Exemption of Certain Area Sources From Title V Operating Permit Programs, 75320-75346 [05-24072]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 242 (Monday, December 19, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75320-75346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-24072]



[[Page 75319]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 63, 70, and 71



Exemption of Certain Area Sources From Title V Operating Permit 
Programs; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 75320]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 63, 70, and 71

[OAR-2004-0010; FRL-8008-5]
RIN 2060-AM31


Exemption of Certain Area Sources From Title V Operating Permit 
Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is finalizing permanent exemptions from the title V 
operating permit program for five categories of nonmajor (area) sources 
that are subject to national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants (NESHAP). The EPA is making a finding for these categories, 
consistent with the Clean Air Act requirement for making such 
exemptions, that compliance with title V permitting requirements is 
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on the source 
categories. The five source categories are dry cleaners, halogenated 
solvent degreasers, chrome electroplaters, ethylene oxide (EO) 
sterilizers and secondary aluminum smelters. The EPA declines to make a 
finding for a sixth category, area sources subject to the NESHAP for 
secondary lead smelters. A previous deferral from permitting for this 
category expired on December 9, 2004, subjecting all such sources to 
the title V program.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 19, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. OAR-2004-0010, containing supporting 
information used to develop the proposed and final rules, is available 
for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday (except government holidays) at the Air and Radiation 
Docket (Air Docket) in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West 
Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20004.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    The entities affected by this rulemaking are area sources subject 
to a NESHAP promulgated under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act) 
since 1990, listed in the table below. An ``area source'' under the 
NESHAP regulations is a source that is not a ``major source'' of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP). A ``major source'' under the NESHAP 
regulations is ``any stationary source or group of stationary sources 
located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or 
has the potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 
tons per year or more of any [HAP] or 25 tons per year or more of any 
combination of [HAP] * * *'' See definitions of ``area source'' and 
``major source'' at 40 CFR 63.2.
    This final rule affects only whether area sources regulated by 
certain NESHAP are required to obtain a title V operating permit and 
whether title V permits may be issued to these and other area sources 
once EPA has promulgated exemptions from title V for them. It has no 
other effect on any requirements of the NESHAP regulations, nor on the 
requirements of State or Federal title V operating permit programs.
    The affected categories are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Estimated
             Category                      NESHAP            number of
                                                            sources \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perchloroethylene dry cleaning....  Part 63, Subpart M..      \2\ 28,000
Hard and decorative chromium        Part 63, Subpart N..           5,000
 electroplating and chromium
 anodizing.
Commercial ethylene oxide           Part 63, Subpart O..             100
 sterilization.
Halogenated solvent cleaning......  Part 63, Subpart T..           3,800
Secondary aluminum production.....  Part 63, Subpart RRR           1,316
Secondary lead smelting...........  Part 63, Subpart X..               3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for 
this action under Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0010. The official public 
docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this 
action, any public comments received, and other information related to 
this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket 
does not include confidential business information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Documents in the 
official public docket are listed in the index list in EPA's electronic 
public docket and comment system, EDOCKET. Documents are available both 
electronically and in hard copy. Electronic documents may be obtained 
through EDOCKET. Hard copy documents may be viewed at the Air Docket in 
the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. This docket facility is 
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 
566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This estimated number includes both major and area sources, 
even though only area sources will be affected by this rulemaking. 
Almost all dry cleaners are area sources. Also, EPA believes less 
than half of EO sterilizers are area sources (see docket item 106). 
For other categories listed here, EPA does not have information on 
the number of area sources.
    \2\ The proposal of March 25, 2005 estimated up to 30,000 dry 
cleaners would be affected by this rulemaking. Based on new 
information available to EPA, we now believe up to 28,000 dry 
cleaners are potentially affected by this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' 
listings at https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ or the federal-wide 
eRulemaking site at https://www.regulations.gov.
    An electronic version of a portion of the public docket is 
available through EDOCKET at https://www.epa.gov/edocket/. To view 
public comments, review the index listing of the contents of the 
official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket 
that are available electronically. Publicly available docket materials 
that are not available electronically may be

[[Page 75321]]

viewed at the docket facility identified above. Once in the system, 
select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification 
number.

C. Where Can I Obtain Additional Information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
today's notice is also available on the World Wide Web through the 
Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature by the EPA 
Administrator, a copy of today's notice will be posted on the TTN's 
policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at 
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and 
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more 
information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at 
(919) 541-5384.

D. How Is This Preamble Organized?

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
    B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related 
Information?
    1. Docket
    2. Electronic Access
    C. Where Can I Obtain Additional Information?
    D. How Is This Preamble Organized?
II. Background
III. What Does Today's Action Involve?
    A. What Revisions Are Being Made to Part 63?
    B. What Revisions Are Being Made to Parts 70 and 71?
IV. What Are the Reasons for Title V Exemptions?
    A. General Approach
    B. Dry Cleaners
    C. Chrome Electroplaters
    D. Solvent Degreasers
    E. EO Sterilizers
    F. Secondary Aluminum
V. What Is EPA's Decision for Secondary Lead Smelters?
VI. May Title V Permits Be Issued To Exempt Area Sources?
VII. May General Permits Be Issued as an Alternative to Title V 
Exemptions?
VIII. What Are EPA's Responses to Significant Comments?
    A. Is EPA's General Approach to Exemptions Consistent With the 
Act?
    B. Does the First Factor Acknowledge Key Title V Requirements?
    C. Does This Rulemaking Adequately Address Title V Costs?
    D. What Is our Analysis of Factor Four for the Final Rule?
    E. Are These Exemptions Consistent With the Legislative History 
of the Act?
    F. Is It Reasonable for EPA to Rely on the Information Cited in 
Support of the Proposal?
    G. Are Permits Necessary To Define Monitoring for Chrome 
Electroplaters?
    H. May Degreasers Be Exempted When There Are Multiple Applicable 
Requirements?
    I. Are the Compliance Requirements of the EO Sterilizer and 
Secondary Aluminum NESHAP Substantially Equivalent to Title V?
    J. Are the Proposed Revisions to EO Sterilizer NESHAP 
Appropriate?
    K. Are Title V Permits Allowed for Area Sources Exempted From 
Title V?
    L. Does This Rulemaking Disregard Cost Estimates for General 
Permits?
IX. Effective Date of Today's Final Rule Under the Administrative 
Procedure Act
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Covering Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

II. Background

    Section 502(a) of the Clean Air Act (Act) sets forth the sources 
required to obtain operating permits under title V. These sources 
include: (1) Any affected source subject to the acid deposition 
provisions of title IV of the Act; (2) any major source; (3) any source 
required to have a permit under Part C or D of title I of the Act; (4) 
``any other source (including an area source) subject to standards or 
regulations under section 111 [new source performance standards] or 112 
[NESHAP)]'' and (5) any other stationary source in a category 
designated by regulations promulgated by the Administrator. See 40 CFR 
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 Sec. Sec.  
70.3(a)(2) and (3) and Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  
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 Sec. Sec.  70.3(b)(1) and 71.3(b)(1).
    The post-1992 standards, including the NESHAP for area sources that 
are the subject of today's final rule, previously have been addressed 
in Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  63.340(e)(1) (61 FR 27785, June 3, 1996).

[[Page 75322]]

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

III. What Does Today's Action Involve?

A. What Revisions Are Being Made to Part 63?

    Today's final rule exempts five categories of area sources from 
title V by revising certain language in the NESHAP rules under part 63, 
as we proposed on March 25, 2005 (70 FR 15250). This is achieved 
through two types of changes to the NESHAP rules.
    First, we have revised each of the five NESHAP to say that area 
sources subject to the NESHAP are exempt from the obligation to obtain 
permits under parts 70 or 71, unless the source would be required to 
obtain these permits for another reason, as defined in the part 70 or 
71 rules, such as when the source triggers another applicability 
provision of Sec. Sec.  70.3(a) or 71.3(a). For example, if an exempt 
area source increases its HAP emissions such that it becomes a major 
source, the former area source will be required to get a title V permit 
because it is a major source, consistent with Sec. Sec.  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.\3\ This is so 
because Sec. Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Note that when an area source becomes a major source, 
depending on the specific requirements of the NESHAP, the emissions 
standards may change from generally achievable control technology 
(GACT), which may be established for area sources, to maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT), which is required for major 
sources, but also may be established for area sources. Also, see 
Sec.  63.1(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we have revised the table in each NESHAP that shows how the 
general provisions of subpart A of part 63 apply to that particular 
NESHAP, except for the dry cleaning NESHAP, which has no such table. 
For sources other than dry cleaners, the ``comment'' column for the 
Sec.  63.1(c)(2) entry in the tables simply states that area sources 
subject to the subpart are exempt from title V permitting obligations.
    We have made one change to the rule language of the proposal. In 
the final rule, we have revised the regulatory language of Sec.  
63.360(f), which sets forth the title V exemption for EO sterilizers. 
For more discussion of the proposed regulatory language and why we are 
changing it in the final rule, see section VIII.J below.
    Also, we are not making any changes to the NESHAP for secondary 
lead smelters, consistent with our proposal, because we are not 
establishing a title V exemption for area sources subject to it. See 
section V below for a more detailed explanation of our decision 
regarding lead smelters.

B. What Revisions Are Being Made to Parts 70 and 71?

    Today's final rule also revises parts 70 and 71, as we proposed, to 
make the rules more consistent with our interpretation that State and 
local agencies, tribes, and EPA (permitting authorities) may not issue 
title V permits to area sources after we promulgate title V exemptions 
for them. In the proposal, we explained that section 502(a) of the Act 
provides that only those area sources required to get permits, and not 
exempted by EPA through notice and comment rulemaking, are properly 
subject to title V requirements. Also, we explained that section 506(a) 
of the Act, which provides that permitting authorities ``may establish 
additional permitting requirements not inconsistent with this Act,'' 
does not override the more specific language of section 502(a). We also 
explained that section 506(a) preserves the ability for permitting 
authorities to establish additional permitting requirements, such as 
procedural requirements, for sources properly covered by the program, 
and that section 116 of the Act allows State and other non-federal 
permitting agencies (State agencies) to issue non-title V permits to 
area sources that have been exempted from title V. See section VI below 
for further discussion of our interpretations of the Act in this 
regard.
    First, we proposed to delete the ``at least'' language of Sec.  
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 Sec.  70.3(b)(3) and Sec.  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.

[[Page 75323]]

Third, we proposed to delete the prefatory phrase of Sec.  70.3(b)(4), 
``Unless otherwise required by the state to obtain a part 70 permit,'' 
because it suggests that States agencies may require title V permits 
for exempted area sources, such as for residential wood heaters and 
asbestos demolition and renovation, which would be inconsistent with 
section 502(a) of the Act. Today's rule makes these revisions final, 
unchanged from the proposal.

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

A. General Approach

    In the proposal of March 25, 2005 (70 FR 15250), we explained our 
general approach to implementing the exemption criteria of section 
502(a) of the Act. Section 502(a) of the Act provides, in part, that 
the Administrator may ``promulgate regulations to exempt one or more 
source categories (in whole or in part) from the requirements of this 
subsection if the Administrator finds that compliance with such 
requirements is impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome 
on such categories, except that the Administrator may not exempt any 
major source from such requirements.'' In addition, EPA explained that 
the legislative history of Section 502(a) suggests that EPA should not 
grant exemptions where doing so would adversely affect public health, 
welfare, or the environment. See Chafee-Baucus Statement of Senate 
Managers, Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division 1990 CAA 
Leg. Hist. 905, Compiled November, 1993 (in that ``[t]he Act requires 
EPA to protect the public health, welfare and the environment, * * * 
this provision of the permits title prevents EPA from exempting sources 
or source categories from the requirements of the permit program if 
such exemptions would adversely affect public health, welfare, or the 
environment'').
    In developing this rulemaking, EPA sought and relied on information 
from State and local agencies on the level of oversight they perform on 
these area sources. They responded with information on whether they 
issue permits, perform routine inspections, provide compliance 
assistance, and on compliance rates for them. We also received input 
from State small business ombudsmen and several trade associations 
representing dry cleaning, metal finishing, solvent cleaning, and the 
aluminum industry, including information on the sources and the 
compliance assistance programs currently available for them. In 
addition, the proposal provided a 60-day public comment period and 
public citizens, non-profit organizations, State agency 
representatives, and affected industry representatives responded with 
comments, which are included in the docket.
    In the proposal, we discussed on a case-by-case basis the extent to 
which one or more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for 
a given source category, and then we assessed whether considered 
together those factors demonstrated that compliance with title V 
requirements would be ``unnecessarily burdensome'' on the category, 
consistent with section 502(a) of the Act. See 70 FR 15253, March 25, 
2005.
    One commenter said we should have evaluated and discussed all four 
factors for each category of area sources, suggesting that we ignored 
factors that did not support title V exemptions for each category of 
area sources. In response, we have considered, and discuss in this 
preamble, all four factors for each category of area sources for 
today's final rule. See the explanation below for an overview of our 
analysis of each factor. Also, see section IV.B through F for detailed 
discussion of the four factors for each category of area sources, 
section VIII.A for detailed EPA response to this comment, and section 
VIII.D, which provides detailed EPA response to this comment, and other 
comments, on proposed factor four.
    The first factor discussed in the proposal is whether title V would 
result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements, 
including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are already 
required by the NESHAP. This preamble refers to this evaluation as 
probing whether title V is ``unnecessary'' to improve compliance for 
these NESHAP requirements at area sources. Thus, a finding that title V 
does not result in significant improvements to compliance, as compared 
to operating subject to the NESHAP without a title V permit, is 
described as supporting a conclusion that title V permitting is 
``unnecessary'' for area sources in that category, consistent with the 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' criterion of section 502(a) of the Act. 
Title V provides authority to add monitoring requirements in permits in 
appropriate circumstances, and also imposes a number of monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are designed to enhance 
compliance. We analyze below the extent to which Title V could improve 
compliance for the area sources covered by today's rule.
    Part 70 and 71 set forth, in three principal sections, monitoring 
requirements that may be included in title V permits for area sources. 
Section 70.6(a)(3)(i)(A) requires that title V permits include ``[a]ll 
monitoring and analysis procedures or test methods required under 
applicable monitoring and testing requirements.'' This means, for 
example, that monitoring required by a NESHAP must be included in a 
title V permit issued to a source covered by a NESHAP. Second, Sec.  
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, Sec.  70.6(c)(1), provides 
that permits must contain ``consistent with [the periodic monitoring 
rule in Sec.  70.6(a)(3)], compliance certification, testing, 
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements sufficient to 
assure compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Similar provisions appear in EPA regulations in Part 71 
stipulating monitoring provisions for federally-issued title V 
permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's interpretation of Sec.  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 Sec.  70.6(c)(1) empowers State 
permitting authorities to review, on a case-by-case basis, the 
sufficiency of each permittee's monitoring requirements, independent of 
the authority provided by the periodic monitoring rule. On September 
17, 2002, EPA published a proposed rule that would have codified this 
interpretation of Sec.  70.6(c)(1). See 67 FR 58561. After considering 
comments, however, EPA issued a final rule (the ``umbrella monitoring 
rule'') providing that Sec.  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

[[Page 75324]]

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 Sec.  
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.\5\ Therefore, 
the monitoring component of the first factor favors title V exemptions 
for all of the categories of sources for which exemptions are provided 
in this rule, because title V is ``unnecessary'' to provide adequate 
monitoring for them. Also, see EPA response to comment that title V 
permits are needed to define monitoring for electroplaters, in section 
VIII.G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ It has been EPA's consistent position that post-1990 NESHAP 
include all monitoring required under the Act. See, e.g., the 
preamble to EPA's compliance assurance monitoring rule, 64 FR 54940 
(October 22, 1997) and EPA's advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
soliciting comments on Clean Air Act requirements that may include 
inadequate monitoring requirements, 70 FR 7905 (February 16, 2005) 
(specifically not soliciting comment on standards promulgated after 
1990 because they contain adequate monitoring under the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
Sec. Sec.  70.6(a)(3) and 71.6(a)(3), Sec. Sec.  70.6(c)(1) and 
71.6(c)(1), and Sec. Sec.  70.6(c)(5) and 71.6(c)(5). In the proposal, 
we stated that the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the 
NESHAP for electroplaters, EO sterilizers, and secondary aluminum 
smelters are substantially equivalent to those of title V. After 
considering comments received on the proposal, we continue to believe 
the compliance requirements for these NESHAP are substantially 
equivalent to those of title V. Also, see EPA response to comments on 
issues related to factor one, including section VIII.I, concerning 
comment that the compliance requirements for EO sterilizers and 
secondary aluminum are not substantially equivalent to those of title 
V.
    In the proposal, we did not discuss recordkeeping and reporting in 
the context of factor one for dry cleaners or degreasers, but we do so 
in today's final rule in response to comment. As mentioned above, these 
NESHAP have monitoring requirements consistent with the title V 
monitoring requirements. However, they do not contain reporting 
requirements that are identical to the title V requirements for 
deviation reports, six-month monitoring reports, and annual compliance 
certification. [See Sec. Sec.  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 
Sec.  70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) and (B), and Sec.  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 Sec.  
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) and (B), and Sec.  70.6(c)(5).
    Although the reporting requirements of these two NESHAP are not 
directly comparable to those of title V, this does not mean that the 
reporting 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 that they would not be significant. 
Because the monitoring required by the two NESHAP is consistent with 
the monitoring requirements of title V, and because each NESHAP has 
adequate recordkeeping and reporting requirements tailored to the 
NESHAP, we conclude that the first factor supports a title V exemption 
for these sources. [See additional explanation for dry cleaners and 
degreasers in sections IV.B and D below.]
    The second factor considered in determining whether title V is 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' for these categories is whether title V 
permitting would impose significant burdens on these area sources and 
whether these burdens would be aggravated by difficulty they may have 
in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies. We used this factor 
to assess whether title V satisfies the ``burdensome'' component of the 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' criterion of section 502(a) of the Act. We 
discussed this factor in the proposal as supporting our exemption 
findings for dry cleaners, chrome electroplaters, solvent degreasers, 
and secondary aluminum smelters, but we did not specifically discuss it 
with respect to EO sterilizers. However, in the proposal, we stated a 
belief that title V burdens and costs would be significant for all five 
categories of area sources, and this statement included EO sterilizers. 
See discussion of the second factor in the proposal, 70 FR 15254.
    To help us assess factor two, we collected information on the 
burdens and costs of title V and economic data for the area sources, 
and we placed this information in the docket prior to our proposal. See 
economic information for the five industry groups (docket item 04), and 
information on burdens and costs of title V in the information

[[Page 75325]]

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-and-pop'' retail establishments, which will have greater 
difficulty in meeting regulatory demands than large corporations with 
trained environmental staffs and greater resources. The ICRs for part 
70 and 71 describe title V burdens and costs in the aggregate, they are 
not designed for use in estimating title V burdens and costs for any 
particular sources. The ICRs do not include specific estimates of 
burdens and costs for area sources because area sources were subject to 
title V deferrals at the time the ICRs were approved. However, the ICRs 
describe in detail various activities undertaken at title V sources, 
including activities for major sources with standard permits, and 
certain activities for major sources with general 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, Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  70.3(c)(2) and 71.3(c)(2), compared to major source 
permits. Despite the potential for reduction of burdens for area 
sources, we proposed finding that the burdens and costs of title V 
would be significant for these area sources, similar to those for major 
sources. Thus, we proposed finding that V is ``burdensome'' for these 
area sources, consistent with the ``unnecessarily burdensome'' 
criterion of section 502(a) of the Act.
    Our review of comments and further consideration of these issues 
has not led us to a different view for all categories of area sources. 
For EO sterilizers, as in the proposal, EPA has no reliable information 
on the economic resources of area sources but, as described below, 
believes that a number of area sources are small businesses with 
limited economic resources. See section IV.E. Given the lack of 
specific economic information for EO sterilizers, EPA is not making a 
specific finding as to whether factor two supports an exemption for 
this source category. Thus, we find today that factor two supports 
title V exemptions for all categories of area sources, except for EO 
sterilizers, where other factors support the exemption. See 70 FR 
15258-15259 for more on the burdens of general permitting for area 
sources. Also, see sections VII and VIII.K below for more on our 
alternative proposal to require general permits for area sources in 
lieu of exempting them, section VIII.C below for more on title V cost 
estimates for area sources, and section VIII.L below for more on title 
V costs estimates for sources with general permits.
    EPA's general belief, stated in the proposal, that title V burdens 
and costs would be significant for EO sterilizers was not based on any 
particular study or docket support, but instead on a general assessment 
of the types of smaller establishments likely to meet the ``area 
source'' definition of part 63 and conduct EO sterilization activities, 
e.g., small contract sterilization businesses, conducting off-site 
sterilization services for manufacturers of medical equipment and 
supplies, pharmaceuticals, spices, and cosmetics. See docket items 88 
and 106.
    In response to the comment that we should consider all four factors 
in evaluating each category of area sources for exemptions, we note 
that the docket does not contain reliable information on the economic 
resources of area sources in this category, but EPA reaffirms the 
general belief that there are area sources in the EO sterilizer 
category that would be small businesses or other small establishments 
with limited economic resources. Nevertheless, because specific 
information on the economic resources of EO sterilizers is lacking, EPA 
is basing its decision to exempt this category from title V on its 
assessment of the other three factors and additional rationale noted in 
its evaluation of the legislative history of title V. [See section 
IV.D.] Also, see section VIII.A for more detailed EPA response to the 
comment that we should consider all four factors in evaluating each 
category of area sources for exemptions.
    The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is 
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be 
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance 
likely to occur for such sources. We discussed factor three in the 
proposal as supporting our exemption findings for dry cleaners, but we 
did not discuss it with respect to the other four categories of area 
sources we proposed for title V exemption. See more discussion on 
factor three in the proposal, including a detailed listing of many of 
the mandatory activities imposed by title V for area sources, 70 FR 
15254. As described above in the context of our discussion of factor 
two, we find that costs of title V are significant for all categories 
except for EO sterilizer, where sufficient economic data are lacking 
for such a finding. Nevertheless, the types of enterprises within the 
EO sterilizer category are strongly suggestive that title V would be an 
economic burden for some, if not all, of the area sources. Also, 
through factor one and/or revised factor four for each category of area 
sources in the proposal, both of which examine the ability of title V 
permits to improve compliance over that required by the NESHAP, we 
established that title V is ``unnecessary'' for NESHAP compliance. 
Although there may be some compliance benefits from title V for some 
area sources, we believe they will be small, and not justified by title 
V costs and burdens for them.
    Accordingly, for all categories of area sources we exempt today, we 
conclude that title V costs are not justified considering the potential 
for gains in compliance from title V, and thus, factor three supports 
title V exemptions for all five categories of area sources, consistent 
with section 502(a) of the Act. See economic data for all industry 
groups, docket item 04, and information on title V burdens and costs, 
docket items 80 and 81. See section VIII.A for more detailed EPA 
response to the comment that we should consider all four factors in 
evaluating each category of area sources for exemptions.
    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

[[Page 75326]]

02). The State survey shows that many State agencies have compliance 
oversight programs that result in high compliance for the dry cleaners, 
solvent degreasers and EO sterilizers, and that high compliance for 
them does not necessarily depend on title V. This point was repeated by 
State and local agencies who submitted comments on the proposal, all of 
which are in support of the proposed exemptions for the five categories 
of area sources, see docket items, 11, 16, 59, 61, and 65.
    One commenter opined that factor four is inconsistent with 
Congressional intent concerning the ``unnecessarily burdensome'' 
criterion of section 502(a) of the Act, because it examines the future 
possibility that a State might adopt alternatives to title V that are 
sufficient to achieve compliance with the NESHAP, without title V, 
rather than examining whether actual programs are in place to achieve 
compliance with the NESHAP, without title V permits. In response, we 
have revised factor four in the final rule, and we have analyzed all 
five categories of area sources based on the revised factor. Revised 
factor four is whether there are implementation and enforcement 
programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the 
NESHAP for area sources, without relying on title V permits. As further 
described in section VIII.D below, there are implementation and 
enforcement programs in place sufficient to assure compliance with the 
NESHAP for all five categories of area sources addressed in today's 
final rule, in all parts of the nation, without title V permits. These 
programs take several forms, including programs of implementation and 
enforcement conducted by EPA under the statutory authority of sections 
112, 113, and 114, and State delegation of this responsibility under 
section 112(l) of the Act, implemented through subpart E of part 63. 
Second, section 507 of the Act requires a small business assistance 
program (SBAP) for each State and for EPA, and these programs are in 
place, and they may be used to assist area sources subject to NESHAP 
that have been exempted from title V permitting. Third, States and EPA 
often conduct voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, and education 
programs (compliance assistance programs), which are not required by 
statute. The statutory requirements for implementation and enforcement 
of NESHAP in section 112 apply to NESHAP that regulate all sources, 
including area sources. Thus factor four is satisfied for each of these 
categories of area sources by the statutory requirements alone. 
However, additional voluntary programs conducted by State and local 
agencies supplement the mandated programs and enhance the success of 
the programs.
    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, factor four helps to demonstrate that title V is 
``unnecessary'' for NESHAP compliance, consistent with the 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' criterion of section 502(a) for all area 
sources we exempt today. Also, see section VIII.A for more detailed EPA 
response to the comment that we should consider all four factors in 
evaluating each category of area sources for exemptions, and section 
VIII.D for additional EPA responses to comments on proposed factor 
four.
    In the proposal, we stated our belief that exempting these five 
categories of area sources from title V permitting would not adversely 
affect public health, welfare, or the environment, consistent with the 
legislative history of section 502(a). The reasons EPA explained in the 
proposal were the factors supporting exemptions discussed above and two 
other reasons: (1) That placing all requirements for these sources in 
permits would do little to help improve their compliance with the 
NESHAP, because of the simplicity of the sources and the NESHAP, and 
the fact that these sources are not typically subject to more than one 
NESHAP, and few other requirements under the Act, and (2) because 
requiring 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 15254-
15255, and EPA response to comments on this issue in section VIII.E 
below.
    In conclusion, the four factors and other rationale of the final 
rule are appropriate to analyze whether title V permitting is 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' for these five categories of area sources, 
and we finalize title V exemptions for them based on our analyses of 
these four factors and other rationale. The clarification of the 
factors we did not discuss in the proposal, including the revision of 
factor four, contained in today's final rule, does not change our view, 
as stated in the

[[Page 75327]]

proposal, that title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' for the five 
categories of area sources we exempt today. Thus, for these reasons we 
are exempting from title V area sources subject to the part 63 NESHAP 
for dry cleaners, halogenated solvent degreasers, chrome 
electroplaters, EO sterilizers and secondary aluminum smelters. See 
sections IV.B through F, below for more detail on our analysis of the 
four factors for each category of area sources we exempt today.

B. Dry Cleaners

    In the proposal, we described how factors two, three, and four 
support title V exemptions for area sources subject to the NESHAP for 
perchlorethylene dry cleaners, subpart M. We did not discuss factor one 
for dry cleaners, other than to note that title V would not result in 
additional monitoring for these sources, but we do so today below in 
response to comment. See the general discussion of monitoring and the 
specific discussion of dry cleaners in the proposal, 70 FR 15254-15256, 
March 25, 2005.
    First, in the proposal, we explained that title V burdens and costs 
are significant for dry cleaners (factor two), and thus title V will be 
``burdensome'' for them. Dry cleaners are typically small ``mom and 
pop'' retail establishments employing only five people on average, with 
extremely limited technical and economic resources, and low profit 
margins, and title V costs would represent an excessively high 
percentage of sales for them. See the economic profile for dry 
cleaners, docket item 04. In addition, concerning factor two, the 
burdens of title V for dry cleaners would not likely be mitigated by 
assistance from permitting authorities because the authorities would 
likely not be able to meet the high demand caused by title V permitting 
for up to 28,000 dry cleaners nationally. Thus, we believe title V 
costs are significant for dry cleaners, and that title V is 
``burdensome'' for them, because most are small businesses with limited 
resources, that would be subject to numerous mandatory source 
activities under part 70 or 71 that would represent significant costs 
to them in light of their resources, whether they have standard or 
general permits.
    Second, as described in the proposal, factor four, whether adequate 
oversight by State agencies could achieve high compliance with NESHAP, 
without relying on title V permits, supports a conclusion that title V 
will be ``unnecessary'' for NESHAP compliance, and thus, that title V 
exemptions are appropriate for dry cleaners. However, in response to 
comments, we have revised factor four (explained below), and revised 
factor four continues to support the conclusion that title V is 
``unnecessary'' for compliance with the NESHAP for dry cleaners. 
Revised factor four is whether there are implementation and enforcement 
programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the 
NESHAP for area sources, without relying on title V permits. As further 
described in section VIII.D below, there are implementation and 
enforcement programs in place sufficient to assure compliance with the 
dry cleaning NESHAP, without title V, in all parts of the nation. Also, 
the State survey (docket item 02) shows that most States and local 
agencies report that they conduct State permitting programs, programs 
of routine inspection, and provide different types of compliance 
assistance tools to help assure compliance with the NESHAP, often in 
combination, and that more than half of the agencies that reported 
compliance rate information reported high compliance for dry cleaners 
Also, many State and local agencies reported to us that compliance with 
the dry cleaning NESHAP can best be achieved through compliance 
assistance efforts, such as compliance outreach and education programs, 
and compliance tools, including such tools as calendars designed to 
schedule NESHAP compliance activities, and inspection checklists for 
the NESHAP, rather than by using title V permits. See State and local 
input on compliance assistance programs for area sources, including dry 
cleaners (docket items 02, 03, 06, and 08); an example of a compliance 
calendar for dry cleaners (docket item 90), and an inspection checklist 
for dry cleaners (docket item 95); and State and local agency comments 
in support of the proposed exemptions (docket items 11, 16, 59, 61, and 
65). The EPA agrees with those commenters who stated that non-title V 
compliance approaches are more likely to be successful for implementing 
the dry cleaning NESHAP. Also, see section VIII.D below for more on our 
decision to revise factor four.
    Third, in the proposal, we explained that the costs of title V for 
dry cleaners are not justified taking into consideration the potential 
gains in compliance likely to occur from title V (the third factor). 
Consistent with the explanation above of factor two for dry cleaners, 
title V costs will be significant for them. Also, consistent with 
revised factor four for dry cleaners, title V is ``unnecessary'' for 
NESHAP compliance for them, so it follows that the potential for gains 
in compliance is low. Thus, for dry cleaners, title V costs are high 
and the potential for compliance gains from title V are low. Although 
there may be some compliance benefits from title V for dry cleaners 
(discussed below), we believe they will be small, and not justified by 
title V costs and burdens for them. Accordingly, for dry cleaners, we 
conclude that title V costs are not justified taking into consideration 
the potential for gains in compliance from title V.
    In addition, as we explained in the proposal, the large number of 
dry cleaners that are area sources (up to 28,000 nationally) makes it 
likely that permitting them would strain the resources of State 
agencies, potentially reducing overall air program effectiveness, and 
thus, potentially adversely affecting public health, welfare, or the 
environment.
    With respect to factor one for dry cleaners, we explained in the 
proposal that title V would not result in additional monitoring for 
these sources, and we have reaffirmed this conclusion today. See 
section IV.A. We did not discuss the recordkeeping and reporting 
component of factor one in the proposal, but we do so here in response 
to comment. As discussed in section IV.A, the dry cleaning NESHAP does 
not contain reporting requirements that are directly comparable to the 
title V requirements for deviation reports, six-month monitoring 
reports, and annual compliance certification. [See Sec. Sec.  
70.6(a)(3)(iii) and 71.6(a)(3)(iii).] However, this does not mean that 
the reporting 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 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 (described above) independently supports 
that title V is ``unnecessary'' for NESHAP compliance. Consequently, 
our view of the appropriateness of a title V exemption for dry cleaners 
is unaffected by our expanded analysis of

[[Page 75328]]

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, and EPA concludes that title V 
exemptions are appropriate for area sources subject to the NESHAP for 
dry cleaners, consistent with the ``unnecessarily burdensome'' 
criterion of section 502(a) of the Act.

C. Chrome Electroplaters

    In the proposal we described how factors one and two support title 
V exemptions for area sources subject to the NESHAP for hard and 
decorative chrome electroplating and chromic acid anodizing 
(electroplaters), subpart N. We did not discuss factors three and four 
for electroplaters in the proposal, but we do so below in response to 
comment. See the discussion of electroplaters in the proposal, 70 FR 
15256, March 25, 2005.
    First, in the proposal, we stated that title V would impose 
significant burdens (including costs) for electroplaters (the second 
factor), and thus, title V will be ``burdensome'' for them. We based 
this view on our review of economic information (docket item 04), and 
information on title V burdens and costs (docket items 80 and 81). 
After viewing the comments received, and upon further consideration we 
continue to believe that title V burdens and costs are significant for 
electroplaters that are area sources because most are small businesses 
with limited resources, that would be subject to numerous mandatory 
activities under parts 70 or 71, that would impose significant costs in 
lights of their resources, whether they had a general or standard 
permit. Also, see discussion of the second factor in section IV.A 
above.
    Second, in the proposal, we explained that the compliance 
requirements of title V and the NESHAP for electroplaters are 
substantially equivalent, so title V will not result in any new 
significant compliance requirements over those already required by the 
NESHAP (the first factor), and thus, title V will be ``unnecessary'' 
for NESHAP compliance. We reaffirm this finding today with respect to 
monitoring, in section IV.A. See section VIII.B for response to a 
comment that the interpretation of title V's monitoring requirements in 
the proposal was flawed, and section VIII.G below for EPA response to a 
comment that title V permits are needed to define monitoring 
requirements for electroplaters. With respect to recordkeeping and 
reporting, the electroplating NESHAP requires area sources to submit 
on-going compliance status reports, including a description of the 
NESHAP emission limitations or work practice standards, the operating 
parameters monitored to show compliance, information about the results 
of monitoring, including about excess emissions and exceedances of 
monitoring parameters, and a certification by a responsible official 
that work practices are followed. This report is required on an annual 
or 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 considerat