area
sources
subject
to
the
NESHAP
for
secondary
lead
smelting
would
be
impracticable,

infeasible,
or
unnecessarily
burdensome,
and
we
asked
for
comment
to
help
us
determine
if
we
should
make
such
a
finding.
We
considered
the
same
factors
for
these
area
sources
as
we
did
for
other
categories
of
area
sources,
but
we
did
not
have
a
basis
for
finding
that
an
exemption
was
warranted,
as
for
the
other
area
sources
addressed
in
this
rulemaking.
We
did
not
receive
any
information
or
data
during
the
comment
period
sufficient
to
support
a
finding
that
permitting
these
area
sources
would
be
"
impracticable,
infeasible,
or
unnecessarily
burdensome"
on
such
sources
or
that
exemptions
would
"
not
adversely
affect
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment,"
nor
did
we
receive
any
comments
in
55
opposition
to
our
proposal
not
to
exempt
secondary
lead
area
sources.
For
these
reasons,

the
final
rule
will
not
exempt
these
area
sources
from
title
V
requirements.
See
70
FR
15259.

Any
area
source
subject
to
the
secondary
lead
NESHAP
that
has
not
already
applied
for
a
title
V
permit
is
required
to
submit
a
title
V
permit
application
by
December
9,
2005,
as
provided
in
§
63.541(
c)
of
subpart
X.
Also,
as
provided
in
§
70.3(
c)(
2)
and
§

71.3(
c)(
2),
assuming
the
source
is
an
area
source
and
not
subject
to
title
V
for
another
reason,
the
permit
must
include
the
requirements
of
subpart
X
and
all
other
applicable
requirements
that
apply
to
emissions
units
affected
by
subpart
X,
while
any
units
not
subject
to
subpart
X
may
be
excluded
from
the
permit.
(
See
68
FR
57518,
October
3,

2003,
footnote
#
7
on
page
57534.)

VI.
May
Title
V
Permits
be
Issued
to
Exempt
Area
Sources?

In
the
proposal,
we
explained
and
sought
comment
on
our
proposed
interpretation
of
the
Act
as
allowing
only
those
area
sources
required
to
be
permitted
under
section
502(
a),
and
not
exempted
by
EPA
through
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
to
be
subject
to
title
V
requirements.
We
are
finalizing
that
interpretation
in
today's
final
rule.
Thus,

after
the
effective
date
of
today's
final
rule,
permitting
authorities,
including
State
and
local
agencies,
tribes,
and
EPA,
may
not
issue
title
V
permits,
including
general
permits,
to
area
sources
we
exempt
in
today's
final
rule.
This
interpretation
of
the
Act
means
that
permitting
authorities
must
stop
issuing
new
title
V
permits
to
area
sources
we
exempt
today,
unless
they
are
subject
to
title
V
for
another
reason
and
any
existing
title
V
permits
for
such
area
sources
must
be
revoked
or
terminated
after
the
effective
date
of
an
56
exemption.
The
exact
procedures
and
schedules
necessary
to
end
the
effectiveness
of
such
title
V
permits
will
vary
from
State
to
State.
The
EPA
believes
State
agencies
have
some
discretion
on
how
to
do
this,
as
long
as
it
is
done
consistent
with
title
V.
The
EPA
believes
that
State
issuance
of
title
V
permits
to
area
sources
that
EPA
has
exempted
from
title
V
permitting
requirements
would
conflict
with
Congress's
intent
that
EPA
define
the
universe
of
sources
subject
to
title
V,
and
through
inappropriate
focus
on
sources
that
qualify
for
an
exemption,
would
be
an
obstacle
to
implementation
of
the
title
V
program.

Even
if
the
statute
were
ambiguous
in
this
regard,
EPA
would
exercise
its
discretion
to
interpret
it
this
way
to
promote
effective
title
V
implementation.
The
proposal
included
a
discussion
of
these
issues,
and
in
the
final
rule,
EPA's
interpretation
of
the
Act
in
this
regard
is
unchanged
from
the
proposal.
See
section
VI
below
for
more
on
EPA's
interpretation
of
these
Act
provisions.
Note,
however,
that
EPA
interprets
Section
116
of
the
Act
to
allow
permitting
authorities
to
issue
non­
title
V
permits
to
area
sources
that
we
have
exempted
from
title
V
permitting.
Such
permits
may
include
preconstruction
permits,
FESOPS
or
other
State
operating
permits,
or
other
permits
not
issued
pursuant
to
an
approved
part
70
program.

VII.
May
General
Permits
be
Issued
as
an
Alternative
to
Title
V
Exemptions?

The
EPA
has
decided
not
to
adopt
the
alternative,
discussed
in
the
proposal,
of
allowing
permitting
authorities
to
issue
general
permits
to
these
area
sources.
The
proposal
discussed
general
permitting
as
a
streamlined
process
for
issuing
title
V
permits
to
a
large
number
of
similar
sources,
and
it
stated
that
these
area
sources
may
be
good
candidates
for
such
permits.
The
proposal
also
analyzed
the
factors
and
other
rationale
we
57
used
for
title
V
exemptions
against
the
requirements
for
general
permits,
and
we
stated
our
belief
that
potential
reductions
in
costs
and
burdens
from
requiring
general
permits
would
not
be
sufficient
to
alter
our
findings.
[
See
this
discussion
in
the
proposal
at
FR
15258­
15259.]
With
respect
to
the
first
factor,
the
proposal
said
that
general
and
standard
permits
are
subject
to
the
same
permit
content
requirements
under
§
§
70.6
and
71.6,
so
title
V
would
affect
units
to
which
the
NESHAP
applies
in
the
same
manner
for
general
permits,
as
for
standard
permits.
For
the
second
factor,
the
proposal
stated
that
general
permits
would
potentially
simplify
the
permit
application
process,
but
general
permits
would
require
area
sources
to
conduct
many
of
the
same
mandatory
activities
as
sources
with
standard
permits,
and
thus,
impose
many
of
the
same
title
V
burdens
and
costs
as
standard
permits.
[
See
the
list
of
source
activities
in
the
discussion
of
factor
two
in
the
proposal,
70
FR
15254.]
For
the
third
factor,
the
proposal
observed
that
general
permits
may
reduce
the
costs
of
applying
for
a
permit,
but
the
remaining
costs
to
meet
the
permit
requirements
will
continue
to
be
a
burden
for
these
area
sources.
This
is
so
because
general
permits
reduce
some
burdens,
but
other
significant
burdens
remain.
And,
we
explained
that
EPA's
outreach
in
recent
years
has
shown
that
most
State
agencies
generally
do
not
believe
that
implementing
NESHAP
for
area
sources
through
permits
will
result
in
increased
compliance,
and
that
this
would
be
true
for
general
permits,
as
with
standard
ones.
This
point
was
also
made
in
comments
submitted
by
State
and
local
agencies,
all
of
which
are
in
support
of
the
proposed
title
V
exemptions
for
the
five
categories
of
area
sources,
see
docket
items,
11,
16,
59,
61,
and
65.
For
the
fourth
factor
discussed
in
the
proposal,
we
said
the
permit
content
requirements
of
§
§
70.6
and
71.6
are
58
identical
for
general
and
standard
permits,
and
the
ability
of
State
agencies
to
ensure
NESHAP
compliance
outside
of
the
title
V
programs
will
apply
with
equal
force
for
general
permits.
Nevertheless,
we
offered
general
permitting
as
an
alternative
to
title
V
exemptions
in
the
proposal,
and
we
sought
comment
on
this
alternative.

Some
commenters
expressed
the
view
that
general
permitting
should
be
required
as
an
alternative
to
title
V
exemptions
because
they
believe
title
V
is
critical
for
compliance
with
the
NESHAP.
Today's
final
rule
does
not
require
general
permits
for
these
area
sources
as
an
alternative
to
exempting
them
for
several
reasons.
First,
through
factors
one
and
revised
factor
four,
which
we
use
to
examine
the
ability
of
title
V
permits
to
improve
compliance
over
that
required
by
the
NESHAP,
we
established
that
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
for
NESHAP
compliance
for
these
area
sources,
whether
they
have
a
general
or
standard
permit.
[
See
detailed
analysis
of
the
factors
one
and
four
in
sections
IV.
A,
VIII.
A,
and
VIII.
D.]
Second,
under
section
504(
d)
of
the
Act,
issuing
general
permits
to
sources
subject
to
title
V
is
an
option
for
State
and
local
agencies;
an
EPA
decision
not
to
exempt
these
sources
does
not
provide
a
means
of
ensuring
that
they
would
then
receive
general
permits.
Also,
because
general
permits
are
an
option,
State
and
local
permitting
authorities
would
not
be
required
to
issue
them
to
area
sources
that
request
them.
Because
of
this,
the
best
course
of
action
to
avoid
unnecessary
burdens
for
these
area
sources,
and
to
promote
a
focus
by
regulatory
agencies
on
the
type
of
oversight
we
believe
will
be
most
effective
in
achieving
compliance,
is
to
exempt
them
from
title
V
in
today's
final
rule.
See
section
VII
below
for
more
on
EPA's
decision
to
not
require
general
permits
for
these
area
sources.
59
VIII.
What
Are
EPA's
Responses
to
Significant
Comments?

This
section
of
today's
preamble
discusses
the
more
significant
comments
received
on
our
March
25,
2005
proposal
that
are
not
addressed
elsewhere
in
today's
preamble,

and
EPA's
responses
to
these
comments.
The
EPA's
response
to
all
comments
(
significant
comments
and
other
comments)
is
included
in
a
response
to
comment
document
which
is
in
the
docket
for
this
rulemaking.

A.
Is
EPA's
General
Approach
to
Exemptions
Consistent
with
the
Act?

Many
commenters
disagreed
with
the
proposed
title
V
exemptions
because
they
did
not
agree
that
the
four
factors
and
other
rationale
we
used
to
justify
the
exemptions
were
consistent
with
the
Act.
In
response,
the
four
factors
and
other
rationale
referred
to
in
the
proposal,
and
again
in
this
final
rule,
are
not
intended
to
replace
the
statutory
criteria
for
a
title
V
exemption,
but
instead
assist
EPA
in
evaluating
whether
the
statutory
criteria
are
satisfied.
Section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
gives
EPA
discretion
to
exempt
from
title
V
area
sources
subject
to
NESHAP,
if
permitting
them
would
be
"
impractical,
infeasible
or
unnecessarily
burdensome"
on
the
area
sources,
while
the
legislative
history
for
this
provision
suggests
the
EPA
should
also
consider
whether
an
exemption
would
"
adversely
affect
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment."
The
EPA
used
the
four
factors
to
analyze
whether
title
V
would
be
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
on
the
area
sources,

consistent
with
section
502(
a).
(
See
the
explanation
of
the
four
factors
and
other
rationale
of
the
proposal
at
70
FR
15253­
15255,
March
25,
2005.)

Factor
one
was
used
to
analyze
whether
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
for
NESHAP
compliance
by
examining
whether
title
V
would
add
substantial
compliance
requirements
60
over
those
already
required
by
the
NESHAP.
Factor
two
was
used
to
analyze
whether
title
V
will
impose
significant
burdens
on
area
sources
and
whether
these
burdens
will
be
aggravated
by
difficulties
area
sources
will
experience
in
obtaining
assistance
from
State
agencies.
Factor
three
was
used
to
analyze
whether
title
V
costs
are
justified
considering
potential
gains
in
compliance
from
title
V.
If
the
costs
of
title
V
are
high,
burdens
are
also
high
because
costs
are
burdens;
and
if
potential
compliance
gains
derived
from
title
V
are
low,
title
V
is
more
likely
to
be
considered
"
unnecessary"
for
NESHAP
compliance.

Factor
four
was
used
in
the
proposal
to
analyze
whether
adequate
oversight
by
State
agencies
could
achieve
high
compliance
with
NESHAP
without
title
V
permits.
If
high
compliance
with
NESHAP
can
be
achieved
without
title
V,
title
V
will
more
likely
be
considered
"
unnecessary"
for
NESHAP
compliance.
We
have
revised
factor
four
in
response
to
comments
received
on
the
proposal.
See
more
on
revised
factor
four
below.

In
addition
to
the
four
factors,
the
EPA
considered
whether
exempting
these
area
source
from
the
need
for
title
V
permits
could
cause
adverse
effects
on
public
health,

welfare,
or
the
environment,
at
least
on
a
temporary
basis,
or
whether
requiring
title
V
permitting
could
have
such
adverse
effects
because
of
shifts
in
the
resources
of
State
agencies
away
from
assuring
compliance
for
major
sources
with
existing
permits
to
issuing
new
permits
for
these
area
sources.
We
do
not
believe
that
exemptions
from
title
V
permitting
for
these
area
sources
will
have
adverse
effects
on
public
health,
welfare
or
the
environment.
First,
as
we
explained
in
section
IV
above,
through
our
analysis
of
factors
one
and/
or
four
for
each
of
the
five
categories
of
area
sources,
we
established
that
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
for
compliance
with
the
NESHAP,
for
each
category
of
area
source.
61
Second,
as
we
explained
in
the
proposal,
the
vast
majority
of
these
area
sources
are
typically
subject
to
no
more
than
one
NESHAP,
and
few
other
requirements
under
the
Act.
Also,
the
area
sources
are
simple
sources
with
few
emissions
units
and
the
NESHAP
are
relatively
simple
in
how
they
apply
to
these
area
sources.
Because
of
these
characteristics,
the
likelihood
that
multiple
NESHAP
apply
to
the
same
area
source
is
low,

and
thus
the
need
for
a
title
V
permit
to
clarify
multiple
or
overlapping
NESHAP
is
also
low.
(
See
docket
item
08
for
State
input
on
the
likelihood
that
multiple
requirements
will
apply
and
the
relative
simplicity
of
these
sources.)
Also,
see
EPA
response
to
comments
on
whether
title
V
permit
are
needed
to
define
monitoring
for
electroplaters,
section
VIII.
G,
and
EPA
response
to
comment
on
whether
degreasers
should
be
exempted
when
there
are
multiple
applicable
requirement
that
apply
to
them,
section
VIII.
H.
In
sum,
EPA
believes
that
the
factors
and
additional
rationale
that
it
has
considered
in
evaluating
whether
title
V
exemptions
should
be
issued
for
the
area
sources
covered
by
today's
rule
appropriately
probe
whether
title
V
is
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
for
the
area
sources,

and
whether
an
exemption
could
cause
adverse
effects
on
public
health,
welfare
or
the
environment.

Several
commenters
were
concerned
that
title
V
exemptions
for
these
area
sources
would
result
in
the
loss
of
certain
title
V
benefits
with
respect
to
State
implementation
plan
(
SIP)
requirements,
and
that
this
would
result
in
adverse
affects
on
public
health,

welfare,
and
the
environment.
We
disagree
with
this
comment
because
we
do
not
believe
title
V
exemptions
for
these
area
sources
will
have
the
effects
suggested
by
the
commenter
to
any
significant
extent
for
the
reasons
explained
below.
62
First,
the
majority
of
area
sources
we
exempt
today
(
all
of
the
dry
cleaners
and
many
solvent
degreasers),
emit
HAP
that
are
not
a
criteria
pollutant
subject
to
regulation
under
a
SIP,
so
such
adverse
effects
for
SIP
requirements
could
not
occur
for
these
sources.
This
is
the
case
because
§
51.100(
s),
which
defines
VOC
for
purposes
of
SIP,

specifically
excludes
perchloroethylene
(
also
known
as
tetrachloroethylene),
methylene
chloride
(
dichloromethane),
and
1,1,1­
trichloroethane
(
methyl
chloroform)
from
the
definition
of
VOC.
Because
the
only
HAP
regulated
by
subpart
M
is
perchloroethylene,

all
area
source
dry
cleaners
regulated
under
the
NESHAP
(
estimated
at
up
to
28,000
area
sources)
do
not
emit
VOC.
Also,
many
degreasers
subject
to
subpart
T
use
perchloroethylene,
methylene
chloride,
or
1,1,1,­
trichloroethane
(
including
any
combination
of
these),
and
if
they
emit
no
other
HAP
that
are
VOC,
then
they
also
would
not
be
subject
to
SIP
requirements
for
VOC.
We
estimate
that
there
are
up
to
3,800
area
source
degreasers
subject
to
the
NESHAP,
but
we
have
no
estimate
of
how
many
of
these
solely
emit
HAP
that
is
not
VOC.
Also,
EPA
has
focused
on
VOC
in
this
discussion
because
we
are
unaware
of
any
other
criteria
pollutant
definitions
that
would
be
met
by
these
three
HAP.

Second,
title
V
permits
for
area
sources
are
limited
in
scope
by
§
§
70.3(
c)(
2)
and
71.3(
c)(
2),
which
only
require
the
emission
units
that
cause
the
source
to
be
subject
to
title
V
(
in
this
case
the
units
subject
to
NESHAP)
to
be
included
in
the
permit.
Under
these
regulations,
if
SIP
requirements
apply
to
an
emissions
unit,
and
NESHAP
does
not,

the
unit
is
not
required
to
be
included
in
the
area
source
permit.
For
example,
for
a
dry
cleaner,
the
permit
would
only
address
dry
cleaning
equipment,
not
other
emissions
units
63
that
may
be
collocated
at
the
area
source,
such
as
comfort
heating
systems
subject
only
to
SIP
requirements.
This
is
quite
different
than
for
major
sources
because
§
§
70.3(
c)(
1)
and
71.3(
c)(
1)
requires
major
source
permits
to
include
all
emissions
units
at
the
source,
even
those
that
would
not
be
subject
to
NESHAP.
Thus,
the
extent
that
title
V
exemptions
for
area
sources
would
result
in
loss
of
compliance
benefits
for
SIP
requirements
is
quite
limited
by
the
permit
content
requirements
for
area
sources,
as
compared
to
major
sources.

Third,
in
our
experience
the
NESHAP
are
more
stringent
than
typical
SIP
requirements
that
would
apply
to
these
area
sources.
Because
of
this,
if
a
SIP
and
NESHAP
apply
to
the
same
unit,
any
deficiencies
in
the
SIP
requirements
are
likely
to
be
corrected
by
the
more
stringent
NESHAP
requirements,
without
the
need
for
title
V
permits.
Also,
these
NESHAP
compliance
requirements
are
consistent
with
the
Act,
such
that
title
V
permits
are
not
needed
to
improve
the
compliance
requirements
of
NESHAP
(
this
is
described
in
more
detail
in
section
VIII.
B
below).

The
commenter
submitted
no
specific
examples
where
emission
units
subject
to
NESHAP
are
also
subject
to
SIP
requirements,
but
two
scenarios
may
be
helpful
in
analyzing
their
claims,
which
we
believe
are
without
merit.
Both
examples
involve
the
socalled
"
generic
applicable
requirements"
that
we
believe
would
most
commonly
apply
to
these
area
sources.
These
are
relatively
simple
requirements
that
apply
identically
to
all
emissions
units
at
a
facility.
Also,
both
are
examples
where
the
HAP
meets
the
definition
of
VOC
under
§
51.100(
s)
and
potentially
is
subject
to
regulation
under
a
SIP
(
although
we
are
not
sure
all
SIPs
regulate
such
units).
The
first
scenario
is
where
a
HAP,
such
as
64
6Note
that
these
are
the
same
emissions
under
different
definitions,
so
if
you
control
one,
you
control
the
other.

7The
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP
only
regulates
dioxin/
furan
emissions
for
a
limited
set
of
emission
units
for
area
sources,
while
additional
HAP
are
regulated
at
additional
emission
units
for
major
sources.
[
See
§
63.1500(
c).]
carbon
tetrachloride,
is
regulated
by
the
degreaser
NESHAP,
and
it
is
also
VOC
regulated
under
the
SIP
by
a
pound
per
hour
limit.
6
The
second
is
where
a
HAP,
such
as
dioxin/
furan,
is
regulated
by
the
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP,
7
and
it
is
also
PM
regulated
under
the
SIP
by
a
process
weight
limit.
In
both
cases,
EPA
believes
the
NESHAP
will
be
far
more
stringent
than
the
SIP
requirements
in
terms
of
emission
controls
and
compliance
requirements.
Because
of
this,
the
NESHAP
requirements
will
ensure
that
the
area
source
also
meets
the
SIP
requirements,
and
the
compliance
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
will
be
consistent
with
the
compliance
requirements
of
the
Act,
including
title
V.
In
addition,
EPA
has
previously
advised
States
that
"
generic"

requirements
of
the
SIP
(
described
above),
that
are
less
stringent
than
other
applicable
requirements
addressing
the
same
units
and
pollutants
may
be
omitted
from
title
V
permits,
provided
that
the
resulting
"
streamlined"
terms
and
conditions
achieve
compliance
with
all
the
applicable
requirements.
[
See
discussion
of
treatment
of
"
generic"

requirements
in
White
Paper
Number
2
for
Improved
Implementation
of
the
Part
790
Operating
Permits
Program,
March
6,
1996,
docket
item
100;
and
discussion
of
factor
one
in
section
IV.
A
of
this
preamble.]

In
addition,
we
explained
in
the
proposal
that
requiring
permitting
of
area
sources
will
likely
cause,
at
least
in
the
first
few
years
of
implementation,
permitting
authorities
to
65
shift
resources
away
from
assuring
compliance
for
major
sources
with
existing
permits,
to
issuing
new
permits
for
area
sources.
This
has
the
potential,
at
least
temporarily,
to
reduce
the
overall
effectiveness
of
States'
title
V
permit
programs,
which
could
potentially
adversely
affect
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment.
See
docket
item
08,
where
State
officials
explain
that
permitting
all
the
area
sources
proposed
for
exemption
would
triple
the
number
of
title
V
permits
issued
in
the
State,
and
that
it
would
be
difficult
for
them
to
obtain
approval
to
obtain
additional
full­
time
employees.
Although
State
title
V
programs
are
required
to
have
authority
to
raise
title
V
fees
as
necessary
to
cover
the
costs
of
the
program,
in
most
States
the
program
must
seek
budget
and
fee
increases
through
the
State
legislature
as
part
of
the
State
budget
process,
which
can
lead
to
significant
delays
in
getting
approval
to
increase
fees
or
resources
to
meet
new
demands.

Also,
see
EPA
response
to
comments
on
the
legislative
history
guidance
that
title
V
exemptions
for
area
sources
should
not
cause
adverse
effects
on
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment,
in
section
VIII.
E
below.

One
commenter
said
we
should
have
discussed
all
four
factors
for
each
category
of
area
sources,
suggesting
that
we
ignored
factors
that
did
not
support
the
proposed
title
V
exemptions
for
each
category
of
area
sources.
In
response,
we
did
not
discuss
all
four
factors
for
each
category
of
area
sources
in
the
proposal
because
we
thought
those
factors
we
identified
as
present
supported
a
finding
that
title
V
was
"
unnecessarily
burdensome,"

regardless
of
any
determinations
that
could
be
made
regarding
factors
not
analyzed.

Nevertheless,
in
response
to
this
comment,
and
to
provide
a
full
discussion
of
all
issues
potentially
relevant
to
this
rulemaking,
we
discuss
the
four
factors
for
each
category
of
66
area
sources
elsewhere
in
the
preamble
for
today's
final
rule.

B.
Does
the
First
Factor
Acknowledge
Key
Title
V
Requirements?

One
commenter
thought
the
first
factor,
whether
title
V
adds
significant
compliance
requirements
beyond
those
required
by
a
NESHAP,
was
not
appropriate
for
analyzing
the
exemption
criterion
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
because
it
fails
to
acknowledge
key
title
V
requirements
that
would
be
lost
under
a
title
V
exemption,

directly
at
odds
with
sections
504(
a)
and
504(
c)
of
Act.

In
response,
we
believe
the
proposal's
discussion
of
factor
one
was
adequate
because
it
focused
on
the
key
compliance
requirements
of
title
V
that
are
most
likely
to
add
significant
compliance
benefits
for
area
sources
subject
to
NESHAP.
We
explained
that
title
V
imposes
a
number
of
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
for
compliance.
We
focused
our
review
on
the
requirements
for
monitoring,
and
the
recordkeeping/
reporting
requirements
for
prompt
reports
of
deviations
from
permit
requirements
(
deviation
reports)
and
for
reports
of
required
monitoring
every
six
months
(
six­
month
monitoring
reports)
under
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii),
and
the
requirement
for
an
annual
compliance
certification
by
a
responsible
official
under
§
§

70.6(
c)(
5)
and
71.6(
c)(
5).
Nevertheless,
to
provide
a
more
complete
response
to
the
comment
in
the
final
rule,
we
describe
below
several
other
compliance
aspects
of
title
V
that
we
were
silent
on
in
the
proposal,
including
the
requirements
of
section
504(
a)
for
the
permit
to
include
"
a
schedule
of
compliance,"
and
"
such
other
conditions
as
necessary
to
assure
compliance
with
applicable
requirements
of
the
Act,
including
the
requirements
of
the
applicable
implementation
plan
[
e.
g.,
SIP],"
and
the
requirement
of
section
504(
c)
for
67
permits
to
contain
"
inspection"
and
"
entry
.
.
.
requirements
to
assure
compliance
with
the
permit
terms
and
conditions."

Concerning
the
requirement
of
section
504(
a)
for
schedules
of
compliance,
there
is
independent
authority
for
establishing
schedules
of
compliance
to
bring
noncompliant
sources
back
into
compliance
under
the
general
enforcement
authority
of
section
113
of
the
Act,
which
applies
to
these
NESHAP.
Also,
the
approval
criteria
for
delegation
requests
for
NESHAP
requires
the
Attorney
General's
written
finding
to
say
that
the
delegate
agency
has
enforcement
authorities
that
meet
the
requirements
of
§
70.11,
which
requires
them
to
have
authority
to
obtain
an
order,
pursue
a
suit
in
court,
or
seek
injunctive
relief
for
violations,
and
this
may
result
in
a
schedule
of
compliance,
where
appropriate,
equivalent
to
any
that
may
be
obtained
through
title
V.
Thus,
a
title
V
permit
is
not
necessary
to
establish
a
schedule
of
compliance
for
any
of
the
area
sources
we
exempt
today,
in
the
event
of
noncompliance
with
these
NESHAP.

Concerning
the
requirement
of
section
504(
a)
that
permits
contain
"
enforceable
emission
limitations
and
standards,"
the
five
NESHAP
addressed
in
today's
final
rule
establish
such
emission
limitations
and
standards,
and
they
are
independently
enforceable
outside
of
title
V
permits.
Also,
title
V
does
not
contain
authority
for
creating
new
emission
limitations
and
standards
under
section
112
in
title
V
permits,
so
no
such
emission
limitations
or
standards
would
be
lost
through
title
V
exemptions
for
these
area
sources.

Concerning
the
requirement
of
section
504(
a)
that
permits
include
conditions
to
assure
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
the
applicable
implementation
plan
(
the
SIP,
68
for
example),
we
described
in
section
VIII.
A
above
why
exempting
these
area
sources
from
title
V
would
not
significantly
affect
compliance
with
SIP
requirements
that
may
also
apply
to
such
area
sources.
Also,
we
add
that
these
SIP
requirements
are
independently
enforceable
under
the
authority
of
section
110
of
the
Act,
so
their
implementation
and
enforcement
does
not
depend
on
title
V.

Concerning
the
requirements
of
section
504(
c)
for
permits
to
contain
inspection
and
entry
requirements,
when
EPA
is
responsible
for
implementation
and
enforcement
of
the
NESHAP
such
requirements
would
be
met
under
the
authority
granted
EPA
by
section
114
of
the
Act.
State
and
local
agencies
or
tribes
are
required
to
have
such
authority
as
a
condition
of
approval
for
any
delegation
request
they
make,
consistent
with
section
112(
l)

of
the
Act.
For
example,
agencies
requesting
delegation
of
NESHAP
are
required
to
submit,
as
part
of
their
delegation
request,
a
written
finding
by
the
State
Attorney
General
(
or
General
Counsel
for
local
agencies
and
tribes)
that
they
have
legal
authority
"
to
request
information
from
regulated
sources
regarding
their
compliance
status,"
under
§

63.91(
d)(
3)(
i)(
B),
and
"
to
inspect
sources
and
any
records
required
to
determine
a
source's
compliance
status,"
under
§
63.91(
d)(
3)(
i)(
C).
In
addition,
as
part
of
their
delegation
requests,
agencies
are
required
to
submit
a
plan
that
"
assures
expeditious
compliance
by
all
sources,"
including
a
description
of
"
inspection
strategies."

Also
related
to
the
comment
and
response
above,
several
commenters
said
our
analysis
of
factor
one
in
the
proposal
was
inadequate
because
we
relied
on
an
illegal
interpretation
of
the
Act's
monitoring
requirements
through
our
reliance
on
the
"
umbrella
monitoring"
rule
of
January
22,
2004.
These
commenters
argue
that
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
69
71.6(
c)(
1)
impose
an
additional
case­
by­
case
monitoring
review
called
"
sufficiency
monitoring,"
that
is
independent
from
the
requirement
for
"
periodic
monitoring"
under
§
§

70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B).
Also,
they
believe
that
if
EPA
conducted
such
a
review,
the
result
would
be
a
determination
that
the
compliance
requirements
of
title
V
and
the
NESHAP
are
not
substantially
equivalent.

We
disagree
with
this
comment.
As
described
more
fully
in
section
IV.
A,
even
if
"
sufficiency
monitoring"
were
required,
additional
monitoring
requirements
would
not
be
imposed
in
title
V
permits
for
the
area
sources
addressed
by
today's
rule,
because
the
NESHAP
for
them
were
all
promulgated
after
the
1990
Clean
Air
Act
amendments,
and
therefore
contain
all
monitoring
necessary
to
meet
current
requirements
under
the
Act.
In
finalizing
each
of
the
NESHAP
under
part
63,
EPA
solicited
and
responded
to
comments
on
the
adequacy
of
the
monitoring,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
provisions
required
by
the
NESHAP.
Any
opportunity
to
challenge
the
compliance
requirements
imposed
through
the
five
NESHAP
has
passed,
and
this
rulemaking
does
not
create
new
grounds
for
such
challenges.

C.
Does
this
Rulemaking
Adequately
Address
Title
V
Costs?

Several
commenters
thought
the
costs
of
title
V
permitting
for
these
area
sources
described
in
the
proposal,
relevant
to
factors
two
and
three,
were
inflated
and
not
representative,
and
instead,
that
the
true
costs
of
title
V
permitting
for
them
would
be
much
lower
and
not
significant
for
them.
Also,
these
commenters
stated
that
the
costs
for
title
V
for
area
sources
would
be
a
fraction
of
the
costs
for
major
sources
because
area
sources
have
fewer
emissions
units,
their
operations
are
less
complex,
and
they
are
simpler
70
to
permit.

In
the
discussion
of
factor
two
in
section
IV.
A
above,
we
described
the
information
we
used
for
the
proposal,
including
economic
information
on
the
five
industry
groups
(
docket
item
04)
and
information
on
title
V
burdens
and
costs
from
the
ICRs
for
part
70
and
71
(
docket
items
80
and
81),
to
evaluate
the
impact
of
title
V
on
these
categories
of
area
sources,
including
limitations
on
this
information,
and
the
assumptions
we
made
for
them
concerning
title
V
burdens
and
costs.
Also,
in
the
proposal,
we
acknowledged
that
these
sources
would
generally
have
fewer
emissions
units,
that
their
operations
are
less
complex,
and
they
would
be
simpler
to
permit,
and
we
took
these
facts
into
consideration
in
our
analyses.
During
the
public
comment
period,
no
one
submitted
any
information
related
to
the
area
source
categories
to
substantiate
their
claims
that
title
V
burdens
and
costs
would
not
be
significant
for
these
area
sources.
Our
review
of
comments
and
further
consideration
of
these
issues
has
not
led
us
to
a
contrary
view
from
the
proposal.
Thus,
we
find
that
factor
two
supports
title
V
exemptions
for
the
categories
of
area
sources
addressed
in
today's
final
rule.

Also
relevant
to
factor
two
and
three
in
the
proposal,
one
commenter
said
that
the
EPA
ignored
Clean
Air
Act
provisions
designed
to
limit
title
V
costs
for
small
sources,

while
another
commenter
said
States
agencies
are
expected
to
have
resources
to
meet
this
workload
and
fees
to
offset
costs.
Section
502(
b)(
3)(
A)
of
the
Act
requires
title
V
sources
to
pay
annual
fees,
while
section
507(
f)
of
the
Act,
concerning
SBAP,
provides
that
the
permitting
authority
may
reduce
any
fee
required
under
this
Act
to
take
into
account
the
financial
resources
of
small
business
stationary
sources.
In
response,
title
V
71
fees
vary
greatly
from
State
to
State,
but
because
area
sources
have
small
emissions
by
definition
and
most
State
agencies
charge
emissions­
based
fees
(
on
a
per
ton
basis),
fees
would
not
comprise
a
substantial
portion
of
the
overall
costs
and
burdens
for
these
area
sources.
As
the
EPA
explained
in
the
proposal,
there
are
many
other
burdens
and
costs
of
title
V,
unrelated
to
fees,
such
that
whether
fees
are
reduced
or
not,
significant
burdens
and
cost
of
title
V
would
remain
for
these
area
sources.
Section
502(
b)(
3)(
A)
of
the
Act
requires
fees
to
be
charged
that
are
sufficient
to
cover
all
reasonable
(
direct
and
indirect)

costs
required
to
develop
and
administer
the
title
V
program.
However,
there
are
practical
limitations
on
the
ability
of
State
agencies,
tribes,
and
EPA
to
increase
fees
and
provide
additional
resources
for
title
V
implementation,
especially
in
a
relatively
short
period
of
time.
In
many
States,
fee
increases
must
typically
be
approved
by
the
State
legislature
within
the
State
budget
process,
and
this
may
lead
to
significant
delays
in
implementing
new
fee
schedules
to
meet
new
demands.
This
limitation
could
lead
to
significant,
albeit
temporary,
impairment
of
the
title
V
programs
for
major
sources,
given
the
large
workload
a
requirement
to
permit
these
area
sources
would
impose
on
State
agencies.
For
example,
if
all
these
area
sources
were
required
to
be
permitted,
up
to
38,000
title
V
permit
applications
would
be
due
by
December
9,
2005,
and
title
V
permits
for
these
sources
would
have
to
be
issued
or
denied
within
18
months
of
receipt
of
the
applications,
as
required
by
section
503(
a)
and
503(
c)
of
the
Act.

Also
relevant
to
factor
two,
one
commenter
pointed
out
that
difficulties
in
obtaining
compliance
assistance
from
State
agencies
will
be
temporary.
In
response,
EPA
notes
that
even
though
such
difficulties
may
be
temporary,
they
would
come
at
a
critical
72
time
for
sources
and
permitting
authorities.
For
example,
immediately
upon
becoming
subject
to
title
V,
an
area
source
which
does
not
typically
have
employees
trained
in
such
matters,
would
need
to
quickly
become
familiar
with
the
critical
and
pressing
step
of
completing
and
submitting
a
permit
application,
required
under
§
70.5
and
§
71.5.
Since
such
applications
are
provided
by
individual
permitting
agencies,
access
to
the
agency
to
obtain
assistance
and
guidance
on
completing
the
forms
will
be
essential
for
area
sources
in
order
for
them
to
complete
and
submit
them
by
the
mandatory
deadline,
currently
December
9,
2005,
in
most
jurisdictions.
See
64
FR
69637,
December
14,
1999,
(
setting
the
deadline
of
December
9,
2004
for
deferrals
to
end).
In
addition,
before
applications
are
distributed
to
area
sources,
certain
agencies
may
need
to
translate
forms
and
other
information
into
foreign
languages,
which
in
the
EPA's
experience,
is
often
needed
for
small
businesses,
such
as
dry
cleaners,
in
large
urban
communities,
but
not
typically
necessary
for
major
sources.
[
For
example,
see
a
fact
sheet
developed
for
dry
cleaners
in
Vietnamese,
docket
item
96
and
the
equivalent
form
in
English,
docket
item
97.]

Another
commenter
thinks
the
title
V
costs
would
not
be
significant
for
area
sources
because
they
would
merely
be
passed
on
to
consumers.
In
response,
no
economic
data
for
these
categories
of
area
sources
were
submitted
by
the
commenter
or
otherwise
available
to
the
EPA
to
support
this
point,
and
any
such
assertion
is
entirely
speculative.

Costs
cannot
necessarily
be
passed
on
to
consumers
in
highly
competitive
industries,
or
where
there
are
highly
price­
responsive
consumers.
EPA
believes
that
these
situations
may
exist
for
these
sources,
and
that
passing
prices
on
to
consumers
may,
therefore,
not
be
feasible
for
them.
The
commenter
provided
no
information
on
competition
in
these
73
industries,
or
on
price­
responsiveness
of
their
consumers
to
support
his
assertions.

D.
What
is
our
Analysis
of
Factor
Four
for
the
Final
Rule?

Commenters
opposed
to
the
EPA's
reliance
on
the
fourth
factor
in
the
proposal,

whether
adequate
oversight
could
achieve
high
compliance
with
the
NESHAP
without
title
V,
cited
perceived
flaws
in
the
State
survey
(
docket
item
02),
including
that
it
does
not
contain
representative
data,
that
it
has
missing
data,
and
that
this
missing
data
means
that
existing
compliance
with
the
NESHAP
is
not
high.
The
proposal
explained
that
information
in
the
docket,
including
the
State
survey,
shows
that
many
permitting
authorities
have
alternative
compliance
oversight
programs
that
result
in
high
NESHAP
compliance
without
title
V.
During
the
public
comment
period,
the
EPA
received
comments
from
State
and
local
agencies
confirming
this
point.
[
See
docket
items
11,
16,

59,
61,
and
65].
The
EPA
undertook
the
survey
to
collect
information
we
thought
would
be
relevant
in
our
consideration
of
possible
title
V
exemptions,
and
we
believe
State
and
local
agencies
made
reasonable
efforts
to
complete
it.
There
is
no
definition
for
"
high"

compliance
in
the
Act
or
EPA
regulations,
nor
did
the
EPA
suggest
one
to
State
agencies.

States
are
primarily
responsible
for
enforcement
of
the
vast
majority
of
Act
requirements,

including
NESHAP,
through
delegation
of
EPA
responsibilities,
approved
State
programs,

the
SIP
process,
and
other
mechanisms,
and
we
give
considerable
weight
to
their
judgement
on
questions
concerning
the
compliance
status
of
sources.
Moreover,
even
without
such
input
from
States,
the
EPA
would
have
reached
the
same
conclusion
regarding
high
compliance
absent
title
V
because
NESHAP
are
based
on
section
112
of
the
Act,
which
imposes
stringent
compliance
requirements,
independent
of
title
V,
and
74
because
States
and
EPA
have
adequate
authority
and
actual
implementation
and
enforcement
programs
in
place
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
NESHAP,

independent
of
title
V.

Also
concerning
factor
four
of
the
proposal,
one
commenter
said
they
believe
Congressional
intent
was
that
these
exemptions
would
only
apply
when
a
reasonable
alternative
to
title
V
permitting
is
actually
in
place
and
achieving
results,
specifically
citing
the
1990
legislative
history
that
the
EPA
"
is
authorized
to
exempt
sources
from
the
new
permit
program
if
the
exemption
would
be
consistent
with
the
Act's
purposes.
For
example,
the
EPA
may
exempt
certain
small
but
numerous
sources
from
the
requirement
to
obtain
a
permit
if
a
reasonable
alternative
is
developed."
S.
Rep.
No.
101­
228,
at
349
(
1990).
In
response,
the
plain
wording
of
the
Senate
Report
is
that
it
is
an
"
example"
of
a
justification
for
a
title
V
exemption.
Title
V
does
not
require
EPA
to
develop
such
alternative
programs
as
a
prerequisite
to
granting
exemptions.
In
any
event,
as
described
below,
we
believe
there
is
existing
authority
in
the
Act
and
actual
implementation
and
enforcement
programs
in
place,
as
required
under
section
112,
that
are
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
these
NESHAP,
and
thus,
high
compliance
can
be
achieved
with
the
NESHAP
without
title
V
in
all
jurisdictions
where
such
sources
may
reside
in
the
nation.

First.
Statutory
programs
of
implementation
and
enforcement
of
NESHAP
are
conducted
by
EPA
under
the
authority
of
sections
112,
113,
and
114
of
the
Act,
while
State
and
local
agencies
or
tribes
may
be
granted
delegation
of
this
responsibility
under
section
112(
l)
of
the
Act
(
implemented
through
subpart
E
of
part
63).
The
EPA
has
primary
responsibility
for
implementation
and
enforcement
of
all
NESHAP
under
section
75
112
of
the
Act
in
all
parts
of
the
nation.
Section
112(
l)
allows
EPA
to
delegate
to
State
or
local
agencies
or
tribes
certain
of
its
implementation
and
enforcement
duties
for
NESHAP,

based
on
a
State
request
to
do
so,
and
satisfaction
of
certain
criteria.
There
are
several
types
of
delegations,
including
"
straight
delegation,"
which
is
adoption
of
the
NESHAP
without
change,
or
the
delegate
agency
may
establish
a
program
or
rules
to
operate
in
place
of
the
NESHAP
(
a
program),
provided
the
program
is
"
no
less
stringent"
than
the
NESHAP,
and
the
delegate
agency
has
adequate
authority
and
resources
to
implement
and
enforce
the
delegated
NESHAP
(
under
all
delegation
options).
Section
63.91(
d)
defines
criteria
that
State
and
local
agencies
or
tribes
are
required
to
meet
prior
to
approval
of
requests
for
any
type
of
NESHAP
delegation,
including
that
the
request
contain:
(
1)

written
findings
from
the
Attorney
General
(
or
General
Counsel
for
local
agencies
and
tribes)
that
they
have
certain
legal
authorities
concerning
enforcement
and
compliance,
(
2)

a
copy
of
the
State
statutes,
regulations,
and
requirements
that
grant
authority
for
them
to
implement
and
enforce
the
NESHAP,
(
3)
a
demonstration
that
they
have
adequate
resources
to
implement
and
enforce
all
aspects
of
their
NESHAP
program,
except
for
authorities
retained
by
EPA,
and
(
4)
a
plan
that
assures
expeditious
compliance
by
all
sources
subject
to
the
program.
Also,
depending
on
the
type
of
delegation
requested,
§
§

63.92
through
63.95,
and
§
623.97
specify
additional
approval
criteria.
[
Also,
see
section
112(
l)(
5),
and
the
final
rule
for
subpart
E,
58
FR
62262,
November
26,
1993,
amended
by
65
FR
55810,
September
14,
2000].
In
addition,
under
section
112(
l)(
6)
EPA
has
authority
to
withdraw
its
approval
of
a
delegation,
or
approval
of
an
equivalent
program
or
rule,
if
the
delegate
agency
is
not
adequately
implementing
or
enforcing
the
NESHAP;
76
and
under
section
112(
l)(
7)
EPA
may
enforce
any
NESHAP,
including
those
it
has
delegated.
Thus,
even
if
a
State
does
not
have
adequate
authority
to
implement
and
enforce
any
NESHAP
in
their
jurisdiction,
EPA
does
have
such
authority,
consequently,

there
can
be
no
gap
in
implementation
and
enforcement
for
NESHAP
that
apply
to
area
sources
in
any
jurisdiction.
[
For
example,
see
EPA's
final
rule
approving
the
request
of
Indiana
for
delegation
of
all
NESHAP
for
all
sources
not
covered
by
the
State's
part
70
program,
62
FR
36460,
July
8,
1997,
docket
item
98.]

Second.
The
EPA
has
general
authority
for
enforcement
of
NESHAP
under
section
113,
including
authority
to
(
1)
issue
an
order
requiring
compliance
or
assessing
an
administrative
penalty;
(
2)
bring
a
civil
action
seeking
to
enjoin
violations
or
the
assessment
of
penalties;
or
(
3)
bring
a
criminal
action
to
punish
knowing
violations.

Section
114
allows
the
EPA
to
determine
if
violations
have
occurred
through
inspection,

auditing,
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
reporting,
and
entry
onto
premises.

Third.
All
States
have
established
non­
title
V
permitting
programs,
which
may
include
operating
and
preconstruction
permitting
programs
for
minor
sources,
under
section
110(
a)(
2)(
C)
of
the
Act.
However,
the
EPA
notes
that
several
States
have
reported
that
their
non­
title
V
permits
do
not
currently
include
NESHAP,
so
such
permits
would
not
always
be
immediately
available
for
this
purpose.
Although
some
State
agencies
have
established
permitting
programs
under
State
law
that
include
NESHAP
for
area
sources,
some
have
not,
either
because
they
do
not
have
explicit
State
authority,
or
they
have
State
authority,
but
they
have
chosen
to
not
implement
such
a
program
so
far.

See
the
State
survey
(
docket
item
02),
where
States
noted
that
they
issue
non­
title
V
77
8
For
more
on
the
use
of
matching
grants,
see
a
August
4,
1993
memorandum
from
John
S.
Seitz,
Director,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
U.
S.
EPA,
"
Reissuance
of
Guidance
on
Agency
Review
of
State
Fee
Schedules
for
Operating
Permit
Programs
under
Title
V,"
and
a
July
21.
1994
memorandum
from
Mary
D
Nichols,
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation,
U.
S.
EPA,
"
Transition
to
Funding
Portions
of
State
and
Local
Air
Programs
with
Permit
Fees
Rather
than
Federal
Grants."
permits
for
certain
of
these
area
sources.

Fourth.
All
States
and
EPA
are
required
to
establish
a
small
business
assistance
program
(
SBAP)
under
section
507
of
the
Act.
These
programs
are
required
to
assist
small
business
with
technical
and
environmental
compliance
assistance,
and
they
are
not
limited
to
title
V
sources.
Any
activities
for
non­
title
V
sources
conducted
by
a
SBAP
may
be
funded
by
non­
title
V
fees
at
State
option,
and
EPA
matching
grants
under
section
105
of
the
Act
may
also
be
used
for
this
purpose.
8
State
SBAP
programs
are
required
by
section
507
to
provide
information
on
compliance
methods,
to
have
a
small
business
ombudsman,
to
provide
assistance
in
determining
applicable
requirements
and
permitting
requirements
under
the
Act,
and
to
refer
sources
to
compliance
auditors,
or
at
State
option,
provide
auditors
for
small
sources.
[
For
example,
see
docket
item
91,
a
fact
sheet
concerning
an
SBAP
implemented
by
a
local
air
pollution
control
district.]

Finally.
States
may
have
voluntary
compliance
assistance
programs
in
place
for
NESHAP
requirements,
such
as
the
environmental
results
programs
(
ERP)
or
other
similar
programs.
The
EPA
has
encouraged
States
to
adopt
voluntary
programs
in
the
past,
and
the
ERP,
in
particular,
has
been
successful
in
assisting
small
sources
with
compliance
in
fourteen
States
across
nine
business­
dominated
sectors,
including
dry
cleaners
in
Massachusetts
and
Michigan.
See
70
FR
15260.
In
addition
to
the
State
78
survey,
which
includes
information
concerning
State
permitting
programs,
inspection,
and
compliance
assistance
programs,
several
permitting
agencies
submitted
comments
to
describe
their
alternative
programs
for
non­
title
V
sources
in
additional
detail.
[
See
State
and
local
comments,
docket
items
11,
16,
59,
61,
and
65.]
Importantly,
no
comments
were
received
from
State
agencies
saying
that
they
would
not
be
able
to
ensure
compliance
for
these
area
sources
if
we
promulgate
title
V
exemptions
for
them.

E.
Are
these
Exemptions
Consistent
with
the
Legislative
History
of
The
Act?

Several
commenters
expressed
concern
that
exemptions
from
title
V
would
adversely
affect
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment
by
weakening
air
quality
standards,
increasing
HAP
emissions,
and
by
increasing
morbidity
in
human
populations,

and
that
this
would
be
inconsistent
with
the
legislative
history
of
section
502(
a).

In
response,
section
112
of
the
Act,
which
authorizes
NESHAP,
is
the
primary
vehicle
under
the
Act
for
HAP
reduction,
not
title
V.
See
sections
112(
b)(
2),
112(
c)(
3),

112(
d),
112(
f),
and
112(
k)
of
the
Act.
For
an
overview
of
the
EPA's
national
effort
to
regulate
air
toxics
under
section
112,
see
a
July
19,
1999
notice
(
64
FR
38705),
which
includes
a
description
of
the
EPA's
integrated
urban
air
toxics
strategy,
a
strategy
to
address
public
health
risks
posed
by
air
toxics
from
the
large
number
of
smaller
area
sources
in
urban
areas.
Today's
rulemaking
is
not
exempting
any
area
sources
from
any
section
112
requirements,
such
as
those
described
in
the
July
19
notice,
and
section
112
gives
the
EPA,
or
its
delegate
agency,
responsibility
to
implement
and
enforce
section
112
standards,
independent
of
title
V.
Thus,
consistent
with
the
legislative
history
and
the
EPA's
analysis
for
each
category
of
area
sources
addressed
in
this
rulemaking,
title
V
79
exemptions
for
these
particular
area
sources
will
not
thwart
or
in
any
way
interfere
with
the
implementation
and
enforcement
of
section
112
of
the
Act,
and
today's
action
should
not
adversely
affect
public
health.

The
EPA
does
not
believe
HAP
increases
will
occur
from
title
V
exemptions
for
these
area
sources.
The
Act
does
not
require
emission
reductions
through
title
V
permits.

As
we
explained
in
the
proposal
(
70
FR
15255),
the
EPA's
outreach
in
recent
years
has
shown
that
several
State
agencies
believe,
in
their
experience,
implementing
emissions
standards
for
area
sources
through
permits
did
not
result
in
increased
compliance
with
the
emissions
standards.
EPA
has
evaluated
the
extent
to
which
title
V
could
improve
compliance
for
these
NESHAP,
and
EPA
believes
that
successful
implementation
at
such
sources
is
better
achieved
through
compliance
assistance
efforts,
such
as
compliance
outreach
and
education
programs,
rather
than
title
V
permits.

One
commenter
asserted
that
title
V
permitting
will
not
divert
resources
from
more
significant
sources
because
the
Act
requires
State
and
local
agencies
to
charge
adequate
fees
to
cover
the
costs
of
the
title
V
program,
including
the
costs
of
small
business
assistance
programs
under
section
507
of
the
Act,
and
adequate
personnel
to
administer
the
program,
and
because
fees
may
be
reduced
for
small
sources.
This
commenter
apparently
was
taking
issue
with
EPA's
statement
in
the
proposal
that
"
requiring
permitting
of
area
sources
will
likely
cause,
at
least
in
the
first
few
years
of
implementation,
permitting
authorities
to
shift
resources
away
from
assuring
compliance
for
major
sources
with
existing
permits
to
issuing
new
permits
for
area
sources.
This
has
the
potential,
at
least
temporarily,
to
reduce
the
overall
effectiveness
of
the
States'
title
V
80
permit
programs,
which
could
potentially
adversely
affect
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment."
In
response,
EPA
notes
that
there
are
practical
limitations
on
the
ability
of
State
agencies,
tribes,
and
EPA
to
increase
fees
and
provide
additional
resources
for
title
V
implementation,
especially
in
a
relatively
short
period
of
time.
As
we
described
in
the
proposal
(
70
FR
15255),
in
many
States,
fee
increases
must
typically
be
approved
by
the
State
legislature
within
the
State
budget
process,
and
this
may
lead
to
significant
delays
in
implementing
new
fee
schedules
to
meet
new
title
V
demands.
This
limitation
could
lead
to
significant,
albeit
temporary,
impairment
of
the
title
V
program
for
major
sources,
given
the
large
workload
a
requirement
to
permit
these
area
sources
would
impose
on
State
agencies.
For
example,
if
all
these
area
sources
were
required
to
be
permitted,
up
to
38,000
title
V
permit
applications
would
be
due
by
December
9,
2005,
and
title
V
permits
for
these
sources
would
have
to
be
issued
or
denied
within
18
months
of
receipt
of
the
applications,
as
required
by
section
503(
a)
and
503(
c)
of
the
Act.

F.
Is
it
Reasonable
for
EPA
to
Rely
on
the
Information
Cited
in
Support
of
the
Proposal?

Several
commenters
complained
about
the
information
EPA
collected
to
support
the
findings
of
the
proposal,
particularly
the
State
survey,
concluding
that
it
was
so
flawed
that
the
findings
are
arbitrary
and
capricious
under
the
APA
or
otherwise
inconsistent
with
administrative
rulemaking
requirements.
We
disagree.
In
developing
the
proposal,
EPA
sought
and
relied
on
information
from
State
agencies
on
the
level
of
oversight
and
compliance
rates
for
the
area
sources
addressed
in
today's
proposal.
The
results
are
summarized
for
each
category
of
area
sources
in
the
State
survey
(
docket
item
02).
The
EPA
also
sought
input
from
State
small
business
ombudsmen
and
several
trade
81
associations,
and
they
responded
with
information
on
the
area
sources
and
compliance
assistance
programs
currently
available
to
them.
This
information
is
also
in
the
docket.

See
docket
items
03,
06,
and
08.

We
have
collected
information
we
believe
is
useful
and
appropriate
under
the
statute
to
establish
a
rational
basis
for
evaluating
whether
the
area
sources
addressed
in
today's
rule
satisfy
the
exemption
criteria
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.
We
summarized
our
outreach
efforts
and
we
collected
cost
and
economic
data,
which
we
placed
in
the
docket
prior
to
the
proposal.
We
considered
all
information
available
to
us
for
this
rulemaking,
including
that
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period,
in
making
our
exemption
findings.
Also
see
section
X
below
for
additional
discussion
of
how
this
rulemaking
satisfies
administrative
rulemaking
requirements.

As
to
comments
that
the
State
survey
is
not
complete,
we
believe
much
of
the
missing
information
can
be
explained
by
two
factors:
(
1)
State
agency
participation
was
voluntary,
and
(
2)
some
States
have
more
or
less
of
these
area
sources,
so
experience
with
them
varies.
We
did
not
base
our
decisions
on
missing
data
but
on
the
data
we
have
and
our
judgement
as
air
quality
experts,
and
we
did
not
assume
any
particular
meaning
for
missing
data.
Commenters
had
an
opportunity
to
submit
what
they
consider
to
be
more
complete
or
accurate
information
on
compliance
rates
and
the
oversight
activities
of
State
agencies
for
these
area
sources
during
the
comment
period,
but
they
did
not
do
so.

Also,
concerning
information
on
burdens
and
costs
of
title
V,
for
the
current
ICR,

we
provided
the
public
with
our
draft
analysis
of
burdens
and
costs
under
title
V,
including
for
general
permits,
and
we
received
no
comments.
82
G.
Are
Permits
Necessary
to
Define
Monitoring
for
Chrome
Electroplaters?

One
commenter
stated
that
the
monitoring
requirements
of
the
chrome
electroplating
NESHAP
vary
based
on
the
type
of
control
technique
employed
and
the
range
of
acceptable
values,
or
a
minimum
and
maximum,
for
each
monitoring
parameter
at
each
area
source,
and
that
it
would
be
useful
for
the
public,
regulatory
agencies,
and
the
source
for
its
specific
obligations
to
be
spelled
out
in
a
permit.

The
chrome
electroplating
NESHAP
has
extensive
requirements
for
monitoring,

recordkeeping,
and
reporting,
including
for
monitoring
system
performance
tests,
and
a
written
report
to
document
the
results
of
the
performance
test,
which
will
document
the
monitoring
techniques
employed
and
the
parameter
ranges
that
show
compliance.
The
NESHAP
requires
the
source
to
conduct
the
performance
tests
needed
to
define
the
monitoring
parameters
that
assure
compliance
by
the
source
with
its
emissions
limitations
or
standards,
and
this
report
is
submitted
to
EPA
or
a
delegate
agency
with
such
responsibilities,
as
defined
at
§
63.347(
f),
so
neither
the
source
or
the
regulatory
agency
will
be
confused
about
the
specific
monitoring
that
applies
to
area
sources,
absent
a
title
V
permit.
Also,
there
is
independent
authority
for
public
disclosure
of
information
related
to
compliance
with
NESHAP
under
section
114(
c)
of
the
Act,
which
does
not
rely
on
title
V
for
implementation.
Public
disclosure
authority
under
section
114(
c)
of
the
Act
extends
to
all
information
collected
under
NESHAP,
even
information
required
to
be
kept
on­
site,

rather
than
submitted
directly,
except
for
trade
secrets
which
may
not
be
released
to
the
public.
Thus,
if
a
member
of
the
public
wants
information
on
compliance
with
the
NESHAP,
he
or
she
may
get
it
from
the
agency
responsible
for
implementation
and
83
enforcement
of
the
NESHAP
(
either
EPA,
or
the
State
or
local
agency,
or
tribe),
whether
there
is
a
title
V
permit
or
not.
In
addition,
State
or
local
agencies,
or
tribes,
are
required
to
submit,
as
part
of
their
delegation
request,
a
written
finding
by
the
State
Attorney
General
(
or
General
Counsel
for
local
agencies
and
tribes)
that
the
State
has
legal
authority
"
to
request
information
from
regulated
sources
regarding
their
compliance
status,"
under
§
63.91(
d)(
3)(
i)(
B),
and
legal
authority
"
to
inspect
sources
and
any
records
required
to
determine
a
source's
compliance
status,"
under
§
63.91(
d)(
3)(
i)(
C).

Therefore,
title
V
is
not
necessary
for
State
and
local
authorities
to
obtain
compliance
information
from
regulated
sources.
While
it
is
helpful
for
the
public,
regulatory
agencies,

and
the
source
for
the
specific
requirements
to
be
defined
in
a
permit,
we
do
not
believe
it
is
necessary
for
adequate
compliance
to
occur,
and
we
believe
we
have
shown
in
today's
final
rule
that
title
V
would
be
unnecessarily
burdensome
on
these
area
sources.

H.
May
Degreasers
be
Exempted
when
there
are
Multiple
Applicable
Requirements?

One
commenter
supports
an
exemption
for
degreasers,
but
only
when
they
are
not
subject
to
other
applicable
requirements.
They
think
the
compliance
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
will
be
substantially
equivalent
to
title
V
only
when
the
source
is
subject
to
only
this
NESHAP
and
the
source
is
not
subject
to
other
NESHAP.
In
response,
the
EPA
does
not
agree
with
this
comment
for
the
following
reasons.
First,
there
are
cases
where
more
than
one
NESHAP
for
which
a
title
V
exemption
is
being
finalized
applies
to
degreasers,

for
example,
where
a
degreaser
is
located
at
a
chrome
electroplater.
But
the
requirements
of
the
chrome
electroplating
and
degreasing
NESHAP
do
not
significantly
overlap
for
the
emission
units
at
such
facilities,
so
this
would
not
present
a
significant
problem
of
84
complexity
that
would
justify
the
burdens
associated
with
issuing
title
V
permits
for
such
sources.
Second,
such
concerns
are
largely
offset
by
the
relative
simplicity
of
the
emission
control
requirements
of
the
degreaser
NESHAP,
which
involves
primarily
work
practice
standards.
For
example,
lids
are
required
to
be
kept
on
containers
at
all
times
when
not
in
use.
Third,
because
degreasers
are
often
collocated
with
major
sources,
as
an
adjunct
to
the
primary
activity
occurring
at
the
major
source,
many
degreasers
will
be
included
in
the
major
source
permit
for
the
collocated
major
source.
This
is
so
because,
as
we
have
clarified
elsewhere
in
this
preamble,
major
source
permits
must
include
all
applicable
requirements,
and
these
exemptions
are
only
for
title
V
requirements
at
area
sources.

I.
Are
the
Compliance
Requirements
of
the
EO
Sterilizer
and
Secondary
Aluminum
NESHAP
Substantially
Equivalent
to
Title
V?

One
commenter
opined
that
the
compliance
requirements
of
the
EO
sterilizer
and
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP
are
not
substantially
equivalent
to
the
compliance
requirements
of
title
V
with
respect
to
our
analysis
of
factor
one
for
area
sources
subject
to
these
NESHAP
because
the
EPA
has
no
data
to
show
how
many
sources
employ
continuous
monitoring
methods,
and
even
if
continuous
methods
are
used,
the
reporting
is
not
equivalent
to
title
V
reporting.
Also,
the
commenter
pointed
out
that
the
EO
sterilizer
and
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP
do
not
require
an
annual
compliance
certification
(
as
does
title
V),
and
that
this
is
another
reason
why
the
compliance
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
and
title
V
are
not
substantially
equivalent
as
EPA
proposed.
Also,
responding
to
a
specific
request
of
the
proposal
for
input
on
the
value
of
annual
compliance
certifications
and
the
threat
of
enforcement
for
false
certification
for
area
sources
subject
85
to
these
NESHAP,
the
commenter
said
that
completing
a
compliance
certification
will
be
important
in
bringing
about
better
compliance
because
the
act
of
signing
one
is
not
taken
lightly
and
will
produce
positive
results,
including
greater
compliance
efforts,
and
the
submittal
of
more
compliance
plans.

In
the
proposal,
we
compared
the
compliance
requirements
of
the
EO
sterilizer
and
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP
with
those
of
title
V,
and
we
stated
for
both
that
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
are
substantially
equivalent
(
the
first
factor),

when
sources
employ
continuous
monitoring
methods
to
assure
proper
operation
and
maintenance
of
control
equipment,
such
as
when
sources
use
thermal
oxidizers
for
emission
controls.
Also,
we
said
that
sources
that
use
scrubbers
as
emission
controls
under
both
of
these
NESHAP
employ
noncontinuous
monitoring
methods,
and
thus,
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
them
would
not
be
substantially
equivalent
to
the
compliance
requirements
of
title
V.
Although
we
were
not
certain
of
the
number
of
area
sources
that
employ
continuous
monitoring
methods
under
either
of
the
two
NESHAP,
we
stated
a
belief
that
most
sources
would
employ
such
methods,
and
we
asked
for
comment
on
the
percentage
of
sources
that
employ
them.
See
the
March
25,
2005
proposal's
discussion
of
EO
sterilizers
(
70
FR
15256)
and
secondary
aluminum
(
70
FR
15258).

For
the
final
rule,
we
reviewed
the
EO
sterilizer
or
and
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP
once
again,
and
we
now
conclude
that
sources
with
scrubbers
are
required
to
conduct
"
continuous"
monitoring
under
the
NESHAP.
Also,
both
of
these
NESHAP
require
sources
that
conduct
"
continuous"
monitoring
to
submit
excess
emissions
and
86
continuous
monitoring
system
performance
report
and
summary
reports
to
assess
their
compliance
status
on
a
semiannual
basis,
consistent
with
§
63.10(
e)(
3).
These
NESHAP
require
these
reports
for
sources
that
use
scrubbers
for
emissions
controls,
the
same
as
they
require
them
for
sources
that
use
thermal
oxidizers
as
emissions
controls.
Under
the
two
NESHAP,
these
reports
provides
compliance
information
that
is
substantially
equivalent
to
the
requirements
of
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)
for
deviation
reports
and
six­
month
monitoring
reports
(
see
explanation
below).
[
Also,
see
discussion
of
factor
one
for
these
area
sources
in
sections
IV.
A,
IV.
E
and
IV.
F,
and
more
on
why
title
V
monitoring
and
the
monitoring
in
these
NESHAP
are
equivalent
in
section
VIII.
E.]

The
compliance
information
already
required
to
be
reported
by
these
two
NESHAP
is
substantial,
and
similar
to
that
required
in
annual
compliance
certifications
under
title
V
[
see
§
§
70.6(
c)(
5)
and
71.6(
c)(
5)].
Also,
the
compliance
reports
required
by
the
two
NESHAP
require
certification
by
a
responsible
official,
which
is
defined
similarly
in
the
two
programs
[
see
§
63.2,
and
§
§
70.2
and
71.2].
For
these
reasons,
we
conclude
that
the
lack
of
an
annual
compliance
certification
report
under
title
V
will
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
compliance
for
these
NESHAP.

Also,
in
response
to
the
comment
that
the
act
of
signing
the
compliance
certifications
is
valuable
because
it
produces
positive
compliance
results
and
that
these
results
will
be
lost
if
we
exempt
these
area
sources
from
title
V,
we
disagree
that
the
title
V
exemptions
will
have
this
effect
for
these
NESHAP.
We
conclude
this
in
today's
final
rule
because
the
EO
sterilizer
and
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP
both
require
the
excess
emissions
and
continuous
monitoring
system
performance
report
and
summary
reports
87
(
described
above)
to
be
certified
by
a
responsible
official,
similar
to
how
this
is
done
for
title
V.
[
See
the
requirements
for
certification
by
responsible
official
of
§
63.363(
a)(
3)
for
EO
sterilizers
and
§
63.10(
e)(
3)(
v)
for
secondary
aluminum.]

In
the
final
rule,
we
conclude
that
the
overall
differences
in
compliance
requirements,
after
considering
all
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements,

including
the
lack
of
annual
compliance
certification,
are
not
great
enough
to
have
a
significant
impact
on
compliance
for
the
EO
sterilizer
and
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP,

and
we
conclude
that
the
compliance
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
and
title
V
rules
are
substantially
equivalent.
Thus,
our
analysis
of
factor
one
for
the
final
rule
is
that
it
supports
a
finding
that
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
for
compliance
for
area
sources
subject
to
the
EO
sterilizer
and
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP,
consistent
with
the
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
criterion
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.

J.
Are
the
Proposed
Revisions
to
EO
Sterilizer
NESHAP
Appropriate?

Several
commenters
were
concerned
that
the
proposed
revision
to
§
63.360(
f)

would
redefine
what
an
"
area
source"
is
under
the
EO
sterilizer
NESHAP,
resulting
in
fewer
area
sources.
Also,
they
stated
that
the
proposed
rule
change
is
inconsistent
with
the
definition
of
"
major
source"
and
"
area
source"
in
section
112
of
the
Act,
and
that
it
contradicts
the
proposed
wording
of
Table
1
of
§
63.360,
which
exempts
"
area
sources"

regardless
of
EO
usage.
Another
commenter
recommended
that
the
rule
language
be
revised
to
be
consistent
with
parallel
rule
language
for
other
subparts,
which
refers
to
"
area
sources."

In
the
final
rule,
§
63.360(
f)
has
been
revised
to
specify
that
exemptions
from
title
88
9
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
EPA­
456/
R­
97­
004,
September
1997
(
Updated
March
2004),
Ethylene
Oxide
Commercial
Sterilization
and
Fumigation
Operations
NESHAP
Implementation
Document.
V
are
for
"
area
sources,"
rather
than
"
sources
using
less
than
10
tons
[
of
EO],"
as
we
proposed.
The
intent
of
the
proposal
was
to
exempt
area
sources
subject
to
the
NESHAP
from
title
V,
not
to
change
the
applicability
of
the
NESHAP.
The
EPA's
March
2004
implementation
guidance
for
this
NESHAP
(
docket
item
88)
is
clear
that
the
definition
of
"
area
source"
is
the
definition
of
§
63.2,
which
is
based
on
actual
emissions
or
potential
to
emit,
and
this
definition
should
be
used
for
title
V
purposes
under
the
NESHAP.
9
Also,

the
guidance
explains
that
usage
of
EO
is
the
basis
for
applicability
of
the
emission
standards
for
various
types
of
vents,
under
the
NESHAP.
Nevertheless,
we
are
changing
the
rule
language
today
to
clarify
that
"
area
sources"
subject
to
this
standard
are
exempted
from
title
V,
and
this
change
will
not
affect
the
NESHAP
requirements
that
apply
to
any
existing
sources.
With
this
change,
§
63.360(
f)
is
now
also
consistent
with
Table
1
of
§

63.360,
in
the
same
subpart,
and
with
the
rule
language
of
subparts
M,
N,
T
and
RRR,

that
also
refers
to
"
area
sources."

K.
Are
Title
V
Permits
Allowed
for
Area
Sources
Exempted
from
Title
V?

Several
commenters
disagreed
with
the
EPA's
proposed
approach
of
not
allowing
permitting
authorities
to
issue
title
V
permits
to
area
sources
that
EPA
has
exempted
from
title
V.
These
commenters
did
not
agree
with
EPA's
proposed
reading
of
section
502(
a),

506(
a),
and
116
of
the
Act
as
requiring
this
result.
Also,
they
did
not
agree
that
existing
title
V
permits
for
such
sources
should
be
terminated,
suspended,
or
revoked
after
exemptions
from
title
V
take
effect.
89
Several
commenters
opined
that
EPA's
proposed
approach
is
inconsistent
with
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.
The
proposal
explains
that
Section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
grants
the
Administrator
alone
discretion
to
define
the
universe
of
area
sources
subject
to
title
V.
It
follows
that
once
the
EPA
exempts
area
sources
through
rulemaking,
they
may
not
be
permitted
under
title
V.
No
other
provision
of
the
Act
is
more
specific
on
this
matter
than
section
502(
a).
An
existing
title
V
permit
for
an
area
source
that
has
been
exempted
from
title
V
must
be
revoked,
terminated,
or
denied
because
the
permit
would
otherwise
conflict
with
the
NESHAP,
which
specifically
exempts
the
source
from
title
V
(
see
section
III.
A
above
for
explanation
of
the
revisions
to
the
five
NESHAP
to
exempt
these
area
sources
from
title
V).
This
is
different
from
the
more
typical
case
where
a
title
V
permit
may
contain
a
material
mistake
or
other
conflict
with
the
applicable
requirement
that
can
be
cured
through
correction
of
the
permit.
In
this
case,
the
only
way
to
cure
the
conflict
is
to
take
an
action
to
eliminate
the
permit.
We
also
believe
allowing
issuance
of
title
V
permits
for
area
sources
we
have
exempted
would
be
an
obstacle
to
the
implementation
of
title
V
both
because
of
the
confusion
and
frustration
such
a
situation
would
cause
for
the
area
sources,
based
on
the
common
sense
meaning
of
the
term
"
exemption,"
and
because
State
efforts
at
title
V
permitting
would
be
better
spent
addressing
major
sources
and
nonexempt
area
sources.

Several
commenters
were
concerned
that
EPA's
interpretation
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
is
illegal
because
it
conflicts
with
section
506(
a),
which
allows
States
to
have
"
additional
permitting
requirements
not
inconsistent
with
this
chapter."
In
light
of
the
structure
of
section
502(
a),
EPA
believes
that
section
506(
a)
is
best
read
as
allowing
90
States
to
establish
additional
permitting
requirements
for
sources
that
are
already
subject
to
title
V
permitting.
Thus,
under
the
EPA's
interpretation,
there
is
no
conflict
between
the
two
sections
because
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
defines
what
sources
must
get
a
permit,

while
section
506(
a)
of
the
Act
allows
States
flexibility
in
establishing
permit
requirements
for
sources
properly
subject
to
the
program.

Several
commenters
stated
that
EPA's
proposed
reading
of
section
502(
a)
is
illegal
because
it
conflicts
with
section
116,
which
allows
States
to
issue
title
V
permits
to
exempted
area
sources.
We
explained
in
the
proposal
that
section
116
of
the
Act
allows
State
agencies
to
issue
non­
title
V
permits
to
area
sources
that
have
been
exempted
from,

or
are
outside
the
scope
of,
the
title
V
program.
However,
even
if
the
Act
were
ambiguous
in
this
regard,
EPA
would
exercise
its
discretion
in
interpreting
the
Act
to
reach
the
same
result.
The
EPA
would
do
so
to
avoid
confusion
for
area
sources,
as
described
above,
and
to
achieve
the
policy
benefits
associated
with
having
States
direct
their
title
V
efforts
to
major
sources
and
non­
exempt
area
sourcesaddressing
sources
that
will
derive
a
significant
benefit
from
title
V
permitting.

L.
Does
this
Rulemaking
Disregard
Cost
Estimates
for
General
Permits?

Several
commenters
were
concerned
that
we
disregarded
prior
estimates
of
title
V
costs
for
general
permits
and
they
believe
that
these
estimates
show
that
title
V
costs
would
be
sufficiently
low
that
title
V
would
not
be
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
for
the
area
sources
addressed
in
the
proposal.

In
the
discussion
of
burdens
and
cost
of
title
V
permitting
in
the
proposal
(
section
II.
A
of
the
proposal),
we
stated
that
we
did
not
have
specific
estimates
for
the
burdens
91
and
costs
associated
with
general
permits
for
sources,
but
we
described
certain
source
activities
associated
with
the
part
70
and
71
rules
that
would
apply
to
sources,
whether
they
have
a
general
or
standard
permit.
Also,
in
section
III
of
the
proposal
we
said
that
general
permits
would
reduce
burdens
to
some
extent
for
area
sources
but
that
the
potential
burden
and
cost
reductions
would
not
be
sufficient
to
alter
our
findings
that
title
V
would
be
significant
for
area
sources.
To
explain
this
last
point
in
more
detail
in
the
proposal,
we
reviewed
each
of
the
four
factors
we
used
in
our
exemption
analysis
with
respect
to
general
permits,
and
we
concluded
that
title
V
will
be
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
for
area
sources
that
are
issued
general
permits,
rather
than
standard
permits.
(
See
70
FR
15254
and
15258­
15259.)

One
commenter
pointed
to
a
regulatory
impact
analysis
(
RIA)
for
operating
permits
issued
in
1992,
saying
we
should
have
used
the
estimate
of
$
154
per
year
in
that
document
in
analyzing
the
costs
associated
with
general
permits.
In
response,
the
RIA
(
Regulatory
Impact
Analyses
and
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
Screening
for
Operating
Permits
Regulations,
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
EPA­

450/
2­
91­
011,
June
1992)
did
contain
an
estimate
of
$
154
for
the
total
annual
costs
for
general
permits,
but
it
is
inaccurate
and
outdated
because
it
was
not
based
on
actual
implementation
experience,
such
as
the
cost
estimates
contained
in
the
more
recent
2004
ICR,
which
is
based
on
actual
implementation
experience,
and
which
suggests
significantly
higher
costs
for
general
permits,
on
the
order
of
half
the
cost
of
standard
permits
(
see
more
on
the
2004
ICR
below).
The
part
70
rule
was
not
effective
until
July
21
1992,
and
consequently,
no
State
title
V
programs
were
approved
until
December
of
1994,
and
no
92
part
70
permits
were
issued
in
any
jurisdiction
until
late
1996.
[
Also,
the
part
71
rule
was
not
effective
until
July
31,
1996].

One
commenter
said
we
disregarded
information
in
the
current
ICR
for
part
70
(
issued
in
2004),
including
"
re­
application
of
general
permits"
at
2
burden
hours
for
each
title
V
source
with
a
general
permit,
compared
to
the
estimate
of
"
permit
renewal"
at
200
burden
hours
for
each
title
V
source
with
a
standard
permit,
which
they
believe
shows
that
title
V
costs
for
area
sources
with
general
permits
would
not
be
significant
(
thus,
not
"
burdensome"
for
them).
In
response,
it
was
an
oversight
for
us
to
rely
on
the
2000
ICR
for
part
70,
when
an
updated
one,
the
2004
ICR,
was
available;
however,
the
2004
ICR
does
not
support
the
commenter's
claim
that
title
V
costs
would
not
be
significant
for
these
area
sources.
We
referenced
the
2000
ICR
in
our
proposal
as
indicating
an
average
title
V
cost
of
$
7,700
per
source
per
year,
and
noted
that
there
were
no
specific
estimates
for
general
permits.
Similarly,
the
2004
ICR
indicates
an
average
title
V
cost
of
$
7,300
per
source
per
year,
and,
although
it
contains
specific
estimates
of
title
V
costs
for
certain
activities
required
for
sources
with
general
permits,
it
does
not
provide
specific
estimates
of
title
V
costs
for
all
activities
that
would
occur
for
such
sources.
For
example,
the
2004
ICR
lists
twelve
different
activities
that
title
V
sources
would
experience
(
see
table
2,

average
source
burden
by
activity,
page
16).
The
ICR
lists
all
activities
that
may
apply
to
a
typically
source,
not
all
that
will
necessarily
apply
to
every
source.
For
example,
there
are
burden
hour
estimates
for
three
different
types
of
permit
revisions,
but
not
all
sources
may
need
any
of
these
permit
revision
in
any
given
year.
The
commenter
is
correct
that
the
activity
of
"
re­
application
of
general
permits"
at
2
burden
hours
per
year
would
only
93
apply
to
sources
with
general
permits,
and
that
another
activity,
"
permit
renewal"
at
200
burden
hour
per
year,
would
only
apply
to
sources
with
standard
permits.
Both
of
these
activities
reflect
the
requirements
of
title
V
for
sources
to
prepare
permit
applications
for
permit
renewals,
which
for
general
permits,
may
be
streamlined,
compared
to
standard
permits.
[
See
§
70.6(
d)(
2),
which
allows
applications
for
general
permits,
including
permit
renewal
applications,
to
"
deviate
from
the
requirements
of
§
70.5,"
which
applies
for
standard
permits.]
However,
title
V
sources
are
subject
to
many
other
activities
the
commenter
did
not
acknowledge.
For
example,
another
activity
listed
in
the
table,

"
prepare
monitoring
reports"
at
80
hours
per
source
per
year,
would
apply
to
sources
with
general
permits
and
standard
permits.
[
See
the
assumption
section
of
the
ICR
(
page
36),

which
specifies
that
"[
a]
ll
sources
with
issued
permits
(
including
those
covered
by
general
permits)
will
report
monitoring
data
semi­
annually
and
compliance
certifications
annually."]
Also,
the
2004
ICR
is
silent
with
respect
whether
the
remaining
activities
in
the
table
would
be
required
of
sources
with
general
permits,
but
many
of
them
would
apply
to
such
sources
because
§
70.6(
d)
requires
general
permits
to
"
comply
with
all
requirements
applicable
to
other
part
70
permits."
Certain
of
these
remaining
activities
may
be
streamlined
or
simplified
for
sources
with
general
permits,
compared
to
sources
with
standard
permits,
but
the
ICR
does
not
provide
different
burden
hour
estimates
to
acknowledge
these
differences.
For
example,
sources
with
general
permits
would
have
to
prepare
an
initial
permit
application
when
they
apply
for
coverage
under
the
general
permit,
consistent
with
§
70.6(
d)(
2),
but
the
ICR
lists
the
activity
of
"
prepare
application"

at
300
hours
per
source
per
year,
without
estimating
the
potential
reduction
in
burdens
94
and
costs
that
may
occur
through
streamlined
permit
applications
for
general
permits.

Although
the
information
in
the
2004
ICR
is
more
detailed,
our
analysis
for
the
final
rule
results
in
the
same
conclusion
as
our
review
of
the
2000
ICR
for
the
proposal:
That
title
V
costs
would
be
somewhat
lower
for
sources
with
general
permits,
compared
to
sources
with
standard
permits.
Thus,
the
view
of
the
commenter
that
title
V
costs
would
not
be
significant
for
area
sources
with
general
permits
is
not
supported
by
the
2004
ICR.

Another
commenter
criticized
our
reference
in
the
proposal
of
the
$
7,700
average
cost
estimate
for
title
V
sources,
taken
from
the
2000
ICR,
because
that
value
reflects
an
average
from
among
all
sources,
including
the
biggest
industrial
facilities
in
the
country,

and
the
costs
to
a
smaller
source
obtaining
either
an
individual
or
general
permit
should
be
less.
In
response,
EPA
agrees
that
costs
for
area
sources
are
likely
to
be
lower
than
the
average
cost
of
issuing
all
title
V
permits
to
all
sources,
for
the
reasons
indicated
by
the
commenter.
EPA
referenced
the
average
cost
of
title
V
for
all
sources
in
the
proposal
because
the
cost
estimates
of
the
ICRs
are
the
best
estimates
of
title
V
costs
available,

even
though
they
suffer
from
the
limitations
noted
by
the
commenter.
EPA's
assessment
of
costs
and
burdens
of
title
V
for
area
sources
covered
by
today's
rule
assumed
that
costs
would
be
lower
than
the
average
for
all
sources,
but
still
significant
in
light
of
the
characteristics
of
the
area
sources.
The
2004
ICR
estimates
average
annual
title
V
costs
for
all
sources
at
$
7,300,
and
it
also
does
not
provide
all
the
information
one
would
need
to
determine
specific
costs
for
area
sources,
whether
they
have
general
or
standard
permits.

Each
ICR
developed
by
EPA
is
based
on
the
best
information
available
to
the
95
Agency
at
the
time
it
is
prepared,
such
that
more
realistic
estimates
of
burdens
and
costs
for
title
V
sources
in
general
would
be
found
in
more
recent
ICRs,
as
implementation
experience
is
gained.
In
addition,
each
ICR
is
approved
by
OMB
for
a
set
period
of
time
in
the
future
(
typically
three
years),
until
the
next
ICR
is
approved,
or
the
current
ICR
is
extended.

EPA
relied
to
some
extent
on
the
information
in
the
ICRs
for
this
rulemaking
because
it
is
the
best
information
available
on
title
V
burdens
and
costs
and
no
one
submitted
any
better
information
to
analyze
title
V
burdens
and
costs
for
these
area
sources.
EPA
has
conducted
outreach
and
provided
a
60­
day
public
comment
period
to
collect
information
on
the
costs
and
burdens
for
these
sources
for
this
rulemaking,
and
we
provided
a
similar
opportunity
for
the
current
ICR.
No
one
submitted,
or
cited
to,
any
more
accurate
and
complete
cost
estimates
for
general
permits
under
title
V
than
those
available
to
EPA.
See
the
notice
of
March
23,
2004
(
69
FR
13524)
soliciting
comment
on
the
current
ICR
(
Attachment
1
of
the
current
ICR).

IX.
Effective
Date
of
Today's
Final
Rule
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
Section
553(
d)
of
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
(
APA)
generally
provides
that
rules
may
not
take
effect
earlier
than
30
days
after
they
are
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
However,
section
553(
d)(
1)
of
the
APA,
provides
that
a
substantive
rule
which
grants
or
recognizes
an
exemption
or
relieves
a
restriction,
may
take
effect
earlier.

Today's
final
rule
grants
an
exemption
from
title
V
permitting
requirements
for
a
large
number
of
area
sources,
so
we
make
this
final
rule
effective
immediately.

X.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
96
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
we
must
determine
whether
a
regulatory
action
is
"
significant"
and
therefore
subject
to
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
review
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.

The
Order
defines
a
"
significant
regulatory
action"
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:

1.
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more,
adversely
affecting
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,

competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety
in
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;

2.
Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;

3.
Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlement,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
of
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
4.
Raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.

Under
Executive
Order
12866,
it
has
been
determined
that
this
rule
is
a
"
significant
regulatory
action"
because
it
raises
important
legal
and
policy
issues.
As
such,
this
rule
was
submitted
to
OMB
for
review.
Because
this
rule
exempts
area
sources
that
would
be
subject
to
title
V
requirements
absent
this
final
rule,
this
final
rule
reduces
burdens
on
area
sources,
and
thus
it
is
not
economically
significant.
Also,
area
sources
subject
to
the
secondary
lead
NESHAP
are
already
subject
to
title
V
(
since
their
earlier
deferral
has
97
expired)
and
this
final
rule
does
not
change
this,
so
this
final
rule
does
not
change
burdens
for
them.
The
final
rule
does
not
impose
any
burdens
and
therefore
a
detailed
economic
analysis
is
unnecessary.

B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
This
action
does
not
impose
any
new
information
collection
burden.
Instead,
it
reduces
such
burdens
by
exempting
a
large
number
of
area
sources
from
title
V
requirements.
However,
the
information
collection
requirements
in
the
existing
regulations
(
parts
70
and
71)
were
previously
approved
by
OMB
under
the
requirements
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
The
existing
ICR
for
part
70
is
assigned
EPA
ICR
number
1587.06
and
OMB
control
number
2060­
0243;
for
part
71,
the
EPA
ICR
number
is
1713.05
and
the
OMB
control
number
is
2060­
0336.
A
copy
of
the
OMB
approved
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
may
be
obtained
from
Susan
Auby,

Collection
Strategies
Division;
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2822T);
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20004
or
by
calling
(
202)
566­
1672.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,

maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;

search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
98
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
in
40
CFR
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9.

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)

The
RFA
generally
requires
an
Agency
to
conduct
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
requirements
unless
the
agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
not­
for­
profit
enterprises,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.

For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
rule
on
small
entities,
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(
1)
a
small
business
that
meets
the
Small
Business
Administration
size
standards
for
small
businesses
found
in
13
CFR
121.201;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
country,
town,
school
district,
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­

forprofit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.

After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
final
rule
on
small
entities,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
In
determining
whether
a
rule
has
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
the
impact
of
concern
is
any
significant
adverse
economic
impact
on
small
entities,
since
the
primary
purpose
of
the
regulatory
flexibility
99
analyses
is
to
identify
and
address
regulatory
alternatives
"
which
minimize
any
significant
economic
impact
of
the
rule
on
small
entities."
5
USC
603
and
604.
Thus,
an
agency
may
certify
that
a
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
if
the
rule
relieves
regulatory
burden,
or
otherwise
has
a
positive
economic
effect
on
all
of
the
small
entities
subject
to
the
rule.

This
rule
reduces
economic
impacts
on
small
entities
by
exempting
certain
categories
of
"
non­
major"
industrial
sources
from
the
permitting
requirements
under
title
V
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
Act).
These
sources
tend
to
be
smaller
businesses
and
there
are
estimated
at
up
to
38,000
small
entities.
They
are
currently
subject
to
title
V
permitting
(
40
CFR
parts
70
and
71)
under
previous
rulemaking
actions,
and
they
will
remain
subject
to
these
requirements
until
we
exempt
them.
We
have
therefore
concluded
that
today's
final
rule
will
relieve
regulatory
burden
for
these
affected
small
entities.

D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104­

4,
establishes
requirements
for
federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
"
federal
mandates"
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Before
promulgating
a
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least­
costly,
100
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.

The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
where
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
leastcostly
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
EPA
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
our
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.

Today's
rule
contains
no
federal
mandates
under
the
regulatory
provisions
of
title
II
of
the
UMRA
for
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
the
private
sector.
Today's
final
rule
imposes
no
enforceable
duty
on
any
State,
local
or
tribal
governments
or
the
private
sector.
This
final
rule
exempts
a
large
number
of
sources
from
title
V
operating
permit
programs,
which
will
reduce
the
duties
government
entities
with
title
V
programs
would
be
required
to
perform
and
it
will
remove
the
requirement
for
many
private
sector
entities
to
obtain
operating
permits
under
title
V
programs.
Therefore,
today's
action
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202
and
205
of
the
UMRA.

In
addition,
EPA
has
determined
that
this
final
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
This
final
rule
101
exempts
a
large
number
of
area
sources
from
the
requirement
to
obtain
operating
permits
under
title
V.
As
such
it
also
removes
the
requirements
for
small
governments
with
approved
operating
permit
programs
to
issue
permits
to
those
area
sources.
Therefore,

today's
final
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
section
203
of
the
UMRA.

E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
"
Federalism"
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),

requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications."
"
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications"
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
"
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government."

This
final
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
Today's
rule
will
not
impose
any
new
requirements
under
title
V
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
and
it
will
not
affect
the
ability
of
States
to
issue
non­
title
V
permits
to
these
area
sources,
if
they
so
choose.
Accordingly,
it
will
not
substantially
alter
the
overall
relationship
or
distribution
of
powers
between
governments
for
the
part
70
and
part
71
operating
permits
programs.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
final
rule.

F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
102
Executive
Order
13175,
"
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
(
65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications."
"
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications"
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
"
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
federal
government
and
the
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
federal
government
and
Indian
tribes."

This
final
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications
because
it
will
not
have
a
substantial
direct
effect
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.

Today's
action
does
not
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
the
communities
of
Indian
tribal
governments.
As
discussed
above,
today's
action
imposes
no
new
requirements
on
Indian
tribal
governments
under
title
V
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
Accordingly,
the
requirements
of
Executive
Order
13175
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.

G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045,
"
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks"
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997),
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(
1)
is
determined
to
be
"
economically
significant"
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
103
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.

This
final
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
Executive
Order
because
it
is
not
economically
significant
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
12866
and
because
the
Agency
does
not
have
reason
to
believe
the
environmental
health
or
safety
risks
addressed
by
this
action
present
a
disproportionate
risk
to
children.
The
Agency
does
not
have
reason
to
believe
the
environmental
health
or
safety
risks
addressed
by
this
action
present
a
disproportionate
risk
to
children
because,
as
we
describe
in
detail
in
section
VIII.
E
of
this
final
rule,
it
will
not
adversely
affect
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment
by
weakening
air
quality
standards,
increasing
HAP
emissions,
and
by
increasing
morbidity
in
human
populations.

H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
This
final
rule
is
not
a
"
significant
energy
action,"
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
13211,
"
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,

Distribution,
or
Use"
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001),
because
it
is
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy.
This
final
rule
exempts
a
large
number
of
small
sources
from
the
obligation
to
obtain
an
operating
permit
under
title
V
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
is
not
likely
to
have
any
adverse
energy
effects.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
104
(
NTTAA),
Public
Law
No.
104­
113,
Section
12(
d)
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note),
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,

and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.

The
NTTAA
does
not
apply
to
this
final
rule
because
it
does
not
involve
technical
standards.
Therefore,
EPA
did
not
consider
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.

J.
Congressional
Review
Act
The
Congressional
Review
Act,
5
U.
S.
C.
801
et
seq.,
as
added
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996,
generally
provides
that
before
a
rule
may
take
effect,
the
agency
promulgating
the
rule
must
submit
a
rule
report,
which
includes
a
copy
of
the
rule,
to
each
House
of
the
Congress
and
to
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States.
We
will
submit
a
report
containing
this
rule
and
other
required
information
to
the
U.
S.
Senate,
the
U.
S.
House
of
Representatives,
and
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States
prior
to
publication
of
the
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
A
"
major
rule"
cannot
take
effect
until
60
days
after
it
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register.

This
action
is
not
a
"
major
rule"
as
defined
by
5
U.
S.
C.
§
804(
2).
This
rule
will
be
effective
[
insert
date
of
publication
in
the
Federal
Register].

List
of
Subjects
40
CFR
Part
63
105
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
substances,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

40
CFR
Part
70
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.
106
40
CFR
Part
71
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

__________________________________

Dated:
December
__,
2005.

__________________________________

Stephen
L.
Johnson,
Administrator.
107
For
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
preamble,
title
40,
chapter
I
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
amended
as
set
forth
below.

PART
63
 
[
AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart
M
 
[
Amended]

2.
Section
63.320
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
k)
to
read
as
follows:

§
63.320
Applicability.

*
*
*
*
*

(
k)
If
you
are
an
owner
or
operator
of
an
area
source
subject
to
this
subpart,
you
are
exempt
from
the
obligation
to
obtain
a
permit
under
40
CFR
part
70
or
71,
provided
you
are
not
required
to
obtain
a
permit
under
40
CFR
70.3(
a)
or
71.3(
a)
for
a
reason
other
than
your
status
as
an
area
source
under
this
subpart.
Notwithstanding
the
previous
sentence,
you
must
continue
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
this
subpart
applicable
to
area
sources.

Subpart
N
 
[
Amended]

3.
Section
63.340
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
e)
to
read
as
follows:

§
63.340
Applicability
and
designation
of
source.

*
*
*
*
*

(
e)
If
you
are
an
owner
or
operator
of
an
area
source
subject
to
this
subpart,
you
are
exempt
from
the
obligation
to
obtain
a
permit
under
40
CFR
part
70
or
71,
provided
you
are
not
required
to
obtain
a
permit
under
40
CFR
70.3(
a)
or
71.3(
a)
for
a
reason
108
other
than
your
status
as
an
area
source
under
this
subpart.
Notwithstanding
the
previous
sentence,
you
must
continue
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
this
subpart
applicable
to
area
sources.

4.
Table
1
to
Subpart
N
is
amended
by
revising
the
entry
for
§
63.1(
c)(
2)
to
read
as
follows:

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

§
63.1(
c)(
2)..............................
Yes...............
§
63.340(
e)
of
Subpart
N
exempts
area
sources
from
the
obligation
to
obtain
Title
V
operating
permits.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
O
 
[
Amended]

5.
Section
63.360
is
amended
by:

a.
Revising
the
entry
for
§
63.1(
c)(
2)
in
Table
1;
and
b.
Revising
paragraph
(
f).

The
revisions
read
as
follows:

§
63.360
Applicability.

*
*
*
*
*
109
Table
1
of
Section
63.360 
General
Provisions
Applicability
to
Subpart
O
Reference
Applies
to
sources
using
10
tons
in
subpart
O*
Applies
to
sources
using
1
to
10
tons
in
subpart
O*
Comment
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

63.1(
c)(
2)
.......
Yes
§
63.360(
f)
exempts
area
sources
subject
to
this
subpart
from
the
obligation
to
obtain
Title
V
operating
permits.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*

(
f)
If
you
are
an
owner
or
operator
of
an
area
source
subject
to
this
subpart,
you
are
exempt
from
the
obligation
to
obtain
a
permit
under
40
CFR
part
70
or
71,
provided
you
are
not
required
to
obtain
a
permit
under
40
CFR
70.3(
a)
or
71.3(
a)
for
a
reason
other
than
your
status
as
an
area
source
under
this
subpart.
Notwithstanding
the
previous
sentence,
you
must
continue
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
this
subpart
applicable
to
area
sources.

*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
T
 
[
Amended]

6.
Section
63.460
is
amended
by
adding
paragraph
(
h)
to
read
as
follows:

§
63.460
Applicability
and
designation
of
source.

*
*
*
*
*

(
h)
If
you
are
an
owner
or
operator
of
an
area
source
subject
to
this
subpart,
you
are
exempt
from
the
obligation
to
obtain
a
permit
under
40
CFR
part
70
or
71,
provided
110
you
are
not
required
to
obtain
a
permit
under
40
CFR
70.3(
a)
or
71.3(
a)
for
a
reason
other
than
your
status
as
an
area
source
under
this
subpart.
Notwithstanding
the
previous
sentence,
you
must
continue
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
this
subpart
applicable
to
area
sources.

§
63.468
­
[
Amended]

7.
Section
63.468
is
amended
by
removing
and
reserving
paragraph
(
j).

8.
Appendix
B
to
Subpart
T
is
amended
by
revising
the
entry
for
§
63.1(
c)(
2)
to
read
as
follows:

Appendix
B
to
Subpart
T
of
Part
63 
General
Provisions
Applicability
to
Subpart
T
Reference
Applies
to
subpart
T
Comment
BCC
BVI
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

§
63.1(
c)(
2).......
.
Yes...................
.
Yes................
..
Subpart
T,
§
63.460(
h)
exempts
area
sources
subject
to
this
subpart
from
the
obligation
to
obtain
Title
V
operating
permits.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
RRR
 
[
Amended]

9.
Section
63.1500
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
e)
to
read
as
follows:

§
63.1500
Applicability.

*
*
*
*
*

(
e)
If
you
are
an
owner
or
operator
of
an
area
source
subject
to
this
subpart,
you
are
exempt
from
the
obligation
to
obtain
a
permit
under
40
CFR
part
70
or
71,
provided
111
you
are
not
required
to
obtain
a
permit
under
40
CFR
70.3(
a)
or
71.3(
a)
for
a
reason
other
than
your
status
as
an
area
source
under
this
subpart.
Notwithstanding
the
previous
sentence,
you
must
continue
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
this
subpart
applicable
to
area
sources.

*
*
*
*
*

10.
Appendix
A
to
Subpart
RRR
is
amended
by
revising
the
entry
for
§
63.1(
c)(
2)

to
read
as
follows:

Appendix
A
to
Subpart
RRR
of
Part
63 
General
Provisions
Applicability
to
Subpart
RRR
Citation
Requirement
Applies
to
RRR
Comment
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

§
63.1(
c)(
2).......

.
.........................

.
Yes................

.
§
63.1500(
e)
exempts
area
sources
subject
to
this
subpart
from
the
obligation
to
obtain
Title
V
operating
permits.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*

PART
70
 
[
AMENDED]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
70
continues
to
read
as
follows:

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

2.
Section
70.3
is
amended
as
follows:

a.
by
revising
paragraph
(
a)
introductory
text.

b.
by
removing
and
reserving
paragraph
(
b)(
3).

c.
by
revising
paragraph
(
b)(
4)
introductory
text.
112
§
70.3
Applicability.

(
a)
Part
70
sources.
A
State
program
with
whole
or
partial
approval
under
this
part
must
provide
for
permitting
of
the
following
sources:

*
*
*
*
*

(
b)
*
*
*

(
4)
The
following
source
categories
are
exempted
from
the
obligation
to
obtain
a
part
70
permit:

*
*
*
*
*

PART
71
 
[
AMENDED]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
71
continues
to
read
as
follows:

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

§
71.3
­
[
Amended]

2.
Section
71.3
is
amended
by
removing
and
reserving
paragraph
(
b)(
3).
