Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0010-0113
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-12-14T05:00Z

Exemptions
of
Certain
Area
Sources
From
Title
V
Operating
Permits
Programs
EPA
RESPONSE
TO
COMMENTS
RECEIVED
DURING
PUBLIC
COMMENT
PERIOD
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
Information
Transfer
and
Program
Integration
Division
Operating
Permit
Group
December,
2005
2
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Chapter
Introduction
1.0
General
Reaction
to
the
Proposal
2.0
Is
EPA's
General
Approach
to
Exemptions
Consistent
with
the
Act
and
Its
Legislative
History?

2.1
The
First
Factor
 
Does
Title
V
Add
Significant
Compliance
Requirements
to
the
NESHAP?

2.2
The
Second
Factor
 
Does
Title
V
Impose
Significant
Burdens
on
These
Area
Sources?

2.3
The
Third
Factor
 
Are
Title
V
Costs
Justified
Considering
Potential
Gains
in
Compliance?

2.4
The
Fourth
Factor
 
Can
Adequate
Oversight
Achieve
High
Compliance
Without
Title
V?

2.5
The
Legislative
History
 
Will
These
Exemptions
Have
Adverse
Affects
on
Public
Health,
Welfare,
or
the
Environment?

2.6
Other
Comments
on
the
Factors
used
in
the
Proposal
3.0
What
Other
Factors
Did
Commenters
Believe
EPA
Should
Consider?

4.0
Is
it
Reasonable
for
EPA
to
Rely
on
the
Information
Cited
in
Support
of
the
Proposal?

5.0
May
Title
V
Permits
be
Issued
to
Area
Sources
After
EPA
Exempts
Them?

6.0
Should
General
Permits
be
Required
as
an
Alternative
to
Title
V
Exemptions?

7.0
Are
the
Proposed
Revisions
to
the
EO
Sterilizer
NESHAP
Appropriate?

8.0
Will
EPA
Require
Permits
for
Area
Sources
Subject
to
the
Secondary
Lead
NESHAP?

9.0
Comments
on
the
Scope
of
the
Title
V
Exemptions?
3
10.0
Comments
on
Specific
Categories
of
Area
Sources?

10.1
Perchloroethylene
Dry
Cleaners
10.2
Chromium
Electroplaters
10.3
Halogenated
Solvent
Degreasers
10.4
Ethylene
Oxide
(
EO)
Sterilizers
10.5
Secondary
Aluminum
Smelters
APPENDIX
A
 
Public
Comments
Received
on
the
Proposal
of
March
25,
2005
to
Exempt
Area
Sources
Subject
to
Certain
NESHAP
from
State
and
Federal
Operating
Permits
(
EDocket
OAR­
2004­
0010)
i
Introduction
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
proposed
changes
to
40
CFR
parts
63,
70
and
71
on
March
25,
2005
(
70
FR
15250)
to
exempt
all
area
(
non­
major)
sources
subject
to
certain
national
emissions
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP)
from
the
obligation
to
obtain
and
comply
with
operating
permits
issued
by
State
and
federal
agencies
under
authority
of
title
V
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
Act)
in
certain
circumstances.
The
five
NESHAP
under
part
63
are
perchloroethylene
dry
cleaners
(
Subpart
M),
chromium
electroplaters
(
Subpart
N),
commercial
ethylene
oxide
(
EO)
sterilizers
(
Subpart
O),
halogenated
solvent
degreasers
(
Subpart
T),
and
secondary
aluminum
production
(
Subpart
RRR).
Specifically,
EPA
proposed
to
revise
certain
regulatory
language
in
these
NESHAP
that
describe
permitting
obligations
under
the
part
70
and
71
rules
for
area
sources
subject
to
the
NESHAP,
and
to
make
certain
related
revisions
to
the
part
70
and
71
rules
consistent
with
these
exemptions.

The
opportunity
for
written
public
comment
on
the
proposal
was
announced
in
the
March
25
notice.
The
60­
day
comment
period
lasted
from
March
25,
2005
through
May
24,
2005.
During
that
period,
approximately
32
different
public
comments
were
received,
composed
of
66
separate
entries
in
the
docket.
All
comments,
whether
received
late
or
not,
are
included
in
the
comment
summaries
in
this
document.
Appendix
A
at
the
end
of
this
document
contains
a
table
identifying
each
public
comment
on
the
proposal.
In
this
document,
we
identify
each
commenter
by
using
its
document
ID
from
E­
docket
OAR­
2004­
0010.
For
example,
"
commenter
9"
identifies
the
comments
contained
in
document
ID
9
in
E­
docket
OAR­
2004­
0010.

The
full
text
of
each
comment
is
available
for
public
inspection
and
copying
at
the
Air
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center,
(
EPA/
DC)
EPA
West
Building,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC,
20004.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
1742.
Copies
also
may
be
mailed
on
request
from
the
Air
Docket
by
calling
(
202)
260­
7548.
A
reasonable
fee
may
be
charged
for
copying.
An
electronic
version
of
public
comments
on
the
proposal
are
contained
in
e­
docket
Id
No.
OAR­
2004­
0010,
which
can
be
accessed
through
the
federal­
wide
eRulemaking
site
at
www.
regulations.
gov.

The
primary
purpose
of
this
document
is
to
respond
to
comments
on
the
proposal
of
March
25,
2005.
This
document
contains
summaries
of
the
public
comments
received
and
EPA
responses
to
those
comments.
This
document
responds
to
all
comments
received,
whereas
the
preamble
of
the
final
rule
for
this
action
only
responds
to
significant
comments.
Also
note
that
many
responses
in
this
document
are
identical
to
those
contained
in
the
preamble
of
the
final
rule.

The
comments
in
this
document
are
grouped
into
categories
to
reflect
major
issues
discussed
in
the
proposal,
including
the
four
factors
and
other
rationale
for
exemptions,
the
application
of
those
factors
and
rationale
to
specific
categories
of
area
sources,
the
alternative
proposal
of
requiring
general
permits,
among
other
issues.
The
scope
and
range
of
comments
ii
received
was
such
that
certain
comments
fell
into
multiple
categories
and
we
have
represented
such
comments
in
multiple
categories,
whenever
it
was
useful
for
giving
a
fuller
response.

This
document
does
not
respond
to
comments
that
are
not
relevant
to
this
rulemaking
and
such
comments
are
not
summarized
in
this
document.
In
general,
this
document
summarizes
comments
that
were
supportive
of
the
proposal,
but
does
not
provide
a
response
to
them.
1
1.0
General
Reaction
to
the
Proposal
In
general,
about
half
of
the
commenters
supported
the
proposal,
and
half
did
not.

Opposing
the
proposal,
in
general,
were
citizens
(
commenters
9,
10,
12,
and
13),
many
representatives
of
the
secondary
aluminum
industry
(
commenters
17,
18,
19,
20,
24,
25,
27,
29,
and
58),
the
ethylene
oxide
(
EO)
sterilizer
industry
(
commenters
23
and
56),
and
environmental
groups
(
commenters
55,
57,
and
66).
Many
commenters
who
opposed
exemptions
generally,
supported
issuing
general
permits
instead,
and
many
secondary
aluminum
industry
commenters
were
concerned
that
area
sources
in
their
industry
would
get
an
economic
advantage
over
major
sources
through
the
title
V
exemptions.

The
supporters
of
the
proposal
included
State
and
local
permitting
agencies
(
commenters
11,
16,
59,
61,
and
65),
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy
(
commenter
14),
representatives
of
the
dry
cleaning
industry
(
commenters
21
and
31),
the
secondary
aluminum
industry
(
commenters
22,
26,
and
60),
the
EO
sterilizer
industry
(
commenters
58
and
62),
and
of
industries
that
use
halogenated
solvent
degreasing
equipment
(
commenters
28,
30,
and
31).
Many
State
and
local
permitting
agencies
(
State
agencies)
disagreed
with
the
proposal
that
they
may
not
issue
title
V
permits
to
area
sources
after
EPA
has
exempted
them
from
title
V.

Finally,
whether
supporting
the
proposal
or
not,
commenters
on
the
exemption
for
EO
sterilizers
were
concerned
about
the
text
of
the
proposed
regulatory
revisions
to
§
63.360(
f),
and
asked
EPA
to
revise
that
language
before
issuing
the
final
rule.

2.0
Is
EPA's
General
Approach
to
Exemptions
Consistent
with
the
Act
and
Its
Legislative
History?

Comment:
Commenters
14,
16,
30,
31,
59,
62,
and
65
generally
agree
that
the
four
factors
EPA
used
to
analyze
exemptions
from
title
V
permitting
were
consistent
with
the
"
impracticable,
infeasible,
or
unnecessarily
burdensome"
criteria
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act,
and
consistent
with
the
legislative
history
that
such
exemptions
"
not
adversely
affect
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment."
Commenter
11
more
plainly
said
that
permitting
these
area
sources
will
be
impracticable,
infeasible,
and
unnecessarily
burdensome.
Commenters
11,
30,
31,
61,
and
65
expressed
support
for
EPA's
finding
that
exempting
these
area
sources
will
not
adversely
affect
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment,
while
commenter
31
added
that
the
four
factors
are
appropriate
to
determine
whether
any
of
these
adverse
impacts
will
occur.
In
support
of
the
proposal,
a
local
title
V
permitting
authority
(
commenter
11)
said
there
would
be
no
adverse
affects
on
public
health
in
their
jurisdiction
from
the
proposal
because
they
perform
inspections
at
all
facilities
subject
to
NESHAP
and
these
facilities
are
part
of
their
bi­
annual
Compliance
Monitoring
Strategy
Plan,
which
involves
compliance
evaluation
and
enforcement
procedures.

On
the
other
hand,
commenters
10,
12,
13,
27,
29,
55,
and
66
disagreed
with
the
2
proposed
exemptions
in
general,
EPA's
findings
concerning
specific
categories
of
area
sources,
the
four
factors
and
other
rationale
EPA
used
to
make
these
findings,
or
they
suggested
other
factors
or
rationale
EPA
should
have
used
to
analyze
title
V
exemptions
for
these
area
sources.
Commenter
55
opined
that
the
proposal
disregards
the
plain
language
and
purposes
of
the
Act,
that
the
proposed
justifications
for
exemptions
in
the
proposal
were
based
on
factors
that
Congress
clearly
did
not
intend,
that
there
is
no
reasoned,
record­
supported
explanation
for
why
the
proposed
exemptions
would
not
negatively
impact
public
health,
welfare,
and
the
environment,
and
that
EPA's
statutory
authority
to
exempt
non­
major
sources
is
sharply
limited
by
Congress
in
the
legislative
history
for
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.

Response:
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
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
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
3
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
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.
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
4
exempting
sources
or
source
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,
and
which
we
respond
to
in
this
document.

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.
The
four
factors
and
other
rationale
referred
to
in
the
proposal,
and
again
in
the
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.
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
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
in
chapter
2.4
below.

In
addition
to
the
four
factors,
the
EPA
considered
whether
exempting
these
area
source
from
title
V
permitting
could
cause
adverse
effects
on
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment.
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
for
the
following
reasons.
First,
as
explained
above,
through
our
analysis
of
factors
one
and/
or
four
for
each
of
the
five
categories
of
5
area
sources
we
established
that
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
for
compliance
with
the
NESHAP
for
each
category
of
area
source.
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
permits
are
needed
to
define
monitoring
for
electroplaters,
in
chapter
10.2,
and
EPA
response
to
comment
on
whether
degreasers
should
be
exempted
when
there
are
multiple
applicable
requirement
that
apply
to
them,
in
chapter
10.3,
and
the
response
to
the
following
comment
regarding
the
need
for
title
V
permits
to
clarify
SIP
requirements..

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
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
additional
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
chapter
2.5
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
chapters
2.1
through
2.5,
below
for
more
general
explanation
of
the
four
factors
we
used
to
justify
exemptions,
and
see
chapters
10.1
through
10.5
for
more
EPA
explanation
of
our
analysis
of
the
four
factors
with
respect
to
each
category
of
area
sources.
6
Comment:
Commenters
55
and
57
said
title
V
permits
must
contain
State
implementation
plan
(
SIP)
requirements
in
order
to
better
clarify
and
enforce
these
requirements,
and
thus,
they
are
concerned
that
title
V
exemptions
for
these
area
sources
will
result
in
the
loss
of
title
V
compliance
benefits
with
respect
to
the
SIP
requirements
that
may
also
apply
to
these
area
sources,
potentially
resulting
in
adverse
affects
on
public
health,
welfare,
and
the
environment.

Response:
We
disagree
with
this
comment
for
the
reasons
explained
below.

First,
the
majority
of
area
sources
we
exempt
in
the
final
rule
(
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
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)
require
major
source
permits
to
include
all
emissions
units
at
the
source,
even
those
that
would
not
be
subject
to
NESHAP.

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
chapter
2.1
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
so­
called
"
generic
applicable
1Note
that
these
are
the
same
emissions
under
different
definitions,
so
if
you
control
one,
you
control
the
other.

2The
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).]

7
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.
The
first
scenario
is
where
a
HAP,
such
as
carbon
tetrachloride,
is
regulated
by
the
degreaser
NESHAP,
and
it
is
also
VOC
regulated
under
the
SIP
by
a
pound
per
hour
limit.
1
The
second
is
where
a
HAP,
such
as
dioxin/
furan,
is
regulated
by
the
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP,
2
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
70
Operating
Permits
Program,
March
6,
1996,
docket
item
100;
and
discussion
of
factor
one
in
chapter
2.1
of
this
response
to
comments
document.]

Comment:
Commenter
55
believes
the
proposal
should
have
considered
each
of
the
four
factors
for
each
category
of
area
sources
subject
to
NESHAP
that
we
proposed
for
exemption
from
title
V
permitting.
This
commenter
says
that
EPA
only
considered
those
factors
in
the
proposal
that
supported
exemptions,
while
ignoring
those
that
did
not
support
them.

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
area
sources
elsewhere
in
this
document
and
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule.
[
See
chapters
2.1
through
2.5,
where
we
discuss
the
four
factors
we
use
to
justify
these
exemptions,
and
chapters
10.1
through
10.5,
where
we
discuss
all
four
factors
with
respect
to
each
specific
category
of
area
sources
we
exempt
in
the
final
rule.]
8
2.1
The
First
Factor
 
Does
Title
V
Add
Significant
Compliance
Requirements
to
the
NESHAP?

Comment:
State
and
local
agencies
(
commenters
11,
61,
and
65)
agreed
that
the
first
factor,
whether
title
V
adds
significant
compliance
requirements
beyond
those
required
by
a
NESHAP,
was
appropriate
for
determining
whether
title
V
permits
would
be
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
and
they
agreed
that
title
V
requirements
for
these
area
sources
would
not
result
in
new
or
different
compliance
requirements
likely
to
significantly
improve
compliance
for
the
NESHAP.
Commenter
65
added
that
any
improvements
in
compliance
from
title
V
permits
for
these
sources
would
be
"
marginal"
compared
to
the
financial
and
emotional
burdens
that
the
regulated
community
would
experience,
which
would
disrupt
progress
in
the
area
source
NESHAP
program
by
damaging
the
working
relationship
the
Agency
has
cultivated
with
the
area
sources.

Commenter
55
opined
that
EPA's
discussion
of
the
first
factor
in
the
proposal
fails
to
acknowledge
key
title
V
requirements
lost
under
an
exemption,
which
is
directly
at
odds
with
the
statute
and
legislative
intent,
citing
sections
504(
a)
and
504(
c)
of
Act.
Also
citing
section
112(
l)(
9)
of
Act
("
Nothing
in
this
subsection
[
describing
State
section
112
programs]
shall
affect
the
authorities
and
obligations
of
the
Administrator
or
the
State
under
subchapter
V
of
this
chapter.").
Commenter
55
said
that
Congress
viewed
Title
V
as
adding
compliance
mechanisms
beyond
those
provided
by
the
NESHAP,
and
that
the
legislative
history
shows
that
Congress
intended
for
Title
V
to
play
a
key
role
in
implementing
and
enforcing
the
NESHAP,
citing
S.
Rep.
101­
228,
at
348
(
1989).
Also,
commenter
55
believes
the
proposal
fails
to
consider
whether
the
title
V
requirement
for
a
schedule
of
compliance
under
sections
504(
a)
and
501(
3)
of
the
Act
[
§
§
70.6(
b)(
3),
70.5(
c)(
8)(
iii)]
is
met
by
the
NESHAP,
and
that
none
of
these
NESHAP
contain
requirements
for
a
schedule
of
compliance
equivalent
to
that
of
title
V.
They
add
that
Congress
viewed
the
compliance
schedule
as
a
key
mechanism
for
assuring
compliance
with
an
applicable
requirement,
citing
H.
Rep.
101­
490,
at
351
(
1990).

Commenter
55
believes
the
proposal
relies
on
an
illegal
interpretation
of
title
V's
monitoring
requirements
in
the
umbrella
monitoring
rule
(
69
FR
3202,
January
22,
2004),
which
affects
the
first
factor.
Disagreeing
with
the
umbrella
rule,
the
commenter
stated
that
title
V
requires
supplemental
monitoring
sufficient
to
assure
compliance,
beyond
periodic
monitoring,
and
beyond
the
monitoring
required
by
the
NESHAP,
such
that
title
V
would
add
additional
monitoring
for
these
standards.

Response:
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
evaluation
probes
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
9
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.
The
proposal's
discussion
of
factor
one
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
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
[
defined
in
section
501(
3)],
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,
for
example),
we
described
in
chapter
2.0
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.
10
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."

In
addition,
EPA
agrees
that
Congress
assumed
title
V
would
play
a
role
in
implementing
and
enforcing
NESHAP
in
general,
however,
EPA
disagrees
that
Congress
intended
for
all
these
area
sources
to
get
title
V
permits
without
exception,
because
of
the
specific
language
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act,
which
allows
exemptions
for
them,
based
on
certain
findings.

Comment:
Commenter
55
believes
the
proposal
relies
on
an
illegal
interpretation
of
title
V's
monitoring
requirements
in
the
umbrella
monitoring
rule
(
69
FR
3202,
January
22,
2004),
which
affects
the
first
factor.
Disagreeing
with
the
umbrella
rule,
the
commenter
stated
that
title
V
requires
supplemental
monitoring
sufficient
to
assure
compliance,
beyond
periodic
monitoring,
and
beyond
the
monitoring
required
by
the
NESHAP,
such
that
title
V
would
add
additional
monitoring
for
these
standards.

Response:
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
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
3
Similar
provisions
appear
in
EPA
regulations
in
Part
71
stipulating
monitoring
provisions
for
federally­
issued
title
V
permits.

4
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
11
to
assure
compliance
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
permit."
3
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
caseby
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
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
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.
4
Therefore,
the
monitoring
component
of
the
first
factor
favors
title
V
because
they
contain
adequate
monitoring
under
the
Act).

12
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,
chapter
10.2.

Comment:
Concerning
reporting
requirements,
commenter
55
suggests
that
none
of
the
NESHAP
requires
substantially
equivalent
reporting
compared
to
title
V,
such
as
prompt
reports
of
deviations,
6­
month
monitoring
reports
and
annual
compliance
certification,
and
that
these
requirements
must
be
considered
before
exemptions
are
finalized.

Response:
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
three
NESHAP
are
substantially
equivalent
to
those
of
title
V.
Also,
see
more
detailed
response
for
electroplaters,
chapter
10.2,
for
EO
sterilizers,
chapter
10.4,
and
for
secondary
aluminum,
chapter
10.5.

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
today's
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
identical
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
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
and
(
B),
and
§
70.6(
c)(
5).
13
Although
the
reporting
requirements
of
these
two
NESHAP
are
not
directly
comparable
to
those
of
title
V,
this
does
not
mean
that
the
compliance
requirements
of
these
two
NESHAP
are
inadequate
to
achieve
compliance
on
their
own.
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,
EPA
believes
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,
we
conclude
that
the
first
factor
supports
a
title
V
exemption
for
these
sources.
[
See
more
detailed
explanation
for
dry
cleaners,
chapter
10.1,
and
degreasers,
chapter
10.3.]

2.2
The
Second
Factor
 
Does
Title
V
Impose
Significant
Burdens
on
These
Area
Sources?

Comment:
State
and
local
agencies
(
commenters
61
and
65)
agreed
with
EPA
that
the
costs
and
burdens
of
title
V
for
these
area
sources
are
significant
and
higher
than
alternative
State
programs
would
impose.
Commenter
12
estimates,
based
on
his
experience
in
his
industry,
that
the
costs
would
be
$
10,000
per
year,
and
that
this
would
be
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
for
the
sources.

On
the
other
hand,
commenters
6,
17,
18,
19,
24,
and
55
thought
the
costs
of
title
V
permitting
would
not
be
significant
for
these
area
sources
for
various
reasons.
Commenters
17,
18,
19,
24
and
25
opined
that
the
costs
of
title
V
permitting
for
area
sources
would
be
a
fraction
of
the
costs
for
major
sources
because
area
sources
have
fewer
emission
units,
their
operations
are
less
complex,
and
they
are
simpler
to
permit,
while
commenter
55
suggests
that
EPA's
cost
estimates
are
inflated
and
not
representative
for
area
sources.

Response:
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
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
14
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
almost
all
of
them
are
small
businesses
with
limited
resources.
For
example,
many
dry
cleaners
are
small
"
mom­
andpop
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
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
chapter
10.4.
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
chapter
6.0
below
for
more
on
our
alternative
proposal
to
require
general
permits
for
area
sources
in
lieu
of
exempting
them
and
for
more
on
title
V
costs
estimates
for
sources
with
general
permits.
The
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
15
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
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
chapter
10.4.]
Also,
see
chapter
2.0
for
more
detailed
EPA
response
to
the
comment
that
we
should
consider
all
four
factors
in
evaluating
each
category
of
area
sources
for
exemptions.

In
the
discussion
of
factor
two
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.

Comment:
Commenter
55
said
that
EPA
ignores
Act
provisions
designed
to
limit
title
V
costs
for
small
sources,
while
Commenter
57
said
States
are
expected
to
have
resources
to
meet
this
workload
and
fees
to
offset
costs.

Response:
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
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
16
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.
See
similar
response
in
chapter
2.5.

Comment:
Commenter
pointed
out
that
difficulties
in
obtaining
compliance
assistance
from
States
will
be
temporary.
Also,
the
commenter
said
that
this
rationale
is
an
improper
rationale
for
weakening
public
health
protections,
and
that
delays
in
compliance
are
not
desirable,
but
they
are
preferable
to
complete
exemptions.

Response:
EPA
notes
that
even
though
such
difficulties
may
be
temporary,
they
would
come
at
a
critical
time
for
sources
and
permitting
authorities
alike.
For
example,
an
area
source
required
to
obtain
an
operating
permit
would
have
to
quickly
become
familiar
with
the
critical
step
of
preparing
and
submitting
a
timely
and
complete
permit
application,
consistent
with
§
70.5
and
§
71.5,
during
a
relatively
short
time
frame
(
the
Act
generally
gives
a
source
one
year
to
submit
a
permit
application
after
it
becomes
subject
to
title
V,
but
it
allows
States
to
set
earlier
deadlines).
Similarly,
upon
a
requirement
for
a
large
number
of
sources
to
obtain
title
V
permits
(
up
to
38,000
area
sources
nationally
are
addressed
by
this
final
rule),
a
typical
permitting
authority
would
quickly
have
to
ready
itself
to
review
and
take
action
on
a
large
number
of
permit
applications,
which
are
all
likely
to
be
submitted
within
a
short
period
of
time,
and
which
would
likely
be
many
times
the
number
of
permit
applications
they
would
typically
process
in
an
average
year
under
their
title
V
program.
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.
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.]
Although
the
permitting
agencies
and
sources
have
had
a
year
since
the
deferrals
expired
to
prepare
for
permitting,
EPA
believes
that
many
may
have
assumed
that
EPA
would
finalize
its
March
25,
2005
proposal
to
exempt
the
sources
from
title
V.

EPA
disagrees
with
the
comment
that
this
rationale
is
an
improper
rationale
for
weakening
public
health
protections,
and
that
delays
in
compliance
are
preferable
to
complete
exemptions.
This
rationale
is
not
being
used
by
EPA
in
this
rulemaking
to
weaken
health
protections,
as
we
explain
more
thoroughly
in
chapter
2.5.
Also,
the
final
rule
also
relies
on
other
rationale
that
independently
justify
exemptions,
consistent
with
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.
The
commenter's
belief
that
delays
in
title
V
compliance
would
be
superior
to
complete
exemptions
for
these
area
sources,
is
not
shared
by
EPA.
EPA
considered
the
likely
difficulty
for
area
sources
to
obtain
17
assistance
if
exemptions
are
not
issued
as
part
of
our
consideration
of
the
burdens
that
title
V
would
impose
on
them.
We
have
found
that
the
compliance
benefits
associated
with
issuing
title
V
permits
for
such
sources
are
at
best
small,
so
that
the
burdens
imposed
by
title
V
are
unnecessary.

Comment:
Commenter
65
thinks
the
title
V
costs
would
not
be
significant
for
sources
because
they
would
merely
be
passed
on
to
consumers.

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
industries,
or
on
price­
responsiveness
of
their
consumers
to
support
his
assertions.

Comment:
Commenter
16
said
that
these
area
sources
would
not
be
burdened
by
difficulties
in
obtaining
assistance
from
States
because
other
assistance
mechanisms
exist,
such
as
MACT
implementation
guidance,
SBAP,
and
consulting
firms.

Response:
The
EPA
is
aware
of
these
mechanisms
but
we
do
not
believe
they
can
significantly
reduce
burden,
including
costs,
enough
for
these
area
sources
to
change
our
findings
for
the
final
rule.
First,
NESHAP
implementation
guidance
is
designed
to
help
implement
the
NESHAP,
not
title
V,
so
it
will
not
significantly
reduce
the
costs
or
burdens
of
title
V
permitting.
Second,
SBAP
may
be
able
to
reduce
title
V
burdens
to
some
extent,
but
the
remaining
burdens
would
continue
to
be
significant.
The
SBAP
is
responsible
for
providing
counseling
to
title
V
sources
to
help
them
meet
their
part
70
requirements,
including
help
with
applicability
determinations,
help
explaining
part
70
requirements,
and
offering
referrals
to
professionals,
such
as
compliance
auditors.
State
SBAP,
at
their
option,
may
also
directly
help
sources
conduct
compliance
audits.
State
SBAP
do
not
assume
the
majority
of
burdens
and
cost
placed
on
owners
and
operators
by
the
permitting
rules.
For
example,
owners
and
operators
are
responsible
for
reading
and
understanding
permit
program
guidance
and
regulations;
obtaining
and
understanding
permit
application
forms;
answering
follow­
up
questions
from
permitting
authorities
after
the
application
is
submitted;
reviewing
and
understanding
the
permit;
collecting
records;
preparing
and
submitting
monitoring
reports
on
a
six­
month
or
more
frequent
basis;
preparing
and
submitting
prompt
deviation
reports,
as
defined
by
the
State,
which
may
include
a
combination
of
written,
verbal,
and
other
communications
methods;
collecting
information,
preparing,
and
submitting
the
annual
compliance
certification;
preparing
applications
for
permit
revisions
every
five
years;
and,
as
needed,
preparing
and
submitting
applications
for
permit
revisions.
Although
SBAP
may
help
area
sources
with
some
of
the
burdens
of
title
V,
EPA
believe
significant
burdens
and
costs
would
remain
that
the
SBAP
would
not
address.
Third,
if
an
area
source
were
to
rely
on
private
consultants,
such
expenditures
would
not
decrease
the
number
of
source
activities
required,
but
this
would
increase
costs
as
labor
is
shifted
from
in­
house
wage
rates
to
more
expensive
18
consultant
wage
rates.
[
See
section
6.3.1
of
the
current
ICR,
where
the
fully
loaded
hourly
wage
for
industry­
hired
consultants
is
$
268.7
and
the
in­
house
hourly
wage
is
$
32.]
Thus,
the
overall
result
would
be
an
increase
in
burdens
for
the
sources
because
costs
would
increase
and
costs
are
burdens.

Comment:
Commenter
29
said
that
permitting
burdens
already
exist
for
these
area
sources
because
they
are
required
to
get
"
are
source"
permits
and
title
V
permits,
and
that
the
level
of
effort
needed
to
comply
with
these
permits
is
not
different.

Response:
The
commenter
appears
to
assume
that
all
area
sources
are
potentially
subject
to
both
"
areas
source"
permitting
and
title
V
permitting.
There
are
no
permit
requirements
for
these
area
sources
under
the
NESHAP.
Thus,
at
the
federal
level,
the
only
permit
requirement
that
would
exist
for
these
area
sources
arises
under
title
V.
States
may
require
permits
of
these
area
sources
under
non­
title
V
State
permitting
programs.
However,
EPA
disagrees
that
in
such
situations
there
would
be
no
significant
additional
burdens
associated
with
title
V
permitting
for
these
area
sources.
Each
permit
program
will
have
its
own
individual
requirements,
including
application
content
and
submittal
requirements,
and
title
V
permitting
is
likely
to
be
particularly
unnecessary
where
a
duplicative
State
permitting
program
exists.

Comment:
Representatives
of
the
secondary
aluminum
industry
(
commenters
17,
18,
19,
24
and
25)
believe
costs
are
not
significant
because
States
may
issue
State
and
local
permits
anyway,
and
cost
savings
for
these
sources
may
be
swallowed
by
these
new
State
permits.

Response:
The
commenter
may
be
correct
that
some
States
may
require
permitting
under
State
law
of
area
sources
that
EPA
exempts
today
from
title
V.
EPA's
decision
today
is
based
on
a
nation­
wide
assessment
that
title
V
is
unnecessarily
burdensome
for
the
area
sources
covered
by
the
rule,
consistent
with
section
502(
a).
Where
States
adopt
unnecessarily
burdensome
requirements
for
area
sources
under
non­
title
V
State
permit
programs,
sources
subject
to
such
requirements
should
pursue
avenues
available
within
the
State
for
appropriate
relief.

Comment:
Commenter
57
said
that
"[
EPA]
cannot
argue
legitimately
that
relatively
simple
requirements
apply
to
the
sources
and
simultaneously
maintain
that
the
sources
themselves
would
be
hopelessly
burdened
in
seeking
to
assemble
the
necessary
information
for
the
title
V
application."

Response:
EPA
did
not
propose
a
finding
that
the
area
sources
address
by
today's
final
rule
would
be
"
hopelessly
burdened"
by
title
V.
Instead,
we
proposed
to
find
that
title
V
burden
exists,
and
that
the
burden
is
unnecessary
in
light
of
the
small
potential
for
compliance
gains
associated
with
title
V
for
these
area
sources.
The
"
simple
requirements"
EPA
speaks
of
are
those
that
exist
under
the
NESHAP
for
these
sources,
not
those
of
title
V.
We
find
that
the
additional
burdens
associated
with
title
V,
described
elsewhere,
are
not
warranted
for
these
area
sources
when
compared
to
the
expected
compliance
benefits
of
title
V.
Also,
as
we
explain
elsewhere
in
this
response
to
comments,
title
V
imposes
many
other
on­
going
burdens
in
addition
19
to
those
for
the
preparation
and
submittal
of
permit
applications.

2.3
The
Third
Factor
 
Are
Title
V
Costs
Justified
Considering
Potential
Gain
in
Compliance?

Comments:
A
State
agency
(
commenter
65)
said
any
improvements
in
compliance
from
permits
for
these
sources
would
be
"
marginal,"
not
justifying
the
financial
and
emotional
burdens
that
the
regulated
community
would
experience
and
disruption
to
the
State's
area
source
NESHAP
program.
Commenter
30
said
that
for
sources
like
electroplaters,
title
V
will
not
result
in
further
gains
in
compliance
because
the
sources
are
already
subject
to
a
comprehensive
set
of
compliance
requirements
of
the
NESHAP,
thus,
the
costs
of
permitting
cannot
be
justified
in
the
absence
of
compliance
gains.

Response:
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
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
in
the
final
rule,
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
chapter
2.0
for
more
detailed
EPA
response
to
the
comment
that
we
should
consider
all
four
factors
in
evaluating
each
category
of
area
sources
for
exemptions.

2.4
The
Fourth
Factor
 
Can
Adequate
Oversight
Achieve
High
Compliance
Without
Title
V?
20
Comment:
Commenter
16
concurs
with
EPA
that
adequate
oversight
by
States
will
achieve
high
compliance
without
title
V,
and
that
compliance
rates
are
maximized
when
inspectors
monitor
area
sources
and
give
practical
compliance
advice.
A
State
permitting
agency
(
commenter
65)
said
it
permits
these
area
sources
in
its
existing
State
(
non­
title
V)
operating
permit
program,
so
it
will
have
no
problem
ensuring
high
compliance
without
title
V,
and
thus,
there
will
be
little
to
gain
from
title
V.
Another
State
agency
(
commenter
61)
believes
outreach
programs,
such
as
inspection
checklists,
applicability
charts,
and
brochures
in
different
languages,
will
be
more
effective
for
compliance
than
title
V
permits
for
these
area
sources.
They
also
report
that
they
undertake
various
compliance
assistance
activities
and
informational
programs
for
them,
which
has
resulted
in
100
percent
compliance
recorded
over
the
past
three
years.

Commenter
55
believes
EPA's
findings
were
based
on
an
informal
survey
of
States
that
only
represents
a
small
percentage
of
all
States,
that
a
substantial
percentage
of
these
reported
they
were
not
currently
achieving
high
compliance
with
NESHAP,
and
some
agencies
reported
high
compliance,
but
they
did
not
explain
the
basis
for
their
conclusion.
Commenter
55
also
thinks
EPA
failed
to
explain
how
it
can
assume
high
compliance
when
all
States
did
not
respond
to
the
survey.

Response:
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.

In
response
to
the
comment
that
factor
four
should
more
closely
examine
whether
actual
programs
are
in
place
to
achieve
compliance
with
the
NESHAP,
without
title
V
permits,
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
explained
in
more
detail
in
this
chapter
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
21
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.

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,
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,
22
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.

Comment:
Commenter
55
believes
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
Senate
Report
explanation
that
EPA
"
is
authorized
to
exempt
sources
from
the
new
permit
program
if
the
exemption
would
be
consistent
with
the
Act's
purposes.
For
example,
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).
Commenter
12
believes
all
States
will
be
able
to
utilize
non­
title
V
permit
programs
as
an
alternative
to
title
V.
Commenters
17,
18,
19,
24,
and
25
said
that
there
is
no
evidence
in
the
record
that
States
already
have
adequate
compliance
assurance
procedures
for
these
area
sources.

Three
State
or
local
agencies
provided
examples
of
alternative
programs
they
have
in
place
to
achieve
compliance
with
NESHAP.
Commenter
11
said
they
issue
federally
enforceable
State
permits
to
operate
(
non­
title
V)
to
these
sources
that
includes
NESHAP
and
assures
compliance
without
title
V,
they
perform
inspections
at
all
facilities
subject
to
NESHAP,
and
these
facilities
are
part
of
their
bi­
annual
compliance
monitoring
strategy
plan,
which
is
submitted
to
EPA,
and
which
involves
compliance
evaluation
and
enforcement
procedures.
Commenter
30
said
that
title
V
is
not
necessary
to
ensure
high
compliance
for
the
electroplating
industry
because
States
have
compliance
assistance,
enforcement,
and
oversight
abilities
for
the
chrome
electroplating
NESHAP,
including
EPA
New
England's
metal
finishing
assistance
program,
and
EPA's
national
metal
finishing
strategic
goals
program.
Commenter
65
said
they
have
an
existing
State
operating
permits
program,
separate
from
title
V,
that
will
continue
to
apply
to
these
sources,
whether
or
not
EPA
promulgates
title
V
exemptions.
Also,
they
have
a
State
NESHAP
program
that
has
more
stringent
standards
than
part
63
for
area
sources,
they
undertake
various
outreach
efforts,
and
they
conduct
compliance
inspection
of
each
source
each
year,
which
has
resulted
in
significant
improvements
in
compliance.

Commenter
55
believes
States
that
don't
have
delegation
for
section
112
programs
for
these
area
sources
could
not
achieve
high
compliance
with
NESHAP
using
alternative
State
mechanisms.
Commenters
17,
18,
19,
24
and
25
remarked
that
States
who
lack
delegation
of
NESHAP,
but
implement
and
enforce
NESHAP
through
title
V
permits,
like
Ohio,
will
not
be
able
to
enforce
permits
after
exemptions
are
finalized,
while
a
local
permitting
authority
in
Ohio
(
commenter
11),
apparently
responding
directly
to
this
comment,
say
that
Ohio
issues
federally
enforceable
State
permits
(
non­
title
V
operating
permits)
to
these
sources
that
includes
NESHAP
requirements
and
assure
compliance,
and
they
can
enforce
these
permits.

Response:
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,
23
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
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.

In
response
to
the
comment
that
the
legislative
history
is
that
a
reasonable
alternative
to
title
V
permitting
must
actually
be
in
place
and
achieving
results
for
title
V
exemptions
to
be
appropriate,
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
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,
provided
the
program
or
rules
are
"
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
5
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
24
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
§
63.97
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;
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
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.
5
State
SBAP
programs
are
required
by
section
507
to
provide
information
on
than
Federal
Grants."

25
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
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.

Comment:
Commenter
12
opines
that
the
proposal
does
not
demonstrate
that
emission
reductions
will
occur
without
title
V,
so
there
cannot
be
high
compliance.

Response:
As
described
above,
there
are
alternatives
to
title
V
in
place
to
assure
compliance
with
NESHAP,
and
as
EPA
describes
more
thoroughly
in
its
response
in
Chapter
2.5
of
this
document,
the
Act
does
not
assign
emission
reduction
responsibilities
to
title
V.

Comment:
Commenter
12
believes
the
proposal
will
result
in
uneven
oversight
rather
than
high
compliance.
Commenters
17,
18,
19,
24
and
25
said
the
proposal
will
result
in
inconsistent
enforcement
across
the
country
because
there
is
variation
in
state
authority,
state
permitting
systems,
and
state
resources
for
secondary
aluminum,
and
that
different
State
(
non­
title
V)
permits
will
lead
to
different
answers
on
NESHAP
implementation
questions.

Response:
Oversight
and
enforcement
of
NESHAP
may
vary
somewhat
from
place
to
place
for
reasons
unrelated
to
title
V,
and
this
is
consistent
with
the
Act,
which
relies
on
State
and
local
government
to
achieve
Clean
Air
Act
goals.
For
example,
see
§
63.91,
which
grants
considerable
discretion
to
non­
federal
agencies
to
design
programs
to
implement
and
enforce
NESHAP
under
an
EPA
delegation,
while
ensuring
that
they
meet
certain
criteria
to
ensure
adequate
implementation
and
enforcement
of
NESHAP
prior
to
EPA
approval
of
their
delegation
request.
Also,
see
section
101(
a)(
3)
of
the
Act
which
states
that
"
air
pollution
control
at
its
source
is
the
primary
responsibility
of
States
and
local
governments."
Furthermore,
it
is
not
clear
whether
such
variation
would
be
eliminated
if
the
NESHAP
were
implemented
through
State
title
V
permits,
rather
than
other
State
permits.
26
2.5
The
Legislative
History
 
Will
These
Exemptions
Have
Adverse
Affects
on
Public
Health,
Welfare,
or
the
Environment?

Comment:
Commenter
13
opposes
the
proposal
because
he
thinks
it
will
weaken
air
quality
standards,
while
commenter
12
thinks
it
will
result
in
increased
emissions,
higher
morbidity
in
human
populations,
and
shifts
in
medical
costs
to
States.
Commenters
27
and
29
opine
that
the
proposal
disregards
other
EPA
policy
decisions
and
stated
goals,
such
as
the
national
priority
strategy
for
air
toxics
and
EPA's
stated
long­
term
commitment
to
air
toxic
enforcement.
Commenter
29
added
that
the
whole
permanent
deferral
of
area
sources
is
an
attempt
by
EPA
to
reduce
its
own
internal
work
load
and
has
little
if
any
consideration
being
given
to
the
secondary
aluminum
industry
or
the
citizens
of
this
great
country.
Commenter
55
believes
the
proposal
will
adversely
affect
public
health,
and
is
inconsistent
with
the
Act
because
these
area
sources
emit
highly
toxic
pollutants
that
pose
serious
threats
to
public
health,
citing
the
legislative
history
for
section
502(
a).
This
commenter
then
went
on
to
cite
numerous
documents,
including
Chemical
Fact
Sheets
and
other
references
for
each
HAP
regulated
by
each
NESHAP
addressed
by
the
proposal
to
show
the
HAP
are
hazardous,
potentially
hazardous,
potential
human
carcinogens,
and
in
other
ways
harmful
to
human
health.
Commenter
57
simply
stated
that
the
proposal
will
result
in
failure
to
achieve
HAP
reductions,
particularly
in
urban
areas.
Commenters
17,
18,
19,
24
and
25
thought
the
national
strategy
required
by
section
112(
k),
and
area
source
programs,
will
be
weakened
by
the
proposal
for
the
secondary
aluminum
sector.

Response:
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
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
chapter
2.5
below.

In
response
to
concerns
that
title
V
exemptions
from
these
area
sources
would
adversely
affect
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment
by
weakening
air
quality
standards,
increasing
HAP
emissions,
by
increasing
morbidity
in
human
populations,
or
by
shift
medical
costs
to
States,
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.
27
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
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
or
otherwise
increase
medical
costs
or
shift
them
to
States.

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.

In
response
to
the
comment
that
the
purpose
of
this
rulemaking
is
to
reduce
EPA's
own
internal
workload,
EPA
agrees
that
today's
rule
will
reduce
EPA's
internal
work
load,
but
disagrees
that
this
is
the
reason
for
its
action,
or
that
this
action
is
inconsistent
with
any
prior
decision
or
stated
goal.
[
Note
that
several
commenters
submitted
specific
examples
of
purported
inconsistent
statements
by
EPA,
and
EPA
response
to
such
examples
are
addressed
more
thoroughly
elsewhere
in
this
document.]
The
rule
will
eliminate
necessary
burdens
on
the
area
sources,
will
promote
a
proper
focus
by
permitting
agencies
on
major
sources
and
non­
exempt
area
sources,
and
is
consistent
with
our
past
decisions
to
defer
permitting
for
these
sources
while
EPA
gathered
additional
information
necessary
to
determine
whether
permanent
exemptions
are
warranted.

Comment:
State
and
local
agencies
(
commenters
11,
61,
and
65)
believe
title
V
permitting
for
these
area
sources
could
cause
adverse
affects
on
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment
because
it
would
lead
to
a
shift
in
resources
away
from
compliance
assurance
for
major
sources
with
existing
title
V
permits
to
issuing
new
title
V
permits
for
area
sources.
Commenters
11
and
61
said
this
was
chiefly
due
to
the
number
of
sources
that
would
seek
permits
if
there
were
no
exemptions,
while
commenter
11
said
this
would
also
be
true
because
of
deterioration
in
current
funding
and
resource
levels
they
are
experiencing
anyway.

To
the
contrary,
commenter
55
asserts
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
SBAP
under
section
28
507
of
the
Act,
and
adequate
personnel
to
administer
the
program,
and
because
fees
may
be
reduced
for
small
sources.

Response:
EPA
disagrees
with
the
assertion
that
title
V
permitting
for
these
area
source
will
not
divert
resources
from
more
significant
sources,
at
least
temporarily,
because
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.
We
disagree
that
the
fee
provisions
of
title
V
will
ensure
that
resource
would
not
be
shifted
if
area
sources
are
required
to
get
permits,
and
we
disagree
that
reducing
fees
for
small
sources
may
significantly
reduce
title
V
burdens.
Also,
see
similar
response
in
chapter
2.2
of
this
document.

Comment:
A
State
permitting
agency
(
commenter
65)
said
there
was
little
likelihood
that
the
proposed
exemptions
would
cause
adverse
affects,
because
in
their
State,
these
sources
would
not
be
subject
to
any
other
NESHAP
not
addressed
in
the
proposal,
while
another
State
permitting
agency
(
commenter
61)
agreed
that
these
sources
are
typically
subject
to
a
single
NESHAP
and
they
do
not
fit
the
primary
purpose
of
title
V
to
consolidate
various
and
complex
requirements
in
a
single
document.

Commenters
55
and
57
cited
the
legislative
history
of
title
V
as
requiring
EPA
to
consider
the
need
for
title
V
permits
to
contain
NESHAP
and
general
SIP
requirements
in
order
to
better
clarify
and
enforce
these
requirements.
Commenter
55
pointed
to
EPA's
assertion
that
title
V
exemptions
will
not
adversely
affect
public
health
because
title
V
permits
are
not
needed
to
help
enforce
and
clarify
requirements
for
these
area
sources,
and
they
said
this
is
in
sharp
contrast
with
prior
EPA
statements
in
the
part
70
final
rule,
and
the
dry
cleaner
and
chrome
electroplating
NESHAP
rules
that
title
V
permits
would
enable
sources,
States,
EPA
and
the
public
to
better
understand
the
requirements
to
which
the
source
is
subject,
and
whether
the
source
is
meeting
those
requirements.
See
57
FR
32250
(
July
21,1992)
for
part
70,
58
FR
49354
(
September
22,
1992)
for
dry
cleaners,
and
58
FR
65768
(
December
16,
1993)
for
chrome
electroplaters.

Response:
EPA
explains
[
elsewhere]
why
placing
NESHAP
and
any
SIP
requirements
for
these
sources
in
permits
is
not
likely
to
result
in
increased
compliance
for
these
sources.
Also,
EPA
believes
the
compliance
benefits
of
title
V
for
these
area
sources
would
be
small,
and
not
justified
taking
into
consideration
the
burdens
and
costs
that
title
V
would
impose
on
them.
As
for
the
statements
made
in
the
final
dry
cleaning
and
chrome
electroplating
NESHAP
rules
concerning
29
the
appropriateness
of
title
V
exemptions
for
these
area
sources,
those
statements
were
based
on
a
different
record
than
that
available
to
the
agency
today,
and
were
not
intended
to
foreclose
further
investigation
and
alternative
findings
in
the
future.

2.6
Other
Comments
on
Factors
Used
in
the
Proposal?

Comment:
Commenter
12
opined
that
if
the
emissions
of
an
area
source,
such
as
secondary
aluminum,
can
move
from
State
to
State,
interstate
commerce
is
at
stake,
and
the
"
commerce
clause"
of
the
U.
S.
Constitution
allows
EPA
to
preempt
States
from
permitting
such
sources
(
See
Gibbons
vs.
Ogden).
He
also
says
that
this
is
not
the
case
for
the
other
four
categories
of
area
sources
proposed
for
exemption
because
they
would
have
localized
emissions.
He
asserts
based
on
this
commerce
clause
analysis
(
and
other
arguments
responded
to
elsewhere
in
this
document)
that
EPA
should
not
finalize
the
proposed
exemptions
from
title
V.

Response:
The
commenter
effectively
argues
that
EPA
cannot
foreclose
State
issuance
of
title
V
permits
to
dry
cleaners,
degreasers,
EO
sterilizers
and
chrome
electroplaters
because
federal
regulation
of
these
sources
is
not
authorized
under
the
U.
S.
Constitution
since
their
emissions
are
not
likely
to
have
significant
interstate
impact.
Nevertheless,
the
commenter
strongly
asserts
that
EPA
should
not
issue
title
V
exemptions
for
them,
and
should
regulate
them
under
Title
V.
The
comment
is
internally
inconsistent.
Moreover,
whether
these
sources
are
appropriately
regulated
under
the
Act
was
addressed
in
issuance
of
the
NESHAP
for
these
source
categories.
Any
opportunity
to
challenge
these
NESHAP
has
now
passed.

Comment:
Commenter
55
asserts
that
the
structure
of
section
502(
a),
which
provides
that
listed
sources
are
subject
to
title
V
permitting
unless
certain
findings
are
made,
contrasts
sharply
with
other
CAA
programs,
such
as
CAA
§
112(
n)(
1)(
a)
that
only
require
regulation
if
the
Administrator
determines
that
regulation
is
needed.
The
commenter
believes
that
this
"
emphasizes
the
significance
of
EPA's
burden
under
section
502(
a)
to
require
title
V
permitting
for
area
sources
unless
the
statutorily
required
findings
are
made.

Response:
The
construction
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
may
differ
from
other
statutory
provisions,
but
that
is
irrelevant
because
the
plain
language
of
section
502(
a)
allows
EPA
to
promulgate
title
V
exemptions,
based
on
certain
findings.
EPA
makes
the
findings
required
under
section
502(
a)
for
each
of
the
area
sources
exempted
in
today's
rulemaking.

3.0
What
Other
Factors
Did
Commenters
Believe
EPA
Should
Consider?

Comment:
Commenters
17,
18,
19,
24
and
25
observed
that
EPA
did
not
address
how
States
that
have
delegation
for
NESHAP
only
through
the
Title
V
program
will
enforce
the
NESHAP
through
the
State
permit
process.
In
addition,
commenter
55
requested
a
detailed
table
in
the
rulemaking
showing
the
delegation
status
of
all
NESHAP
affected
by
this
rulemaking
for
all
30
States,
including
whether
the
State
has
full
or
partial
delegation,
the
nature
of
the
partial
delegation,
why
full
delegation
was
not
granted,
and
citation
to
all
such
delegations.

Response:
Section
112(
l)
does
not
require
States
to
take
delegation
of
NESHAP
for
area
or
major
sources,
instead,
it
gives
them
the
option
of
requesting
delegation
of
NESHAP,
or
certain
portions
of
NESHAP.
If
the
situation
posited
by
the
commenter
exists,
and
the
State
is
not
willing
to
retain
its
delegation
through
other
mechanisms,
then
EPA
would
implement
and
enforce
these
standards.
Thus,
there
will
never
be
any
gaps
in
NESHAP
implementation
and
enforcement
in
any
State,
because
either
the
State
or
EPA
will
be
responsible
for
all
portions
of
all
NESHAP
in
that
State.

Concerning
the
request
for
a
detailed
table
of
delegation
status
for
each
NESHAP
for
each
State,
EPA
believes
this
request
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.
However,
EPA
already
provides
similar
information
in
this
regard
in
Subpart
E
of
part
63
(
§
63.99),
and
this
information
will
be
updated
on
an
on­
going
basis
to
reflect
changes
in
delegation
status
long
after
this
rulemaking
action
is
complete.
For
example,
see
70
FR
36515,
June
24,
2005,
a
notice,
in
part,
of
delegation
of
implementation
and
enforcement
authority
for
certain
NESHAP
for
Iowa
and
Kansas.
Moreover,
as
explained
above,
information
on
State
delegation
status
is
irrelevant
because
there
are
no
gaps
in
implementation
and
enforcement
authority
for
NESHAP
in
any
State.

Comment:
Commenter
9
believes
better
criteria
for
exempting
these
sources
would
be
the
accuracy
and
precision
of
compliance
monitoring.

Response:
The
Act
sets
forth
the
criteria
for
exempting
area
sources
from
title
V.
EPA
has
considered
any
benefits
that
title
V
may
provide
vis
a
vis
monitoring
in
determining
wether
title
V
is
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
on
the
areas
sources
it
is
exempting.
Also,
see
chapter
2.1
for
more
on
why
we
believe
these
NESHAP
have
monitoring
consistent
with
the
Act.

Comment:
Commenter
30
suggests
that
the
permitting
burdens
placed
on
State
and
local
agencies
would
also
render
such
permits
"
infeasible."

Response:
In
the
proposal,
EPA
considered
how
burdens
on
permitting
authorities
would
create
burdens
for
area
sources,
and
could
lead
to
at
least
a
temporary
counterproductive
shift
of
attention
away
form
more
significant
sources.
First,
in
the
discussion
of
the
second
factor,
EPA
discussed
difficulties
these
area
sources
would
have
in
getting
title
V
permitting
assistance
from
States,
and
second,
in
the
discussion
of
the
legislative
history
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act,
where
we
said
title
V
permitting
for
these
area
sources
could,
at
least
temporarily,
shift
resources
at
the
State
agencies
away
from
assuring
compliance
for
major
sources
with
existing
title
V
permits
to
issuing
new
title
V
permits
to
these
area
sources.
We
chose
not
to
probe
the
"
infeasible"
criterion
of
section
502(
a).

Comment:
Commenter
10
thinks
EPA
should
not
exempt
these
area
sources
because
the
sources
have
had
10
years
to
learn
the
permitting
scheme
and
develop
expertise
for
complying
with
it.
31
Response:
The
EPA
does
not
agree
with
this
comment.
The
commenter
submitted
no
information
to
confirm
that
the
majority
of
area
sources
have
actually
developed
expertise
with
title
V
or
been
issued
such
a
permit.
On
the
contrary,
EPA
believes
the
majority
of
these
area
sources
have
not
been
required
to
get
title
V
permits
to
date.
During
the
deferral,
EPA
estimates
only
about
5
percent
of
these
area
sources
(
assuming
around
1,300
permitted
by
Florida,
and
perhaps
several
hundred
others
in
a
few
other
States,
or
no
more
than
1,800
out
of
38,000
area
sources
nationwide)
were
required
to
obtain
title
V
permits,
with
the
remaining
area
sources
deferred
by
the
States
and
not
subject
to
title
V
permitting
requirements.
Thus
because
the
majority
of
these
area
sources
have
not
been
required
to
obtain
title
V
permits
to
date,
the
majority
of
them
have
not
developed
expertise
with
title
V.
EPA
also
expects
that
most,
if
not
all,
area
sources
subject
to
this
rulemaking
have
assumed
that
EPA
would
finalize
the
proposed
exemptions,
and
have
not
used
the
intervening
time
period
to
familiarize
themselves
with
title
V.

Comment:
Commenters
27
and
29
remarked
that
title
V
permitting
is
necessary
because
the
public
process
requirements
of
the
permitting
programs
will
ensure
consistency
and
fairness
for
the
sources,
while
commenter
55
was
concerned
that
public
access
to
compliance
obligations
that
vary
from
source
to
source,
such
as
control
device
methodology
and
acceptable
parameter
ranges
to
show
compliance,
particularly
for
the
chrome
electroplating
NESHAP,
would
be
lost
with
title
V
exemptions.
Also,
commenter
57
said
that
an
important
public
benefit
of
title
V
is
that
it
is
much
more
likely
that
a
concerned
citizen
will
learn
of
the
compliance
status
of
a
facility
and
the
existence
of
monitoring
reports
and
deviations
from
emission
standards
through
a
review
of
the
title
V
permit
than
otherwise.

Response:
Public
participation
may
theoretically
cause
indirect
improvements
in
compliance
with
NESHAP,
however,
we
don't
know
the
extent
that
this
would
actually
occur
under
title
V
or
other
statutory
authorities.
In
this
rulemaking,
instead,
we
have
analyzed
the
potential
effects
from
the
loss
of
title
V
compliance
requirements,
such
as
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting,
which
are
more
likely
to
directly
affect
compliance
with
the
NESHAP.
In
addition,
independent
from
title
V,
section
114(
c)
of
the
Act
requires
records,
reports,
or
information
obtained
under
section
114(
a)
authority
to
be
made
available
to
the
public,
unless
doing
so
would
divulge
trade
secrets,
and
this
applies
to
NESHAP­
related
information
as
well,
whether
required
to
be
submitted
to
permitting
agencies
or
kept
on­
site.
Thus,
there
is
independent
authority
for
the
public
to
obtain
NESHAP
compliance
information
outside
of
title
V.
The
compliance
information
required
to
be
gathered,
stored,
and
reported
under
the
NESHAP
is
clearly
set
forth
in
the
NESHAP
standards
in
40
CFR
part
63,
so
it
is
hard
to
see
how
a
title
V
permit
would
clarify
that
such
information
exists
for
these
sources.
Also,
the
commenter
did
not
submit
any
information
to
show
that
there
are
any
additional
burdens
to
the
public
from
getting
compliance
information
under
section
114(
c)
authority,
compared
to
title
V,
but
even
if
such
burdens
exists
for
the
public,
EPA
believes
such
burdens
would
be
small.
However,
EPA
explains
in
the
final
rule
why
exemptions
for
these
area
sources
are
appropriate,
and
EPA's
analysis
focuses
on
the
burdens
of
title
V
for
the
area
sources,
consistent
with
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.
Also,
we
describe
elsewhere
in
this
document
why
these
exemptions
will
not
adversely
affect
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment.
For
a
detailed
response
on
how
the
public
can
determine
the
32
monitoring
selected
and
the
parameter
ranges
used
to
show
compliance
with
the
chrome
electroplating
NESHAP
without
relying
on
a
title
V
permit,
see
Chapter
10.2
of
this
document.

Comment:
Commenter
66
thinks
title
V
permits
would
not
be
burdensome
for
the
sources
for
which
title
V
exemptions
were
proposed
because
"
additional
monitoring
and
recordkeeping
­
such
as
bi­
annual
reports,
prompt
notice
of
deviations,
and
annual
compliance
certification
which
may
be
required
under
title
V
would
seem
to
be
a
part
of
the
due
diligence
required
of
any
business."

Response:
The
EPA
does
not
understand
this
comment
because
the
commenter
did
not
describe
the
source
of
the
referenced
"
due
diligence"
requirement.
However,
as
described
in
section
2.3,
EPA
believes
that
any
recordkeeping
and
reporting
beyond
what
is
required
in
the
NESHAP
is
unnecessary,
and
will
impose
a
burden
on
these
area
sources
that
can
be
avoided
without
significant
consequences.
Also,
even
if
the
monitoring,
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
are
substantially
equivalent
to
those
of
title
V,
they
may
not
be
identical,
thus,
title
V
may
impose
additional
recordkeeping,
monitoring,
and
reporting
requirements
that
would
be
unnecessary.
In
addition,
title
V
imposes
many
other
burdens
and
costs
in
addition
to
those
related
to
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
(
e.
g.,
application
preparation
and
submittal).
[
See
docket
items
80
and
81,
the
ICRs
for
parts
70
and
71].
Other
comments
about
monitoring
and
recordkeeping
under
title
V
are
discussed
primarily
in
Chapter
2.1
of
this
document,
and
the
burdens
and
costs
of
title
V
are
discussed
in
sections
2.2
and
2.3.

Comment:
Many
commenters
expressed
concern
that
exempting
area
sources
would
cause
an
un­
level
playing
field
or
economic
disadvantage
for
major
sources.
Commenters
17,
18,
19,
20,
24,
25,
27,
and
29
said
this
for
the
secondary
aluminum
industry,
while
commenter
66
said
this
in
general.
Commenter
66
said
that
if
the
regulation
is
federal
and,
therefore,
applies
to
all,
the
playing
field
is
level.
Commenter
12
stated
that
dry
cleaning
and
secondary
aluminum
area
sources
would
not
be
leaving
for
other
counties
if
title
V
permits
are
required,
but
chromium
electroplaters
would,
and
he
concluded
that
the
nation
would
be
better
off
without
their
emissions.

Response:
The
EPA
disagrees
that
it
should
consider
whether
title
V
exemptions
create
an
unlevel
playing
field
and
economic
disadvantage
for
major
source
sources.
This
is
not
one
of
the
issues
that
Congress
directed
EPA
to
consider
in
issuing
title
V
exemptions.

Comment:
Commenter
12
was
concerned
that
domestic
security
will
be
compromised
by
exemptions
for
these
sources
because
of
unreported
releases
of
toxic
chemicals
that
could
be
cause
false
alarms
for
the
department
of
homeland
security
in
its
effort
to
monitoring
for
airborne
toxic
chemical
attacks.

Response:
The
commenter
submitted
no
evidence,
there
any
evidence
available
to
EPA,
and
it
seems
unlikely
to
EPA
that
the
relatively
small
HAP
emissions
from
area
sources
dry
cleaners
or
similar
small
businesses
would
have
characteristics
that
would
make
them
likely
to
be
interpreted
as
a
terrorist
attack
by
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security.
33
4.0
Is
it
Reasonable
for
EPA
to
Rely
on
the
Information
Cited
in
Support
of
the
Proposal?

Comment:
Commenter
59
stated
that
the
proposal
is
consistent
with
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
and
supported
by
the
facts
presented
in
the
preamble.
Commenters
12,
55,
and
57
complained
about
the
information
EPA
collected
to
support
its
proposal,
which
is
in
the
record
(
docket)
for
the
rulemaking,
and
cited
in
the
proposal.
Commenter
55
opined
that
to
survive
judicial
review,
any
EPA
exemption
finding
must
be
supported
by
"
substantial
evidence,
not
mere
assertions,
"
citing
several
decisions
in
the
D.
C.
Circuit.
Continuing
on,
commenter
55
says
that
despite
EPA's
commitment
over
the
past
ten
years
to
evaluate
State/
local
implementation
and
information
on
area
source
NESHAP,
the
likely
benefits
of
permitting
such
sources,
and
the
costs,
and
other
burdens
associated
with
title
V
permits,
EPA
has
failed
to
undertake
even
the
most
minimal
steps
needed
to
evaluate
the
burdens
and
benefits
of
title
V
permits
for
them,
relying
instead
on
unsupported
assertions
and
anecdotes.
See
61
FR
27785,
June
2,
1996
and
64
FR
69637,
69641
(
December
14,
1999).
Commenter
12
cited
a
lack
of
solid
data
supporting
the
proposal,
especially
for
secondary
aluminum
area
sources.
Commenter
57
said
that
the
proposal
was
based
on
insufficient
evidence,
including
inadequate
statistical
data,
focused
on
presumed
impacts
on
business,
with
little
emphasis
on
the
impacts
on
the
public,
such
that
it
is
arbitrary
and
capricious.
Also,
EPA's
conclusion
that
compliance
would
be
high
in
the
absence
of
title
V
was
based
on
the
input
of
a
small
minority
of
States,
including
the
input
of
the
State
of
Georgia
(
see
document
#
08
in
the
docket),
which
was
repeatedly
used
as
a
model
for
the
nation
without
explanation,
nor
is
there
any
explanation
suggesting
EPA
has
determined
that
the
Georgia
model
is
a
particularly
efficient
and
well
implemented
program.
Also,
commenter
57
said
that
it
is
not
resolved
that
the
fact
that
13
out
of
25
permitting
authorities
report
high
compliance
rates
without
title
V
permits
means
that
one
may
reasonably
conclude
that
the
other
half
believed
rates
of
compliance
without
title
V
were
not
suitably
high."
Commenter
12
said
that
docket
Items
02
and
08
do
not
constitute
a
majority
opinion
of
industry
or
States
that
title
V
permitting
would
be
unnecessarily
burdensome.
Commenters
17,
18,
19,
24
and
25
said
the
State
survey
shows
that
States
are
not
prepared
for
greater
oversight
of
NESHAP
compliance
at
these
area
sources
because
the
State
survey
is
inaccurate
and
incomplete,
especially
for
EPA
Region
5,
where
many
of
these
sources
are
concentrated.
They
also
said
the
State
survey
shows
that
not
all
sources
are
being
inspected
or
permitted
through
State
programs,
and
because
all
States
did
not
respond
to
the
survey,
the
compliance
rate
data
is
incomplete
and
the
number
of
sources
is
incorrect.
For
example,
South
Coast
Air
Quality
Management
District
has
a
high
concentration
of
sources,
but
inspections
are
few,
even
though
they
say
source
testing
is
a
high
priority.
Commenters
27
and
29
said
that
EPA
Region
5
has
sought
enforcement
or
fined
over
half
of
all
major
secondary
aluminum
sources
in
the
Region,
so
it
seems
"
high
compliance"
can't
be
achieved
even
with
title
V
permits
for
these
sources
and
this
suggests
a
high
level
of
non­
compliance
nationally.

Response:
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
34
(
docket
item
02).
The
EPA
also
sought
input
from
State
small
business
ombudsmen
and
several
trade
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
of
the
preamble
for
the
final
rule
for
this
rulemaking
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.

States
used
various
ways
to
categorize
source
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards
for
area
sources
when
responding
to
the
State
survey,
variously
describing
it
as
"
high,"
"
medium,
or
"
low,"
and
often
providing
specific
percentages
of
area
sources
in
compliance,
and
these
differences
were
taken
into
account
in
our
analysis
of
the
data
in
the
State
survey.
Also,
the
Act
does
not
require
us
to
prove
that
"
high
compliance"
exists
for
every
area
source
in
the
nation
prior
to
our
finalizing
title
V
exemptions
for
them.
In
this
final
rule
and
response
to
comments,
EPA
has
shown
that
title
V
would
be
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
for
these
area
sources
and
that
there
would
not
be
adverse
affects
on
public
health,
welfare,
and
the
environment"
from
such
exemptions,
consistent
with
the
Act.

In
formulating
the
proposal,
EPA
did
consider
the
input
of
the
State
of
Georgia
to
any
greater
extent
that
any
other
State
input,
nor
did
we
disregard
other
input
and
data
available
to
us
at
that
time.
Also,
we
did
not
say
that
we
thought
Georgia's
title
V
programs
should
serve
as
a
model
for
the
nation,
thus
there
was
no
need
for
us
to
explain
why
it
should
serve
as
such.
We
cited
a
letter
from
this
State
in
the
preamble
in
several
instances,
but
we
also
cited
other
documents
and
data
available
to
us
for
the
proposal,
and
we
placed
all
documents
we
considered
and
discussed
in
the
proposal
in
the
docket
prior
to
the
proposal.

The
commenters
submitted
no
information
to
support
their
allegations
regarding
inspection
deficiencies
at
the
South
Coast
Air
Quality
Control
District
and
noncompliance
for
35
secondary
aluminum
major
sources
in
Region
5.
It
is
not
clear
whether
compliance
difficulties
for
major
sources
in
Region
V
are
relevant
for
purposes
of
EPA's
proposed
exemption
of
area
sources
from
title
V.
In
any
event,
EPA
believes
that
the
exemptions
provided
today
will
enable
regulatory
agencies
to
focus
their
efforts
in
ways
best
designed
to
lead
to
compliance
with
the
NESHAP.

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.

We
relied
on
data
from
major
sources
to
a
limited
extent,
usually
only
when
there
was
no
data
specific
to
area
sources,
and
when
we
did
so
we
discussed
the
limitations
of
such
data.
EPA
recognizes
that
information
specific
to
major
sources
is
not
appropriate
in
most
cases
for
characterizing
area
sources,
because
major
sources
are
much
more
complex,
their
permits
are
more
complex,
they
are
more
able
to
handle
economic
burdens,
and
they
typically
have
trained
environmental
staff.

We
are
puzzled
by
the
comment
about
the
proposal's
emphasis
on
the
presumed
impacts
on
business,
rather
than
impacts
on
the
public,
because
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
requires
us
to
consider
whether
permitting
would
be
"
impracticable,
infeasible,
or
unnecessarily
burdensome"
on
the
area
sources,
and
presumably
all
of
these
sources
are
businesses.
If
the
commenter
is
concerned
about
possible
adverse
affects
on
public
health,
we
address
this
issue
in
Chapter
2.5
of
this
document.

5.0
May
Title
V
Permits
be
Issued
to
Area
Sources
After
EPA
Exempts
Them?

Comment:
Commenters
14,
23,
30,
and
31
supported
EPA's
interpretation
that
permitting
authorities
may
not
require
title
V
permits
for
exempt
area
sources.
Commenter
14
said
it
would
be
inconsistent
with
the
Act
for
States
to
require
title
V
permits
for
exempt
area
sources.
Commenters
30
and
31
said
that
Congress
in
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
granted
EPA
alone
authority
to
establish
the
universe
of
sources
subject
to
title
V,
and
that
once
EPA
has
made
such
determinations,
States
must
abide
by
it.
Commenter
30
said
that
he
supports
EPA
policy
on
this
because
some
chrome
electroplaters
have
been
required
to
get
permits
during
the
deferral
period.

Commenters
12,
16,
and
57
believe
section
116
of
the
Act
allows
States
to
have
more
stringent
part
70
permits
and
this
means
States
are
allowed
to
issue
title
V
permits
to
exempt
area
sources
(
also
citing
§
70.1).
Commenter
55
believes
EPA's
interpretation
violates
the
plain
language
of
section
506(
a)
of
the
Act,
and
the
more
general
provisions
of
section
116
of
the
Act,
and
instead,
under
section
502(
b),
that
EPA's
role
is
to
establish
the
"
minimum
elements
of
a
permit
program
to
be
administered
by
any
air
pollution
control
agency,"
to
allow
State
flexibility,
and
not
disrupt
existing
State
permit
programs.
36
Response:
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
the
area
sources
we
exempt
in
today's
final
rule,
unless
they
are
subject
to
title
V
for
another
reason.
Also,
this
means
that
any
existing
title
V
permits
for
such
exempted
area
sources
must
be
revoked
or
terminated
after
the
effective
date
of
today's
final
rule.
However,
to
avoid
disruptions
to
State
programs,
States
may
wait
until
renewal
to
end
the
effectiveness
of
such
permits,
unless
an
area
source
requests
that
this
be
done
expeditiously.
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.
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.
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.

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).
Similarly,
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
conflict
with
our
interpretation
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.
We
also
believe
allowing
title
V
permitting
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
non­
exempt
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
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.
37
Several
commenters
stated
that
EPA's
proposed
reading
of
section
502(
a)
is
illegal
because
it
conflicts
with
section
116,
which
they
believe
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,
and
we
affirmed
this
view
in
the
final
rule.
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
sources.

Comment:
Commenter
16
also
believes
EPA's
interpretation
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
contradicts
previous
EPA
interpretations,
such
as
the
December
14,
1999
deferral
notice
(
64
FR
69637),
which
allows
States
to
require
such
permits
during
the
deferral,
and
a
statement
on
the
EPA
permits
website
to
the
effect
that
EPA
regulations
allow
States
to
decide
whether
to
require
title
V
permits
for
certain
area
sources
subject
to
NESHAP.
.
Response:
The
concern
that
EPA's
interpretation
of
502(
a)
of
the
Act
contradicts
with
two
prior
EPA
statements
is
misplaced.
The
first
example
given
by
the
commenter
was
the
December
14,
1999
deferral
notice
(
64
FR
69637),
which
was
a
final
rule
allowing
States
to
defer
(
temporarily
exempt)
certain
area
sources
subject
to
NESHAP
from
title
V,
while
EPA
considered
permanent
exemptions.
Today's
area
source
rulemaking
is
the
rulemaking
promised
in
the
deferral
notice,
and
any
statements
regarding
the
ability
of
States
to
permit
these
sources
during
the
deferral
period
are
no
longer
relevant.
As
for
the
second
point,
to
the
extent
EPA
may
have
interpreted
section
502(
a)
differently
in
the
past,
those
interpretations
have
been
superceded
by
this
notice
and
comment
rulemaking.
We
have
updated
the
website,
and
it
no
longer
contains
the
statement
referenced
by
the
commenter.

Comment:
Commenter
55
believes
EPA
should
assess
whether
the
State
program
has
been
effective
in
terms
of
protecting
public
health
and
welfare,
or
whether
it
places
any
unreasonable
burden
on
area
sources
before
exempting
them.

Response:
We
respond
to
comments
on
the
potential
for
adverse
affects
on
public
health
and
welfare
in
chapter
2.5,
and
we
assess
the
burdens
of
title
V
on
these
area
sources
through
factors
two
and
three
in
chapters
2.2
and
2.3.
It
is
also
possible
to
interpret
this
comment
as
requesting
that
our
exemption
analyses
be
conducted
on
a
State­
by­
State,
rather
than
a
nationwide
basis.
If
this
is
the
intent
of
the
commenter,
EPA
disagrees
with
this
comment.
Such
a
strategy
is
not
required
by
the
statute,
and
from
a
practical
standpoint,
EPA
believe
it
would
lead
to
unnecessary
delays
in
exemption
decisions,
strains
on
the
resources
of
States
and
EPA,
and
frustration
for
all
parties
involved.
The
process
EPA
has
undertaken
in
this
rulemaking
to
review
the
exemption
criteria
of
the
Act
on
a
national
basis
is
consistent
with
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.

Comment:
Commenter
59
believes
that
State
laws
would
often
preclude
title
V
permits
for
these
exempt
sources,
but
such
permitting
should
be
allowed
in
isolated
circumstances.
38
Response:
The
EPA
agrees
that
State
laws
are
often
structured
so
that
exempt
area
sources
could
not
be
permitted
under
State
title
V
programs,
however,
we
disagree
that
States
should
have
the
authority
to
permit
certain
exempt
area
sources
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
under
title
V
because
this
would
be
inconsistent
with
EPA's
interpretation
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act,
described
above.

Comment:
Commenter
23
said
that
once
these
title
V
exemptions
are
final,
States
should
not
be
able
to
require
permits,
including
title
V,
title
V­
like,
or
other
types
of
State
permits.

Response:
The
EPA
agrees
that
title
V
permits
may
not
be
issued
for
area
sources
after
we
exempt
them
from
title
V,
however,
to
also
prohibit
State
or
local
agencies
or
tribes
from
permitting
such
area
sources
under
other
authorities
of
the
Act,
for
example,
under
non­
title
V
authorities,
would
be
inconsistent
with
our
interpretation
of
section
116
of
the
Act,
described
above.

Comment:
Commenter
57
opposes
EPA's
proposal
to
revise
the
part
70
and
71
rules
because
they
opine
that
this
will
prevent
the
States
from
being
more
stringent
than
the
federal
government
with
respect
to
air
quality.

Response:
We
are
finalizing
the
proposed
changes
to
the
part
70
and
71
rules
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
for
the
reasons
explained
above.
As
described
above,
although
we
are
prohibiting
States
from
issuing
title
V
permits
to
area
sources
once
EPA
exempts
them
from
title
V,
we
are
not
foreclosing
State
options
to
permit
these
area
sources
under
non­
title
V
permitting
programs,
nor
are
we
revising
any
other
aspect
of
the
part
63
rules.

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
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.

6.0
Should
General
Permits
be
Required
as
an
Alternative
to
Exemptions?

Comment:
Commenters
16,
22,
30,
31,
59,
61,
and
65
supported
EPA's
proposal
that
general
39
permits
should
not
be
issued
to
these
area
sources,
in
lieu
of
exempting
them.
Concerning
factor
one,
commenter
31
said
that
title
V
compliance
requirements
in
general
permits
would
be
duplicative
of
NESHAP,
and
no
more
likely
to
ensure
compliance
than
a
standard
permit.
Concerning
factor
two,
commenter
55
believes
these
sources
are
suitable
for
a
general
permit,
and
that
they
are
a
cost­
effective
alternative
for
permitting.
Concerning
factor
three,
commenter
30
thought
EPA's
justifications
apply
equally
to
general
permits
as
standard
permits
because,
even
though
general
permits
are
less
burdensome,
resources
and
costs
must
still
be
devoted
with
no
environmental
benefits,
and
little,
if
any,
gains
in
compliance.
Commenter
31
said,
while
some
States
have
implemented
general
permits
for
these
sources,
it
is
not
clear
that
they
have
significantly
improved
compliance
rates.
Commenter
61
stated
that
he
does
not
support
the
use
of
general
permits
because
burden
and
cost
would
also
be
unreasonable
and
not
add
compliance
gains.
Finally,
commenter
65
believes
general
permits
may
lead
to
increased
compliance
assistance,
and
that
general
permit
programs
in
the
States
have
had
varying
degrees
of
success.
Commenter
65
said
that
general
permitting
is
a
long
process,
requiring
sufficient
resources
and
commitments
to
ensure
clarity
of
the
permit
across
a
diverse
group
of
owners
and
operators,
and
that
such
a
commitment
may
only
be
justified
for
dry
cleaners.

Commenter
9
asked
if
States
had
specifically
told
us
that
their
resources
would
be
strained
if
general
permits
were
required
for
these
area
sources.
Commenter
59
opined
that
there
would
be
little
compliance
benefits
from
general
permits,
and
they
would
simply
add
to
administrative
burdens
on
the
States,
siphoning
resources
away
from
compliance
oversight
for
major
sources.
Commenter
57
said
they
did
not
generally
support
general
permitting
but
it
may
make
sense
for
these
sources
to
insure
that
adequate
resources
are
available
for
processing
new
permits.
Commenter
31
said
general
permits
would
reduce
burdens,
but
would
still
require
significant
facility
resources,
while
commenter
22
believes
the
burdens
and
costs
of
general
permits
is
not
significantly
different
from
that
for
standard
title
V
permits,
thus
general
permits
would
be
unnecessarily
burdensome
for
these
sources.

Response:
The
EPA
has
decided
not
to
adopt
the
alternative,
discussed
in
the
proposal,
of
requiring
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
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
40
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
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/
or
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
factors
one
and
four
in
chapters
2.1
and
2.4.]
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.

One
commenter
asked
us
to
state
whether
or
not
States
told
us
their
resources
would
be
strained
if
we
required
general
permits
for
these
area
sources.
In
response,
one
State,
commenter
59,
clearly
stated
that
general
permits
for
these
area
sources
would
simply
add
to
administrative
burdens
on
the
States,
siphoning
resources
away
from
compliance
oversight
for
major
sources.
Even
though
several
States
had
successfully
issued
general
permit
under
title
V
for
at
least
one
of
these
categories
of
area
source,
none
has
issued
such
general
permits
for
all
five
categories
of
area
sources
subject
to
NESHAP
that
we
exempt
today,
so
it
is
unclear
what
the
impact
of
such
a
requirement
would
be
for
States.
As
we
have
explained
elsewhere
in
this
document,
an
EPA
decision
not
to
exempt
the
area
sources
addressed
in
today's
rule
would
not
necessarily
mean
that
States
would
elect
to
issue
general
permits
for
them
rather
than
standard
permits.
Moreover,
all
States
that
commented
on
the
proposal
supported
the
primary
goal
of
the
proposal
to
exempt
these
five
categories
of
area
sources
from
title
V
and
stated
that
general
41
permits
should
not
be
required
of
them
in
lieu
of
exemptions.
Moreover,
whether
general
permits
would
strain
State
resources
or
not,
EPA
has
explained
above
why
we
believe
title
V
exemptions
for
these
area
sources
will
not
adversely
affect
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment,
and
that
these
exemptions
are
otherwise
consistent
with
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.

Comment:
Concerning
cost
estimates
for
general
permits,
commenter
55
alleges
that
EPA
did
not
attempt
to
obtain
information
from
State
programs
with
a
history
of
issuing
general
permits
on
the
costs
of
general
permits.
Also
they
said
that
EPA
estimated
in
the
1992
RIA
that
the
cost
of
a
general
permit
would
be
$
154
per
year,
and
that
the
current
ICR
shows
activity
of
"
reapplication
of
general
permit"
at
2
hours
of
source
time,"
while
"
permit
renewal"
for
individual
permits
take
200
hours
of
source
time,
yet
we
did
not
mention
either
of
these
facts
in
the
proposal,
and
they
doubt
EPA's
claim
in
the
proposal
that
general
permits
would
cost
sources
$
7,700.
Commenter
57
also
questioned
EPA's
estimate
of
cost,
saying
it
would
be
many
times
lower
than
"
half
of
$
7,700"
for
dry
cleaners.

Response:
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
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.
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
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
42
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
refer
in
the
proposal
to
cost
estimates
in
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
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
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.
43
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
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).

Comment:
Commenter
16
thinks
general
permits
will
be
less
burdensome
and
costly,
and
all
States
may
not
have
the
ability
or
authority
to
issue
them,
although
States
should
have
the
option
of
issuing
them.

Response:
In
response,
the
statute
clearly
allows
permitting
agencies
the
option,
rather
than
mandate,
of
issuing
general
permits,
and
all
State
agencies
do
not
currently
issue
them.
While
it
is
true
that
States
may
issue
general
permits
at
their
option
for
sources
properly
covered
by
the
program,
this
rulemaking
does
not
authorize
agencies
to
issue
general
permits
to
exempt
title
V
sources.

Comment:
Commenter
57
complained
that
EPA
offered
no
data
and
no
reasoned
explanation
why
general
permitting
would
not
be
an
alternative
for
these
sources.
44
Response:
The
EPA
disagrees
with
this
comment,
the
proposal
shows
careful
consideration
of
the
alternative
to
require
general
permits
for
these
area
sources
in
lieu
of
title
V
exemptions,
comments
were
received
and
considered
on
this
option,
and
we
have
decided
not
to
pursue
this
alternative
in
the
final
rule.
For
more
on
similar
concerns
associated
with
the
information
cited
in
support
of
this
rulemaking,
see
chapter
4.0
of
this
document.

7.0
Are
the
Proposed
Revisions
to
the
EO
Sterilizer
NESHAP
Appropriate?

Comment:
Commenters
23,
56,
58,
and
62
were
concerned
about
the
proposed
revision
to
§
63.360(
f)
to
permanently
exempt
area
sources
subject
to
the
EO
sterilizer
NESHAP
from
title
V.
Commenter
23
thinks
the
proposed
wording
would
redefine
area
source
status
under
the
NESHAP
resulting
in
fewer
area
sources
than
prior
to
the
proposal,
such
that
almost
no
sources
would
qualify
as
area
sources,
because
it
defines
"
area
source"
as
a
source
that
"
uses"
less
than
10
tons
of
EO,
while
the
rule
existing
at
the
time
of
the
proposal
defines
"
area
source"
as
a
source
that
"
emits"
less
than
10
tons
of
EO.
According
to
this
commenter,
this
is
inconsistent
with
the
definition
of
"
major
source"
and
"
area
source"
in
section
112
of
the
Act.
Commenter
58
requested,
if
the
final
rule
retains
the
"
uses"
language,
then
EPA
should
let
facilities
required
to
get
permits
have
another
12­
month
deferral
to
have
adequate
time
to
prepare
title
V
permit
applications.
Commenter
56
said
the
regulatory
language
contradicts
the
proposed
language
in
Table
1
of
§
63.360,
which
exempts
"
area
sources"
regardless
of
EO
usage.
He
also
added
that
area
source
status
should
be
dependent
on
potential
to
emit
or
actual
emissions
of
a
single
or
combination
of
HAP,
consistent
with
the
definition
of
area
source.
Commenter
58
added
that
the
proposal
would
adversely
affect
seven
of
their
facilities
that
would
have
to
get
permits
even
though
they
are
area
sources,
and
that
the
regulatory
text
is
inconsistent
with
the
preamble
acknowledgment
that
almost
all
EO
sterilizers
are
area
sources.
Commenter
62
also
pointed
to
this
conflict
with
Table
1,
and
he
recommended
that
the
regulatory
language
be
revised
to
be
consistent
with
the
regulatory
language
used
in
proposed
revision
to
subparts
M,
N
and
T
that
refer
simply
to
"
area
sources"
more
generally.

Response:
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
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
§
6
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.

45
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.
6
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."

8.0
Will
EPA
Require
Permits
for
Area
Source
Subject
to
Secondary
Lead
NESHAP?

Comment:
Commenters
16
and
59
support
EPA's
decision
to
require
title
V
permitting
for
secondary
lead
area
sources.

Response.
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
opposition
to
our
proposal
to
not
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.)

9.0.
Comments
on
the
Scope
of
the
Title
V
Exemptions
7
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).

46
Comment:
Commenter
14
supports
EPA's
position
that
an
area
source
would
only
be
exempt
from
title
V
permitting
if
the
owner/
operator
of
the
source
is
not
required
to
obtain
a
permit
for
other
reasons.
Commenter
59
seeks
confirmation
that
major
source
permits
must
include
all
applicable
requirements
except
for
the
exempted
NESHAP
operation,
and
that
area
source
exemptions
do
not
exempt
them
from
the
NESHAP
or
permit
requirements
under
State
law.

Response:
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
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.
We
revised
each
of
the
five
NESHAP
in
the
final
rule
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).
Thus,
a
major
source
permit
must
include
terms
and
conditions
to
assure
compliance
with
any
exempted
NESHAP.
If
an
exempted
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
exemption.
7
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.

Comment:
Commenter
57
said
EPA
should
consider
a
"
de
minimis
exemption,"
where
a
distinction
is
made
among
area
sources
based
on
emissions
totals,
such
as
exempt
area
sources
with
actual
emissions
less
than
3
tons
per
year,
but
not
others.
In
addition,
for
dry
cleaners,
they
47
think
EPA
should
have
only
exempted
those
small
area
sources
that
are
exempted
from
control
device
requirements
for
existing
sources
under
the
NESHAP.
Also,
they
believe
States
should
be
able
to
regulate
beyond
EPA's
de
minimis
exemption
if
they
choose.

Response:
For
the
reasons
explained
in
this
rulemaking,
EPA
believes
a
better
approach
to
reduce
burdens
for
these
area
sources
is
to
completely
exempt
all
of
them
from
title
V.
The
EPA
believes
such
a
"
de
minimis"
approach
may
prove
problematic
for
a
number
of
reasons,
similar
to
the
concerns
raised
by
the
"
insignificant
activities
and
emission
units"
provisions
of
parts
70
and
71,
where
applicability
is
based
on
certain
low
emission
thresholds
for
very
small
sources,
and
which
resulted
in
a
great
deal
of
controversy
and
confusion,
at
least
in
the
early
stages
of
implementation.
See
§
§
70.5(
c)
and
71.5(
c)(
11).
In
addition,
EPA
believes
that
title
V
permitting
for
all
area
sources
covered
by
today's
rule
would
be
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
on
the
sources,
justifying
a
title
V
exemption
for
all
of
them.

Comment:
Commenter
16
asked
EPA
to
clarify
that
States
can
continue
to
use
SBAP
funds
for
these
area
sources
after
exemptions
are
finalized.

Response:
Once
a
source
is
exempt
from
title
V,
no
title
V
funds
may
be
expended
to
fund
its
participation
in
the
SBAP.
However,
there
is
no
prohibition
on
a
State
SBAP
assisting
non­
title
V
sources
with
non­
title
V
funds
or
with
EPA
matching
grants
to
States
under
section
105
of
the
Act.

10.0
Comments
on
Specific
Categories
of
Area
Sources
The
following
Chapters
address
how
the
four
factors
and
other
rationale
of
the
proposal
apply
to
particular
categories
of
area
sources
(
see
sections
II.
B
through
II.
F
of
the
proposal).
Many
of
the
commenters
agreed
with
characteristics
of
the
area
sources
that
EPA
described
in
the
proposal.
Those
comments
are
summarized
below
but
response
is
generally
not
necessary.
Where
commenters
disagreed
with
EPA,
but
the
comment
was
already
adequately
addressed
in
another
Chapter
of
this
document,
we
cross­
reference
the
relevant
response.
For
issues
that
need
a
unique
response,
we
give
them
below.
Also,
note
that
there
are
cases,
where
we
chose
to
include
comments
on
particular
categories
of
area
sources
within
the
relevant
discussion
in
the
earlier
Chapters
of
this
document.
An
example
of
this
was
comments
we
received
on
the
proposal
to
revise
the
regulatory
language
for
EO
sterilizers,
which
is
discussed
in
Chapter
7.0
of
this
document.

10.1
Perchloroethylene
Dry
Cleaners
Comment:
Commenter
21
said
dry
cleaners
are
typically
mom
and
pop
businesses
for
which
title
V
would
be
overly
burdensome,
due
to
cost
being
an
excessively
high
percentage
of
sales,
and
that
title
V
would
not
improve
compliance
because
the
NESHAP
is
sufficient
to
do
so
through
48
monitoring,
inspection,
maintenance
and
record
keeping
requirements.
Commenter
31
in
extensive
comments
said:

°
Dry
cleaners
represent
a
large
number
of
small
sources
with
similar
operations,
generally
subject
to
a
single
NESHAP,
and
rarely
multiple
NESHAP
at
the
same
source.
°
The
NESHAP
already
requires
significant
monitoring
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
including
routine
monitoring
of
equipment
operation
and
periodic
checks
for
equipment
leaks,
and
records
of
this,
records
of
solvent
purchases
and
consumption,
and
initial
notification
and
compliance
reports,
such
that
title
V
will
not
add
further
compliance
requirements.
°
Most
States
believe
they
can
achieve
high
compliance
without
title
V
permits,
and
they
have
a
preference
for
one­
on­
one
outreach
activities
as
the
most
effective
means
to
ensure
compliance.
°
States
already
permit
dry
cleaners
outside
of
title
V,
so
title
V
would
be
unnecessary,
and
dry
cleaners
may
be
subject
to
additional
State­
only
enforceable
requirements
beyond
the
NESHAP.
°
Title
V
would
impose
a
significant
burden
on
dry
cleaners
because
they
lack
technical
expertise
and
have
no
trained
staff,
so
they
would
have
to
hire
outside
professionals
to
help
them
meet
permit
requirements.
°
Dry
cleaners
depend
on
outreach
from
permitting
authorities
and
small
business
assistance
programs
for
compliance
assistance.
°
Dry
cleaners
will
have
to
dedicate
significant
resources
to
meet
title
V,
costs
cannot
be
streamlined
enough
to
justify
title
V
for
these
sources,
and
fees
will
not
necessarily
be
reduced
for
them.
°
On
March
17,
2005,
EPA
estimated
27,000
perchlorethylene
dry
cleaners
in
the
U.
S.
(
Status
Update
of
dry
cleaning
residual
risk
and
112(
d)(
6)
MACT
review,
Presentation
to
Industry
representatives).

Commenter
57
said
that
title
V
would
be
a
significant
factor
in
achieving
compliance
at
dry
cleaners,
and
that
EPA's
position
otherwise
was
based
on
generalizations
from
several
States
in
the
State
survey.
Commenter
66
said
exemptions
for
dry
cleaners
are
unfair
to
new
business
ventures
which
seek
to
replace
perchlorethylene
with
safe
alternatives.
Commenter
55
and
66
observed
that
the
large
number
of
dry
cleaners
argues
for
significant
emissions
and
a
public
health
concern.
Commenter
66
added
that
"
the
relative
number
of
perc
emission
sources
with
respect
to
other
title
V
permits
should
not
be
an
argument
for
exemption.
On
the
contrary,
the
existence
of
30,000
dry
cleaners
emitting
toxic
pollution
means
they
should
remain
under
the
program
because
of
the
sheer
volume
of
air
emissions.
He
then
went
on
to
describe
how
much
perc
is
used,
and
that
ASTDR
reports
finding
a
rising
trend
in
perc
use."

Response:
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,
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
49
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
almost
all
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
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
chapter
2.4
above,
there
are
statutory
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
more
likely
to
be
successful
for
implementing
the
dry
cleaning
NESHAP.
Also,
see
chapter
2.4
for
more
on
our
decision
to
revise
factor
four.
50
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,
at
least
in
the
short
term,
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
chapter
2.1.
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
chapter
2.1,
the
dry
cleaning
NESHAP
does
not
contain
reporting
requirements
that
are
directly
comparable
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).]
However,
this
does
not
mean
that
the
compliance
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
are
inadequate
to
achieve
compliance
on
their
own.
Indeed,
in
issuing
the
NESHAP
for
these
area
sources,
EPA
determined
that
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
contained
herein
were
adequate,
and
EPA
continues
to
believe
that
this
is
the
case.
[
See
58
FR
49354,
September
22,
1993.].
We
acknowledge
that
the
additional
reporting
requirements
that
would
be
provided
through
title
V
may
have
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
factor
one
supports
an
exemption
for
dry
cleaners.
Also
for
dry
cleaners,
factor
four
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.

Thus,
factors
one,
two,
three,
and
revised
factor
four,
support
the
exemption
findings
of
the
proposal
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
response
to
the
comment
that
the
exemption
for
dry
cleaners
would
be
unfair
to
new
51
businesses
that
use
alternative
chemicals,
EPA
notes
that
Congress
did
not
direct
EPA
to
consider
such
effects
in
considering
exemptions
from
title
V.

Concerning
generalizations
from
several
States
in
the
State
survey
being
used
to
justify
exemptions,
see
chapters
2.4
and
4.0
of
this
document,
and
for
EPA
response
to
public
health
concerns
related
to
title
V
exemptions
for
area
source
dry
cleaners,
see
chapter
2.5.

Regarding
the
concern
that
the
final
rule
will
increase
emissions
of
perchloroethylene,
EPA
agrees
that
perchloroethylene
emissions
are
a
serious
environmental
concern.
However,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
issuing
title
V
permits
to
dry
cleaners
will
have
a
significant
impact
on
perchloroethylene
emissions
or
on
human
health,
as
described
more
thoroughly
in
chapter
2.5
of
this
document
and
in
the
final
rule.

Also,
note
that
we
are
revising
our
estimate
of
dry
cleaners
to
up
to
28,000
area
sources,
a
reduction
of
2,000
area
sources
from
the
proposal.

10.2
Chromium
Electroplaters
Comment:
Commenter
30
supports
exemptions
for
chrome
electroplaters
for
many
reasons:

°
The
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
criterion
is
met
through
the
four
factor
test,
and
there
will
be
no
adverse
impacts
because
the
area
sources
will
remain
subject
to
the
NESHAP.
°
Title
V
permits
for
chrome
platers
will
not
result
in
significant
improvements
to
compliance
beyond
NESHAP
requirements
because
the
two
requirements
are
substantially
equivalent.
°
Title
V
burdens
and
costs
will
be
exacerbated
by
delays
in
permitting
caused
by
State
resource
limitations,
and
title
V
for
electroplaters
will
not
result
in
further
gains
in
compliance
because
they
are
already
subject
to
comprehensive
compliance
requirements
of
the
NESHAP.
Thus,
costs
cannot
be
justified
in
the
absence
of
compliance
gains.
°
The
chrome
plating
NESHAP
is
a
straightforward
requirement
that
would
not
benefit
from
clarification
in
title
V
permits,
and
ongoing
compliance
assistance
efforts
are
sufficient
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
NESHAP.

Commenter
55
reported
that
the
monitoring
requirements
of
the
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
unless
these
values
are
spelled
out
in
a
permit,
it
is
difficult
for
the
public
to
track
a
source's
ongoing
compliance
and
it
would
be
helpful
for
the
regulating
agencies
and
the
sources
for
specific
obligations
to
be
set
forth
in
a
permit.
Commenter
55
also
says
that,
in
the
final
rule
for
the
chrome
electroplating
NESHAP,
EPA
said
it
thought
that
chrome
electroplaters,
including
area
sources,
should
get
permits
because
of
toxicity
of
chrome
compounds
and
the
close
proximity
of
sources
to
residential
areas,
and
that
permitting
area
source
would
not
be
overly
burdensome
to
52
permitting
authorities
and
affected
sources.
See
January
25,
1995
FR
notice.
Commenter
57
said
that
the
NESHAP
does
not
contain
periodic
monitoring
substantially
equivalent
to
title
V.

Commenter
12
opined
that
title
V
exemptions
will
increase
the
probability
of
health
problems
by
shifting
medical
costs
to
local
and
State
authorities,
and
that
electroplaters
should
be
permitted
because
their
emissions
cause
serious
public
health
concerns.

Response:
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
chapter
2.2
above.

Second,
in
the
proposal,
we
explained
that
the
compliance
requirements
of
title
V
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
in
the
final
rule
(
and
in
chapter
2.1
of
this
document)
our
finding
of
the
proposal
with
respect
to
monitoring.
Also,
see
chapter
2.1
for
EPA
response
to
a
comment
that
the
interpretation
of
title
V's
monitoring
requirements
in
the
proposal
was
flawed.
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
six­
month
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
53
them.
Consistent
with
the
explanation
above
of
factor
two,
title
V
costs
are
significant
for
electroplaters.
Also,
for
electroplaters,
consistent
with
factors
one
(
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
chapter
2.4,
there
are
statutory
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
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
chapter
2.4
for
additional
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.

Regarding
the
concern
that
the
monitoring
requirements
of
the
chrome
electroplating
NESHAP
vary
such
that
it
would
be
useful
for
the
public,
regulatory
agencies,
and
the
source
for
its
specific
obligations
to
be
spelled
out
in
a
permit,
while
we
agree
it
may
be
helpful
for
these
parties
to
have
the
specific
monitoring
requirements
defined
in
a
permit,
we
do
not
believe
it
is
necessary
for
adequate
compliance
to
occur,
and
we
believe
we
have
shown
in
this
document
and
54
the
final
rule
that
title
V
would
be
unnecessarily
burdensome
on
these
area
sources
to
require
them
to
obtain
title
V
permits.
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
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.

In
section
V.
K
of
the
preamble
for
the
final
rule
for
the
chrome
electroplating
NESHAP
(
60
FR
4948,
January
25,
1995),
EPA
made
certain
statements
about
the
toxicity
of
emissions
and
the
burdens
of
title
V
on
area
sources
subject
to
the
NESHAP
that
support
requiring
permits
for
them
(
see
page
4961).
Any
such
statements
were
preliminary,
as
that
rulemaking
did
not
propose
or
finalize
any
decisions
on
title
V
exemptions
for
these
area
sources.
Also,
these
statements
were
made
over
10
years
ago,
without
the
record
available
to
EPA
for
this
rulemaking,
and
thus,
they
are
not
binding
on
EPA
for
purposes
of
this
rulemaking.
Nevertheless,
in
the
proposal
for
this
rulemaking
and
in
this
response
to
comments,
we
explain
why
these
statements
are
incorrect.
For
additional
EPA
response
on
toxicity
issues,
see
Chapter
2.5
of
this
document,
and
for
more
EPA
response
on
title
V
burdens
on
area
sources,
see
Chapters
2.2
and
2.3.

The
comment
about
shifts
in
medical
cost
is
addressed
in
chapter
2.5
of
this
document.
The
comments
about
whether
NESHAP
monitoring
is
substantially
equivalent
to
title
V
monitoring,
including
periodic
monitoring,
are
addressed
in
chapter
2.1.

10.3
Halogenated
Solvent
Degreasers
55
Comment:
Commenter
31,
in
extensive
comments,
stated
the
following
for
degreasers:

°
For
degreasers,
there
are
a
large
number
of
them,
they
are
small
sources,
they
have
similar
operations,
and
they
are
generally
subject
to
a
single
NESHAP.
°
They
are
already
subject
to
significant
monitoring
and
recordkeeping
requirements
by
the
NESHAP,
such
that
title
V
will
not
add
anything
to
further
compliance.
°
The
NESHAP
requires
weekly
and/
or
monthly
monitoring
of
various
equipment
and
conditions
to
ensure
compliance,
records
of
this,
and
submittal
of
initial
notification
and
compliance
reports,
as
well
as
annual
compliance
reports
and
exceedance
reports,
and
additional
exceedance
reports
until
compliance
is
shown
for
one
year.
°
Title
V
is
a
significant
burden
because
they
have
no
trained
staff
and
need
to
hire
outside
professionals,
and
they
depend
on
outreach
from
permitting
authorities
for
compliance
assistance.
°
Title
V
would
detract
from
compliance
at
the
source
and
compete
with
State
outreach
activities.
°
EPA's
cost
estimate
would
be
a
significant
burden
for
them,
in
light
of
the
minimal
benefits
of
title
V.
Costs
cannot
be
streamlined
enough
to
justify
title
V.
Fees
will
not
necessarily
be
less
for
these
sources.
°
These
sources
will
have
to
dedicate
significant
resources
to
meet
title
V
requirements.
°
These
sources
are
highly
dependent
on
small
business
assistance
programs
to
aid
in
compliance.
°
Most
States
believe
they
can
achieve
high
compliance
without
title
V
permits
and
they
have
a
preference
for
one­
on­
one
outreach
activities
for
effective
compliance.
°
Where
State
permits
required
outside
of
title
V,
title
V
would
be
unnecessary.
°
These
sources
have
a
substantial
lack
of
technical
and
legal
expertise
in
environmental
regulation,
and
permitting
them
would
strain
the
resources
of
permitting
authorities
and
compete
with
resources
needed
for
major
sources,
potentially
shifting
State
resources
away
from
major
sources
and
compliance
outreach,
compromising
State
ability
to
protect
public
health,
welfare,
and
the
environment.
°
Numbers
of
degreasers
hard
to
assess,
but
has
declined
since
1994
when
NESHAP
issued.
°
Commenter
estimates
national
total
of
area
source
degreasers
is
likely
between
3,000
and
5,000.

Commenter
28
supports
an
exemption
for
halogenated
solvent
degreasers,
but
only
when
they
are
not
subject
to
other
applicable
requirements.
When
this
is
the
only
applicable
requirement,
compliance
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
will
be
substantially
equivalent
to
title
V,
and
no
adverse
affects
from
V
exemptions
would
be
expected.
Commenter
31
said
that
they
may
be
subject
to
State
requirements
and
multiple
NESHAP,
such
as
chrome
electroplating.

Commenter
30
supports
exemption
for
degreasers
because
some
chrome
electroplaters
also
have
small
degreasing
operations
on­
site,
title
V
will
not
result
in
higher
compliance
rates
or
a
better
understanding
of
the
NESHAP,
there
would
be
no
environmental
benefits,
and
there
will
be
no
adverse
impact
on
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment.
56
Response:
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
reaffirmed
this
conclusion
in
the
final
rule.
See
2.1
of
this
document
for
more
on
monitoring.
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.

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
typically
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
chapter
2.2
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
statutory
implementation
and
enforcement
programs
in
place
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
the
degreasing
NESHAP,
in
all
parts
of
the
nation,
without
title
V
(
further
described
in
chapter
2.4).
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).
57
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
chapter
2.1
above,
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
chapter
2.1
above,
the
degreasing
NESHAP
does
not
contain
reporting
requirements
that
are
directly
comparable
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).]
However,
this
does
not
mean
that
compliance
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
are
inadequate
to
achieve
compliance
on
their
own.
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,
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.

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
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.

One
commenter
supports
an
exemption
for
degreasers,
but
only
when
they
are
not
subject
to
other
applicable
requirements.
The
commenter
thinks
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,
58
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
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.
However,
EPA
notes
that
where
a
degreaser
is
otherwise
subject
to
title
V,
it
will
not
be
exempt
from
permitting.
Thus,
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
response
to
comments,
major
source
permits
must
include
all
applicable
requirements,
and
these
exemptions
are
only
for
title
V
requirements
at
area
sources.

10.4
Ethylene
Oxide
(
EO)
Sterilizers
Comment:
Commenter
23
supported
title
V
exemption
for
EO
sterilizers
for
several
reasons:
°
Costs
and
burdens
of
title
V
for
them
would
be
significant
and
an
unnecessary
economic
burden,
resulting
in
nothing
to
enhance
compliance
with
the
NESHAP,
and
adding
nothing
of
substance
to
the
compliance
requirements
of
the
NESHAP.
°
Compliance
is
high
because
sources
are
highly
controlled
by
the
NESHAP.
°
There
is
a
high
rate
of
inspections
in
the
industry,
and
actual
emissions
are
very
low.
°
Virtually
every
facility
uses
regular
[
periodic],
noncontinuous
monitoring
of
glycol
levels
for
scrubbers,
as
required
by
the
NESHAP.

Commenter
58
reported
that
his
facilities
have
traditional
State
permits
that
reflect
NESHAP,
and
two
title
V
permits,
and
that
the
NESHAP
adequately
controls
the
emissions.
In
his
experience,
he
believes
title
V
for
these
area
sources
would
be
costly,
economically
burdensome,
not
increase
compliance,
and
result
in
substantially
increased
permitting
costs.

Commenter
23
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
EO
sterilizers,
said
that
they
are
unnecessary
because
NESHAP
compliance
requirements
are
sufficiently
rigorous
and
detailed,
such
that
only
inadvertent
deviations
may
occur,
which
are
already
required
to
be
reported,
and
there
is
a
high
rate
of
compliance,
such
that
title
V
will
only
increase
paperwork
burdens,
and
that
the
threat
of
enforcement
for
false
certification
is
a
punitive
add­
on,
designed
solely
for
enforcement,
that
does
nothing
for
compliance.
On
the
other
hand,
commenter
57
said
that
for
EO
sterilizers
and
secondary
aluminum,
compliance
certification
will
be
important
in
bringing
about
better
compliance.
The
act
of
signing
them
is
not
taken
lightly
and
will
produce
positive
results,
including
greater
compliance
efforts,
and
the
submittal
of
more
compliance
plans.
59
Also,
concerning
factor
one,
commenter
55
said
the
reporting
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
are
not
substantially
equivalent
to
title
V's,
because
EPA
has
no
data
to
show
how
many
sources
employ
continuous
monitoring
methods,
and
even
if
continuous
methods
are
used,
the
reporting
is
still
not
equivalent
to
title
V
reporting.
Commenter
23
said
that
100
percent
of
these
sources
employ
continuous
monitoring
techniques
to
ensure
proper
operation
and
maintenance
of
control
equipment
like
oxidizers.

Commenter
23
also
reports
that
the
cost
of
title
V
applications
would
likely
be
between
$
10,000
and
$
25,000,
with
annual
reporting
burdens
ranging
from
$
3,000
to
$
7,000
per
year.

Response:
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,
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
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).
60
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
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
more
detail
in
chapter
2.1,
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
a
finding
that
title
V
is
"
unnecessary"
for
NESHAP
compliance
for
EO
sterilizers.

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
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
chapter
2.4,
there
are
statutory
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
61
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
chapter
2.4
for
more
on
our
decision
to
revise
factor
four.

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
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.
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
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,
62
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
insufficient
information
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.
[
See
more
on
our
assessment
of
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
in
Chapter
2.1
of
this
document.]

Finally,
we
don't
find
the
cost
information
for
EO
Sterilizers
submitted
by
commenters
particularly
helpful
because
they
did
not
submit
any
background
information
to
support
them.
We
note,
however,
that
the
information
is
consistent
with
our
general
belief
that
title
V
costs
for
these
area
sources
would
be
significant.
[
Also
see
Chapters
2.2,
2.3,
and
6.0
of
this
document
for
more
on
title
V
cost
issues
for
area
sources.]

10.5
Secondary
Aluminum
Smelters
Comment:
Commenter
22
supports
title
V
exemption
for
area
sources
subject
to
the
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP
for
the
following
reasons:

°
Cost
and
burdens
of
title
V
permits
for
these
sources
would
be
significant.
°
Title
V
would
add
no
benefits
in
terms
of
regulatory
requirements
or
environmental
performance
improvements.
°
The
existing
NESHAP
requirement
for
excess
emission
reports
provides
essentially
the
same
information
as
the
annual
compliance
certification.
°
An
additional
requirement
for
title
V
annual
compliance
certification
would
add
no
compliance
information
to
that
required
under
the
NESHAP,
while
adding
considerable
costs.
°
Limited
State
permitting
resources
would
be
diverted
for
major
sources,
while
small
sources
would
be
subjected
to
a
costly
and
complex
process.

Commenter
60
support
the
exemption
for
the
following
reasons:

°
The
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
criterion
is
particularly
relevant
for
these
sources.
°
Ohio
permits
already
adequately
address
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP
requirements,
including
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting.
°
Title
V
permits
would
not
change
the
actual
environmental
activities
at
their
plant.
Thus
it
will
not
reduce
emissions,
or
further
protect
the
environment.
°
State
minor
source
permitting
will
reduce
the
burdens
that
title
V
would
have
imposed
by
reducing
the
frequency
of
reporting
and
redundant
reporting
to
State
and
federal
agencies
63
required
by
title
V.
°
The
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP
is
the
only
federal
requirement
that
applies
at
their
facilities,
and
it
applies
identically,
though
not
simply,
to
two
pieces
of
equipment.
°
There
are
considerable
costs
of
complying
with
the
NESHAP,
including
costs
of
hiring
outside
expert
help,
which
will
increase
with
title
V
requirements.
Title
V
exemptions
will
reduce
burdens
without
adversely
affecting
HAP
emissions.
°
Title
V
is
unnecessary
to
improve
compliance
because
all
States
have
plans
to
address
air
quality
requirements
independent
of
title
V.
°
Title
V
is
unnecessary,
unnecessarily
burdensome,
and
counterproductive
because
area
sources
are
ill­
equipped
and
staffed
to
address
it.

Commenter
26
made
several
observations
about
permitting
for
secondary
aluminum
sources:

°
Title
V
would
be
unnecessarily
burdensome
on
area
sources
with
existing
compliance
programs,
and
exemptions
would
not
affect
compliance
or
adversely
affect
public
health,
welfare
or
the
environment.
°
The
title
V
application
process
is
a
lengthy,
iterative
process,
involving
all
units
at
a
facility,
even
insignificant
ones,
that
spans
several
years,
and
in
New
Jersey
costing
at
least
$
10,000.
°
In
New
Jersey,
the
basis
of
fees
is
actual
emissions,
which
requires
additional
emissions
reporting
and
invoice
preparation.
°
All
NESHAP
requirements
are
included
in
pre­
construction
permits
in
New
Jersey,
thus
title
V
will
not
add
anything,
and
will
only
result
in
more
paperwork
and
fees.
°
State
officials
are
on­
site
for
NESHAP­
required
source
testing
to
ensure
they
are
done
properly,
and
they
comment
on
resulting
testing
reports,
thus
there
is
no
question
that
there
is
adequate
oversight
to
ensure
compliance.

Commenter
20
said
the
proposal
would
affect
a
smaller
number
of
sources
than
EPA
estimates
because
many
area
sources
for
HAP
would
also
be
major
for
criteria
pollutants
(
he
did
not
submit
specific
estimates
or
data
on
this).

Commenters
17,
18,
19,
24
and
25
thought
certain
title
V
benefits
would
be
lost,
including
compliance
certification,
which
raises
internal
scrutiny
of
NESHAP
compliance,
public
and
EPA
review
of
NESHAP
permit
terms,
better
NESHAP
compliance,
and
that
federal
oversight
and
enforcement
of
NESHAP
will
be
diminished.

Commenters
27
and
29
said
the
NESHAP
promulgation
already
reduced
burdens
such
that
EPA
said
its
effects
on
area
sources
would
be
"
narrow"
and
"
small,"
also,
it
was
determined
that
economic
impacts
for
sweat
furnaces,
which
are
generally
area
sources,
would
be
"
minimal"
yet
in
the
March
25
proposal,
EPA
said
title
V
effects
would
be
"
significant,"
all
this
can't
be
true
at
the
same
time.
Also,
in
the
final
rule
for
this
NESHAP
(
December
30,
2002),
EPA
said
it
would
"
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
businesses,
therefore
no
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
is
required,"
and
that
small
business
impact
is
"
minimal."
Finally,
64
they
point
out
that
the
testing
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
were
already
relaxed
in
the
NESHAP
final
rule,
making
it
more
likely
to
emit
excess
HAP
due
to
poor
maintenance
and
lack
of
operational
and
emissions
data.

Commenter
65
stated
that
a
requirement
for
annual
compliance
certification
for
aluminum
smelters
will
not
result
in
any
improved
compliance
performance,
believing
the
reporting
and
certification
requirements
of
the
State
NESHAP
to
be
at
least
as
stringent
as
that
required
by
title
V.
Also,
that
the
threat
of
enforcement
for
false
certification
under
the
State
permitting
program
is
comparable
to
that
of
title
V.
Commenter
55
opined
that,
for
secondary
aluminum
facilities,
EPA
asserts
reporting
requirements
are
substantially
the
same
where
the
source
employs
continuous
monitoring
methods,
and
EPA
concedes
that
it
has
no
data
regarding
which
sources
utilize
such
methods.
Even
with
respect
to
sources
that
do
utilize
continuous
methods,
there
is
nothing
in
these
rules
that
is
equivalent
to
title
V's
reporting
requirements.
Commenter
57
thinks
the
secondary
aluminum
NESHAP
do
not
contain
substantially
equivalent
periodic
monitoring
to
title
V,
which
will
make
it
harder
for
citizens
to
get
information
about
pollution
in
their
community.

Commenters
27
and
29
said
that
the
burdens
of
title
V
can't
be
justification
for
an
exemption
for
secondary
aluminum
area
sources
because
the
title
V
burdens
are
essentially
the
same
for
all
sources,
because
the
differences
come
from
different
types
of
permits,
different
locations,
and
clarity
of
the
applicable
requirements.
Also,
they
say
that
many
States
have
already
required
title
V
permits
for
these
sources,
or
they
are
requiring
applications
now
because
the
deferrals
have
expired,
thus
this
rulemaking
is
too
late,
and
area
sources
have
already
absorbed
the
costs
of
title
V.
Sources
already
required
to
get
permits
are
at
a
distinct
disadvantage
over
sources
that
were
deferred
by
the
State
from
permitting.

Response:
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
65
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
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
six­
month
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
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
chapter
2.1
above,
the
monitoring
component
of
factor
one
also
supports
a
title
V
exemption
for
secondary
aluminum
smelters.
66
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
"
unnecessary"
for
NESHAP
compliance
for
secondary
aluminum.

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
almost
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
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
chapter
2.4,
there
are
statutory
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
67
section
507,
and
voluntary
compliance
assistance,
outreach,
and
education
programs.
Factor
four
is
satisfied
for
this
category
by
the
statutory
requirement
for
implementation
and
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
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
chapter
2.4
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.

For
EPA
response
to
the
concerns
over
these
exemptions
potentially
resulting
in
the
loss
of
certain
title
V
benefits
with
respect
to
State
implementation
plan
(
SIP)
requirements,
see
chapter
2.1,
for
EPA
response
to
concerns
on
whether
the
compliance
requirements
of
NESHAP
are
substantially
equivalent
to
those
of
the
NESHAP,
see
chapter
2.1,
and
see
chapters
2.5
and
3.0
for
EPA
response
to
concerns
over
public
access
to
information
for
area
sources
exempted
from
title
V.

The
statements
made
in
the
NESHAP
final
rule
are
about
the
burdens
of
the
NESHAP,
68
and
these
statements
was
made
with
respect
to
administrative
rulemaking
requirements
for
the
NESHAP,
including
Executive
Order
12866,
and
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act,
which
are
not
related
to
the
burdens
of
title
V.
Instead,
exemptions
from
title
V
in
this
rulemaking
are
based
on
criteria
that
examine
the
burdens
of
title
V,
and
other
factors,
so
the
burdens
on
area
sources
of
the
NESHAP
are
irrelevant
for
this
final
rule.
As
for
the
comment
that
the
NESHAP
testing
requirements
have
already
been
relaxed,
this
is
also
irrelevant
for
this
area
source
rulemaking,
because
these
testing
requirements
are
not
title
V
burdens.
Also,
the
commenter
presumes
the
socalled
"
relaxation"
of
the
NESHAP
has
had
a
negative
effect
on
air
quality,
however,
this
is
not
an
established
fact
and
similarly
irrelevant
for
this
rulemaking.

We
disagree
with
the
comment
about
the
burdens
of
title
V
not
being
an
adequate
basis
for
exemptions
for
secondary
aluminum
area
sources
because
the
title
V
burdens
are
essentially
the
same
for
all
sources
because
the
Act
clearly
allows
us
to
consider
the
burdens
of
title
V
on
area
sources,
through
the
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
criterion
of
section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.
The
fact
that
the
burden
of
permitting
two
sources
may
be
the
same
does
not
indicate
whether
the
permit
process
is
equally
burdensome
for
both
sources.
If
it
costs
$
10,000
to
comply
with
title
V,
that
cost
may
be
a
much
more
significant
burden
for
an
area
source
than
a
major
source.
Likewise,
the
benefits
of
title
V
may
well
be
greater
when
applied
to
a
major
source,
rather
than
an
area
source.
EPA
also
disagrees,
that
exemptions
are
not
warranted
because
some
area
sources
have
already
applied
for,
and
been
issued,
permits
during
the
deferral
period
and
such
sources
have
already
absorbed
title
V
costs.
Title
V
imposes
burdens
and
costs
on
area
sources
on
a
continuing
basis,
not
just
as
part
of
the
initial
application
requirements
(
e.
g.,
on­
going
reporting
requirements,
annual
fee
payment,
and
renewal
application
submittal
every
five
years).
EPA
also
believes
there
are
many
area
sources
that
have
not
incurred
such
costs
to
date.
[
See
EPA
response
to
a
similar
comment
in
section
3.0.]

Comment:
Commenters
17,
18,
19,
24,
and
25
said
that
"
EPA
also
makes
the
unsupported
assumption
that
as
many
as
650
facilities
with
20
or
less
employees
are
adversely
affected
by
the
title
V
area
source
permitting
requirement.
EPA's
own
data
presented
in
the
docket
(
0002)
to
justify
the
exemption
shows
only
79
secondary
aluminum
facilities
currently
being
identified
as
area
sources
by
state/
local
agencies.
Given
the
limited
number
of
facilities
affected,
a
permit
exemption
by
category
is
unwarranted."

Response:
EPA
disagrees
with
this
comment
because
the
Act
allows
us
to
exempt
an
area
source
category
without
regard
to
how
many
sources
would
be
affected
by
the
exemption.
To
the
extent
that
the
commenter
is
concerned
about
the
quality
of
the
information
supplied
by
the
States
in
their
responses
to
the
state
survey,
see
EPA
response
to
such
issues
in
chapter
2.4
and
4.0
of
this
document.

Comment:
Commenter
12
said
that
Toyota
is
planning
to
open
a
new
secondary
aluminum
smelter
this
year
in
Tennessee
with
an
output
of
50,000,000
pounds
of
aluminum
annually.
"
Thus,
even
though
one
would
expect
this
to
fall
under
the
New
Source
Review
or
New
Source
Performance
Standard,
that
too
could
be
questioned
if
the
Proposed
Rule
being
discussed
here
is
69
allowed
to
be
put
into
effect
as
it
stands."

Response:
This
rule
does
not
in
any
way
affect
applicability
of
NSR
or
NSPS
standards.
Also
this
rule
does
not
apply
to
any
major
sources.
APPENDIX
A
Public
Comments
Received
on
the
Proposal
of
March
25,
2005
to
Exempt
Area
Sources
Subject
to
Certain
NESHAP
from
State
and
Federal
Operating
Permits
(
E­
Docket:
OAR­
2004­
0010)

1
Document
#
Commenter
Related
Documents
&
Notes
9
Tony
Tweedale,
Secretary,
Coalition
for
Health,
Environmental
&
Economic
Rights
(
CHEER)
­
Montana
10
Anonymous
11
John
A.
Paul,
Supervisor,
Regional
Air
Pollution
Control
Agency
(
RAPCA)

12
Mike
Phillips
13
Tim
W.
Tacker
14
Andrew
Wallo,
Director
Office
of
Air,
Water
and
Radiation,
Protection
Policy
and
Guidance,
Department
of
Energy
(
DOE)
Document
0015
is
an
Attachment
16
Bob
Hodanbosi,
Co­
Chair,
STAPPA
and
Ursula
Kramer,
Co­
Chair,
ALAPCO
17
Joel
A.
Fink,
Partner,
Allied
Metal
Company
18
Paul
Curtis,
President,
Spectro
Alloys
Corporation
19
Wabash
Alloys,
L.
L.
C
20
Andrew
G.
Stein,
TST,
Inc.

21
The
International
Fabricare
Institute
22
Robert
P.
Strieter,
Vice
President,
Environment
Health
and
Safety,
The
Aluminum
Association
23
Joseph
E.
Hadley,
Jr.,
Hadley
&
McKenna,
Legal
Counsel
on
behalf
of
The
Ethylene
Oxide
Sterilization
Association,
Inc.
(
EOSA)

24
Farrell
Norman,
Aluminum
Recovery
Technologies
25
Bermco
Aluminum
APPENDIX
A
Public
Comments
Received
on
the
Proposal
of
March
25,
2005
to
Exempt
Area
Sources
Subject
to
Certain
NESHAP
from
State
and
Federal
Operating
Permits
(
E­
Docket:
OAR­
2004­
0010)

2
26
State
Metal
Industries,
Inc
27
J.
L.
French
Company
28
Evan
Van
Hook,
Vice­
President,
Health,
Safety,
Environment,
&
Remediation,
Honeywell
International,
Inc
29
Owl's
Head
Alloys
30
Christian
Richter,
The
Policy
Group,
on
behalf
of
the
Surface
Finishing
Industry
Council
(
SFIC)

31
Stephen
P.
Risotto,
Executive
Director,
Halogenated
Solvents
Industry
Alliance
(
HSIA)

55
Earthjustice
et
al:
Earthjustice,
NJ/
NY
Environmental
Watch,
Califormia
Communities
Against
Toxics,
Valley
Watch,
Nevada
Environmental
Coalition,
Inc.,
Barge
Park
Pals,
Cook
Inlet
Keeper,
and
10
others
Document
32
is
an
Atttachment
Index
&
Docs
33­
54
are
Attachments
56
Marcia
H.
Brown,
Ethicon,
Inc.

57
Michael
D.
Fiorentino,
Esq.,
Mid­
Atlantic
Environmental
Law
Center
on
its
own
behalf
and
on
behalf
of
the
Clean
Air
Council
58
Kathleen
A.
Hoffman,
Vice
President,
Regulatory
Affairs
and
Quality
Assurance,
Sterigenics
International,
Inc
59
Joseph
P.
Koncelik,
Director,
State
of
Ohio
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
Ohio
EPA)
Late
Public
Comment
60
Quantum
Metals
61
Glenn
Shankle,
Executive
Director,
Texas
Commission
on
Environmental
Quality
(
TCEQ)
Late
Public
Comment
62
David
Senft,
Divisional
EHS
Manager,
United
States
Surgical,
Tyco
Healthcare
Group
LP
APPENDIX
A
Public
Comments
Received
on
the
Proposal
of
March
25,
2005
to
Exempt
Area
Sources
Subject
to
Certain
NESHAP
from
State
and
Federal
Operating
Permits
(
E­
Docket:
OAR­
2004­
0010)

3
63
Jed
R.
Mandel,
President,
Engine
Manufacturers
Association
Wrong
Docket,
Should
be
in
OAR­
2002­
0056
64
Earthjustice,
et
al.
Submitted
after
Comment
Period
Ended.
Amends
Document
0055.

65
Ali
Mirzakhalili,
Administrator,
Delaware
Department
of
Natural
Resources
and
Environmental
Control
Late
Public
Comment
66
Blue
Ridge
Environmental
Defense
League
Document
0067
is
an
Attachment