National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area Source Standards for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing, 26142-26159 [E9-12563]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 103 (Monday, June 1, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26142-26159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12563]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053; FRL-8910-9]
RIN 2060-AN47


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area 
Source Standards for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing national emission standards for control of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for the Paints and Allied Products 
Manufacturing area source category. The proposed emissions standards 
for new and existing sources are based on EPA's proposed determination 
as to what constitutes the generally available control technology or 
management practices (GACT) for the area source category.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 1, 2009, unless a 
public hearing is requested by June 11, 2009. If a hearing is requested 
on this proposed rule, written comments must be received by July 16, 
2009. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information 
collection provisions must be received by the Office of Management and 
Budget on or before July 1, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA will accept comment on the proposal for 30 days after 
publication in the Federal Register. Submit your comments, identified 
by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov: 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: https://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the EPA Air and 
Radiation Docket Web site.
     E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0053 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: Send comments to (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053.
     Mail: Area Source NESHAP for Paints and Allied Products 
Manufacturing Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total 
of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the 
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk 
Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA 
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0053. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available Online at 
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment.

[[Page 26143]]

If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through 
https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically 
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an 
electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other 
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or 
CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be 
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of 
special characters or any form of encryption, and be free of any 
defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy 
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 
the Area Source NESHAP for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing 
Docket, at the EPA Docket and Information Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 
1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The 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 Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Payne, Regulatory Development 
and Policy Analysis Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
(C404-05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-3609; fax number: 
(919) 541-0242; e-mail address: payne.melissa@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The supplementary information in this 
preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards
    A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for 
the proposed standards?
    B. What source category is affected by the proposed standards?
    C. What are the production processes, emissions sources, 
baseline emissions, and available controls?
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
    A. Do the proposed standards apply to my source?
    B. When must I comply with the proposed standards?
    C. What are the proposed standards?
    D. What are the compliance requirements?
    E. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
IV. Rationale for this Proposed Rule
    A. How did we select the source category?
    B. How did we select the affected source?
    C. How are the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing metal 
and volatile HAP addressed by this rule?
    D. How did we determine GACT?
    E. How did we select the compliance requirements?
    F. How did we decide to propose to exempt this area source 
category from title V permit requirements?
V. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed Standards
    A. What are the air impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy 
impacts?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations.

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this 
proposed action are shown in the table below. You are subject to this 
subpart if you own or operate a facility that performs paints and 
allied products manufacturing that is an area source of hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) emissions and processes, uses, or generates materials 
containing the following HAP: benzene, methylene chloride, and 
compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel. If the proposed 
standards are applicable to a paints and allied product manufacturing 
area source, the standards apply to all organic HAP emissions and all 
metal HAP emissions from all paints and allied products manufacturing 
operations at the area source.
    The paints and allied products manufacturing area source rule 
(CCCCCCC) would cover all coatings, but does not include resin 
manufacturing, which is covered by the chemical manufacturing area 
source standard (VVVVVV). Facilities that manufacture both resins and 
coatings would be required to comply with both rules. Paints and allied 
products are defined in Sec. 63.11606 as any material such as a paint, 
ink, or adhesive that is intended to be applied to a substrate and 
consists of a mixture of resins, pigments, solvents, and/or other 
additives. Typically, these materials are described by Standard 
Industry Classification (SIC) codes 285 or 289 and North American 
Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 3255 and 3259 and are 
produced by physical means, such as blending and mixing, as opposed to 
chemical synthesis means, such as reactions and distillation. The 
source category does not include the following: (1) The manufacture of 
products that do not leave a dried film of solid material on the 
substrate, such as thinners, paint removers, brush cleaners, and mold 
release agents; (2) the manufacture of electroplated and electroless 
metal films; and (3) the manufacture of raw materials, such as resins, 
pigments, and solvents used in the production of paints and allied 
products. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Paint thinners and paint remover are covered under the 
Industrial Organic Chemical Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP, and 
electroplated and electroless metal films are covered under the 
Plating and Polishing Operations Area Source NESHAP. Resins 
manufacturing is covered under the Plastic Materials and Resins 
Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP and pigments manufacturing is 
covered under the Inorganic Pigment Manufacturing Area Source 
NESHAP.

[[Page 26144]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                     NAICS code \2\           Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paint & Coating Manufacturing.................          325510  Area source facilities engaged in mixing
                                                                 pigments, solvents, and binders into paints and
                                                                 other coatings, such as stains, varnishes,
                                                                 lacquers, enamels, shellacs, and water
                                                                 repellant coatings for concrete and masonry.
Adhesive Manufacturing........................          325520  Area source facilities primarily engaged in
                                                                 manufacturing adhesives, glues, and caulking
                                                                 compounds.
Printing Ink Manufacturing....................          325910  Area source facilities primarily engaged in
                                                                 manufacturing printing inkjet inks and inkjet
                                                                 cartridges.
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and            325998  Area source facilities primarily engaged in
 Preparation Manufacturing.                                      manufacturing indelible ink, India ink writing
                                                                 ink, and stamp pad ink.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this 
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 
63.11599, subpart CCCCCCC (NESHAP for Area Sources: Paints and Allied 
Products Manufacturing). If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the 
State delegated authority or the EPA regional representative as listed 
in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ North American Industry Classification System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments to EPA?

    Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified 
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 
Control Officer (C404-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053. Clearly mark 
the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 
information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within 
the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In 
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the 
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

C. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) 
through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). A copy of this 
proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page 
for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: 
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and 
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

D. When Would a Public Hearing Occur?

    If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing 
concerning this proposed rule by June 11, 2009, we will hold a public 
hearing on June 16, 2009. Persons interested in presenting oral 
testimony at the hearing, or inquiring as to whether a hearing will be 
held, should contact Ms. Christine Adams at (919) 541-5590 at least two 
days in advance of the hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be 
held at 10 a.m. at the EPA's campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive 
in Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby.

II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards

A. What Is the Statutory Authority and Regulatory Approach for the 
Proposed Standards?

    Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to establish 
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 
both major and area sources of HAP that are listed for regulation under 
CAA section 112(c). A major source emits or has the potential to emit 
10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more of 
any combination of HAP. An area source is a stationary source that is 
not a major source.
    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least 
30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the 
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. 
EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air 
Toxics Strategy, (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in the 
Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health 
threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``30 urban 
HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or 
subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing 
90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to 
regulation. We implemented these requirements through the Integrated 
Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). A primary goal 
of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent reduction in cancer 
incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources.
    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards 
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of 
generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT) 
by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' 
Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate report on the 
legislation (Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which 
describes GACT as:

* * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the 
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities 
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.

Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and 
economic impacts in determining GACT. This is particularly important 
when developing regulations, like this one, that may include many small 
businesses, as defined by the Small Business Administration.
    Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control 
technologies and management practices that are generally available to 
the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards 
applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine 
if the control technologies and management practices are transferable 
and generally available to area sources. In appropriate

[[Page 26145]]

circumstances, we may also consider technologies and practices at area 
and major sources in similar categories to determine whether such 
technologies and practices could be considered generally available for 
the area source category at issue. Finally, as noted above, in 
determining GACT for a particular area source category, we consider the 
costs and economic impacts of available control technologies and 
management practices on that category.
    We are proposing these national emission standards in response to a 
court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for 
categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) by August 17, 
2009 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01-1537, D.D.C., March 2006). Other 
rulemakings will include standards for the remaining source categories 
that are due in June 2009.

B. What Source Category Is Affected by the Proposed Standards?

    These proposed standards would affect any facility that 
manufactures paints, inks, adhesives, stains, varnishes, shellacs, 
putties, sealers, caulks, and other coatings, the intended use of which 
is to leave a dried film of solid material on a substrate. The paints 
and allied products manufacturing process may include, but is not 
limited to, any one or combination of the following steps: weighing, 
mixing, grinding, tinting, thinning, heating, cooking, flushing, and 
packaging. The paints and allied products may be manufactured in liquid 
or solid form.
    We listed the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing area source 
category under CAA section 112(c)(3) in one of a series of amendments 
(November 22, 2002, 67 FR 70427) to the original source category list 
included in the 1999 Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy. EPA listed 
this area source category for regulation pursuant to section 112(c)(3), 
based on emissions of the following six urban HAP: benzene, methylene 
chloride, and compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel.
    The definition of containing HAP is identical to the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) definitions specified in 29 CFR 
1910.1200(d)(4), i.e. a concentration of 0.1 percent by mass or more 
for carcinogens, as shown in formulation data provided by the 
manufacturer or supplier, such as the Material Safety Data Sheet for 
the material. The six Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing HAP are 
classified as carcinogens.
    Throughout this proposed rule, we refer to compounds of cadmium, 
chromium, lead, and nickel as the ``Paints and Allied Products 
Manufacturing metal HAP.'' We refer to benzene and methylene chloride 
as the ``Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing volatile HAP.''
    Based on 2002 U.S. Census data, we estimate that 2,510 paints and 
allied products manufacturing facilities are currently operating in the 
U.S. Independent estimates by the industry trade association confirm 
our calculations. Nearly all (97 percent) of the paints and allied 
products manufacturing facilities are in urban areas. Our analyses also 
indicate that the 2,190 facilities that comprise the Paints and Allied 
Products Manufacturing area source category are small businesses, which 
the Small Business Administration generally defines as facilities with 
less than 500 employees. The 2002 Census data also show that nearly 50 
percent of the facilities in this source category have less than 10 
employees.

C. What Are the Production Processes, Emission Sources, Baseline 
Emissions, and Available Controls?

1. Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Processes
    Paints and allied products manufacturing can be classified as a 
batch process and generally involves the blending and mixing of resins, 
pigments, solvents, and additives. Traditional coatings manufacturing 
consists of four major steps:
     Preassembly and premix;
     Pigment grinding, milling, and dispersing;
     Product finishing and blending; and
     Product filling and packaging.
    The Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing volatile HAP emissions 
are a result of solvents that evaporate during the manufacturing 
process, and include benzene and methylene chloride. The Paints and 
Allied Products Manufacturing metal HAP emissions occur from the 
handling of solid materials such as pigments and resins during the 
manufacturing process. The metal HAP for this listing are cadmium, 
chromium, lead, and nickel compounds.
    The preassembly and premix step involves the collection of raw 
materials that will be used to produce the desired coating product. 
These materials are added to a high speed dispersion or mixing vessel. 
The types of raw materials that are used for solvent-based coatings 
include resins, organic solvents, plasticizers, dry pigment, and 
pigment extenders; water, ammonia, dispersant, pigment, and pigment 
extenders are used for water-based coatings.
    Pigment grinding or milling entails the incorporation of the 
pigment into the paint or ink vehicle to yield fine particle 
dispersion. The three stages of this process include wetting, grinding, 
and dispersion, which may overlap in any grinding operation. The 
wetting agent, normally a surfactant, wets the pigment particles by 
displacing air, moisture, and gases that are adsorbed on the surface of 
the pigment particles. Grinding is the mechanical breakup and 
separation of pigment clusters into isolated particles and may be 
facilitated by the use of grinding media such as pebbles, balls, or 
beads. Finally, dispersion is the movement of wetted particles into the 
body of the liquid vehicle to produce a particle suspension.
    A wide array of milling equipment is used, depending on the types 
of pigments being handled. Commonly-used equipment includes the 
following: Roller mills, ball and pebble mills, attritors, sand mills, 
bead and shot mills, high-speed stone and colloid mills, high-speed 
dispersers, high-speed impingement mills, and horizontal media mills. 
Roller and ball mills are considered somewhat outdated methods and are 
usually associated with elevated volatile organic compound (VOC) 
emissions due to their more open design. Lids are commonly used on 
milling and mixing vessels to reduce product loss; the types of lids 
used range from plywood boards to plastic elasticized covers and, less 
often, steel lids.
    High-speed dispersers, using disk-type impellers, are the most 
common method of mixing, or dispersion, in the industry. Because no 
grinding media are present in the mixing vat, pigment disperses on 
itself and against the surfaces of the rotor. While high-speed disk 
dispersion may work well for products such as undercoats and primers, 
it may not be appropriate for high-quality paints and inks, which 
instead use the other types of milling equipment as described above.
    The finishing step involves adding small amounts of pigments, 
solids, or liquids to achieve the required color or consistency of the 
final product. The filling step involves packaging the final product 
for shipment to the buyer.
    The process operations that generate HAP emissions include: 
emissions from loading of materials into the mixing tanks; heat-up 
losses during operation of the mixers; surface evaporation during 
mixing and blending; and filling losses

[[Page 26146]]

that occur during transfer into the receiving container. In addition, 
miscellaneous operations generating HAP emissions can include: solvent 
reclamation during the purification of dirty or spent solvent; cleaning 
of the process equipment; wastewater conveyance and treatment used to 
handle and treat contaminated water generated during the manufacturing 
process; material storage of solvents, pigments, and resins; leaks from 
the transport of stored materials to the process; and emissions from 
accidental spills during manufacturing and cleaning activities.
2. Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Area Source HAP Emission 
Sources
    The National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database was used to 
determine the sources of HAP emissions and to estimate the amount of 
HAP emissions produced from these sources. A summary of the data is 
presented in the following table. Total HAP emissions presented in the 
NEI database for the source category are 1,500 Tons per year (tons/yr), 
or 1,400 Megagrams per year (Mg/yr). The table shows that over 90 
percent of the HAP emissions occur during the paints and allied 
products manufacturing process. Product manufacturing generally 
includes the addition of raw materials to the process vessels, grinding 
of solids, mixing, and packaging of the final product.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       HAP Tons/year     Percentage of
              Category                   (Mg/year)           total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Manufacturing..............     1,406 (1,275)             90.7
Combustion Processes...............       1.60 (1.45)              0.103
Raw Material Storage...............       14.9 (13.5)              0.961
Equipment Cleaning and Fugitive           40.5 (36.7)              2.61
 Emissions.........................
Other Miscellaneous Processes......       63.8 (57.9)              4.12
Coating Application Testing........       22.0 (20.0)              1.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2002 NEI Database.

3. Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Baseline HAP Emissions
    Baseline HAP emissions were calculated using the HAP emissions from 
the 2002 NEI database and extrapolating the emissions data to estimate 
the emissions for all paints and allied products manufacturing area 
sources. Using this approach, we estimated the 2002 nationwide baseline 
HAP emissions (including total metal HAP and volatile HAP) to be 4,800 
tons/yr (4,300 Mg/yr).
    The total nationwide baseline emissions of the six listed urban HAP 
was estimated to be 221 tons/yr. This total includes 213 tons/yr of the 
listed urban volatile HAP (benzene, methylene chloride), and 8 tons/yr 
of the listed urban metal HAP (cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel).
4. Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing HAP Emission Controls
    Emissions reduction approaches were reviewed for the Paints and 
Allied Products Manufacturing volatile and metal HAP. The data indicate 
that add-on controls to reduce volatile HAP are not commonly used on 
process vessels in the paints and allied products manufacturing 
industry. An absence of prior Federal regulation or specific State or 
local rules, along with the generally high capital investment needed 
for add-on control devices, may contribute to these findings. 
Management practices currently used by the paints and allied products 
manufacturing industry to control volatile HAP emissions include 
coating substitution or reformulation from conventional solvent-based 
coatings, solvent substitution, use of process vessel covers, and other 
measures (e.g., covered storage of cleaning rags). Water-based and 
higher solids content coatings have been developed to reduce volatile 
HAP emissions.
    For the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing metal HAP, our 
analysis showed that add-on controls for such emissions from process 
vessels are widespread throughout the industry. Particulate controls 
are used to capture metal HAP, which are included in particulate 
emissions. Typical particulate collection devices used by the industry 
include: baghouses, cyclones, and venturi scrubbers. Each of these 
mechanical collectors can achieve 98 percent reduction in particulate 
emissions. According to our data, 79 percent of facilities use 
particulate matter control technology. Along with dust collectors and 
other fabric filters, they are used to control airborne dust and 
particulate matter, primarily in the pigment loading area and during 
the mixing process. Generally, fabric filters and vent systems are used 
at facilities that use powdered or dry pigments in their coatings 
formulations to protect workers from exposure to hazardous materials in 
the pigments. Management practices used to abate particulate emissions 
of the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing metal HAP include lower 
HAP content coatings, better materials management, use of sandmills 
instead of ballmills, and equipment modifications.

III. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Do the Proposed Standards Apply to My Source?

    The proposed subpart CCCCCCC standards would apply to new and 
existing affected sources of paints and allied products manufacturing. 
The affected source is the new or existing paints and allied products 
manufacturing operation that processes, uses, or generates any of the 
following urban HAP: benzene, methylene chloride, and compounds of 
cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel. An existing source is a paints and 
allied products manufacturing operation that processes, uses, or 
generates any of the following urban HAP: compounds of cadmium, 
chromium, lead, and nickel and benzene and methylene chloride. A new 
source is a paints and allied products manufacturing operation that 
processes, uses, or generates any of the following urban HAP: compounds 
of cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel and benzene and methylene 
chloride, and that commences construction or reconstruction of the 
affected source on or after the date that this proposed rule is 
published in the Federal Register.
    We recognize that standards limited to the emission points of the 
listed urban HAP in this area source category would be sufficient to 
satisfy the requirement in section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B) that EPA 
regulate sufficient source categories to account for 90 percent of the 
urban HAP emissions. However, section 112 of the CAA does not prohibit 
EPA from regulating other HAP emitted from area sources listed pursuant 
to section 112(c)(3). Section

[[Page 26147]]

112(d)(5) states that for area sources listed pursuant to section 
112(c), the Administrator may, in lieu of section 112(d)(2) ``MACT'' 
standards, promulgate standards or requirements ``applicable to 
sources'' which provide for the use of GACT or management practices 
``to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' This provision 
does not limit EPA's authority to regulate only those urban HAP 
emissions for which the category is needed to achieve the 90 percent 
requirement in section 112(c)(3). Finally, we do not expect this 
requirement to cause significant additional cost to the regulated 
facilities, while it will have added environmental benefit.

B. When Must I Comply With the Proposed Standards?

    All existing area source facilities subject to this proposed rule 
would be required to comply with the rule requirements no later than 
two years after the date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register. New sources would be required to comply with the rule 
requirements upon date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register or upon startup of the facility, whichever is later.

C. What Are the Proposed Standards?

    We are proposing use of a particulate control device as GACT for 
metal HAP and management practices as GACT for volatile HAP emissions. 
The standards apply when any operation is being performed that 
processes, uses, or generates any HAP.
    For metal HAP, this proposed rule would require owners or operators 
of all existing and new affected facilities to operate a particulate 
control device at all times during the manufacturing process that metal 
HAP emissions could be present, based on the Material Safety Data 
Sheet, and visible emissions from the particulate control device shall 
not exceed 5 percent opacity when averaged over a six-minute period. 
The Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing metal HAP emissions can be 
present during the preassembly/premix and pigment grinding and milling 
manufacturing processes.
    New and existing affected sources will be required to comply with 
the following management practices for the control of all volatile HAP 
emissions during the preassembly/premix and grinding/milling 
manufacturing steps:
    (1) Process and storage vessels, except for process vessels which 
are mixing vessels, must be equipped with covers or lids meeting the 
requirements of paragraphs (1)(i) through (iii) of this section. These 
vessels must be kept covered when not in use.
    (i) The covers or lids can be of solid or flexible construction, 
provided they do not warp or move around during the manufacturing 
process.
    (ii) The covers or lids must maintain contact along at least 90 
percent of the vessel rim.
    (iii) The covers or lids must be maintained in good condition.
    (2) Mixing vessels must be equipped with covers that completely 
cover the vessel, except for safe clearance of the mixer shaft. The 
vessels must be kept covered during the manufacturing process, except 
for operator access for quality control testing of the product, and 
during the addition of pigments or other materials used to meet the 
final product specifications.
    (3) Leaks and spills of materials containing volatile HAP must be 
immediately minimized and cleaned up.
    (4) Waste solvent rags or other materials used for cleaning must be 
kept in closed storage vessels.
    If the proposed standards are applicable to your paints and allied 
products manufacturing area source, then the proposed standards would 
apply to all organic HAP emissions from the manufacturing operation and 
all metal HAP emissions from the preassembly/premix and grinding/
milling manufacturing steps at the area source, not just the Paints and 
Allied Products Manufacturing volatile and metal HAP. We are proposing 
that the standards for each type of emission point apply to all of the 
emission points of that type in an affected source, including those 
that do not emit Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing volatile or 
metal HAP. For example, an area source may have two process vessels, 
one containing tetrachloroethylene and the other containing methylene 
chloride, and, under the proposed rule, both would be part of the 
affected source and subject to the process vessel standards.

D. What Are the Compliance Requirements?

    To demonstrate initial compliance, this proposed rule would require 
a new or existing source to certify that the required control 
technologies and management practices have been implemented and that 
all equipment associated with the processes will be properly operated 
and maintained. In addition, a visual emission test using EPA Method 9 
will be required to be performed on the particulate control device on 
or before the compliance date and every six months thereafter.
    To demonstrate on-going compliance, the proposed rule requires 
owners and operators of affected facilities to inspect the particulate 
control device monthly to ensure that the unit is operating as 
specified in the manufacturer's operating instructions, and to perform 
a visual emission test using EPA Method 9 on the particulate control 
device every 6 months.

E. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    We are proposing notification, reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements to ensure compliance with this proposed rule. The owner or 
operator of a new or existing affected source would be required to 
comply with certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 
63, subpart A), which are identified in Table 1 of this proposed rule. 
Each facility would be required to submit an Initial Notification and a 
Notification of Compliance Status according to the requirements in 40 
CFR 63.9, General Provisions to part 63. These notifications are needed 
for EPA to determine applicability and initial compliance with specific 
rule requirements.
    The Initial Notification would be required within 120 days of the 
effective date of the NESHAP. That report serves to alert appropriate 
agencies (State agencies and EPA Regional Offices) of the existence of 
each affected source and puts them on notice for future compliance 
actions. The notification of compliance status (NOCS) report, which is 
due 150 days after the compliance date of the NESHAP, is a more 
comprehensive report that describes the affected source, the associated 
emissions points, and the strategy being used to comply.
    Under this proposed rule, each facility would prepare an annual 
compliance certification for the previous calendar year. The annual 
compliance certification must be completed no later than January 31 of 
each year and kept for five years. Facilities would be required to 
submit this annual compliance report if there is any deviation from the 
requirements or visual emissions testing during the year, and would 
include these deviation reports with their compliance report. We 
recognize that most of these facilities are small businesses; therefore 
we are requiring the submission of this annual compliance certification 
only if deviations occur during the year, so that there is not an undue 
economic burden on small businesses.

[[Page 26148]]

    The facility must generate a monthly record for the implemented 
management practices and the particulate control device inspections 
(daily, weekly, monthly and Method 9, as applicable), listed in 
Sections C and D above, respectively. For demonstrating ongoing 
compliance, the proposed requirements include daily, weekly, and annual 
inspections, semi-annual visible emission testing, monthly checklists 
and annual certifications that the management practices are being 
followed and the particulate control device is being properly operated 
according to manufacturer instructions.
    A responsible official at the facility must sign off by the 15th 
day of the following month that all requirements were met in the 
previous month. In implementing the requirements of this rule, sources 
can consider including procedures from their existing Standard 
Operating Procedures provided the procedures are relevant to 
implementing the required management practices.
    Owners and operators would be required to maintain all records and 
annual certifications that demonstrate initial and ongoing compliance 
with this proposed rule, including records of all required 
notifications and reports, with supporting documentation; and records 
showing compliance with the control technology and management 
practices. The records must be kept readily accessible on site for two 
years, and may be kept at an offsite location for the remaining three 
years.

IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule

A. How Did We Select the Source Category?

    As described in section II.B, we listed the Paints and Allied 
Products Manufacturing source category under CAA section 112(c)(3) on 
November 22, 2002 (67 FR 70427). The inclusion of this source category 
on the area source category list was based on its contributions to the 
urban HAP emissions in the 1990 CAA section 112(k) inventory (benzene, 
methylene chloride, and compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, and 
nickel).
    For this source category, we collected information on the 
production operations, emission sources, and available controls for 
both area and major sources using reviews of published literature, 
information gathered during the major source NESHAP, and reviews of 
operating permits. We also held discussions with industry 
representatives and EPA experts. This research confirmed that the 
Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing source category continues to 
emit the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing volatile and metal 
HAP. We found that current emissions of such HAP have been 
significantly reduced from the amounts estimated in the section 112(k) 
1990 base year inventory due to product reformulation, OSHA controls, 
and a shift in end-use and consumer preferences.
    Consistent with the record supporting the listing of the Paints and 
Allied Products Manufacturing source category, we are proposing that 
the category include those area source paints and allied product 
manufacturing facilities that process, use, or generate paints and 
allied product manufacturing HAP or materials containing these HAP. We 
are defining materials containing HAP in a manner consistent with the 
definitions used in other area source categories, e.g., plating and 
polishing (73 FR 14126) and metal fabrication (73 FR 42977). Therefore, 
materials containing the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing 
volatile and metal HAP, for the purposes of this category, means a 
material containing methylene chloride, benzene and compounds of 
cadmium, chromium, lead, and/or nickel in amounts greater than or equal 
to 0.1 percent by weight, as shown in formulation data provided by the 
manufacturer or supplier, such as in the Material Safety Data Sheet.

B. How Did We Select the Affected Source?

    Affected source, as defined in 40 CFR 63.2, means the collection of 
equipment, activities, or both within a single contiguous area and 
under common control that is included in a section 112(c) source 
category or subcategory for which a section 112(d) standard is 
established. In selecting the affected source for regulation for the 
paints and allied products manufacturing area source category, we 
identified the sources of HAP emissions, which include HAP-emitting 
colorants and cleaning products. We also identified the quantity of HAP 
emissions from the individual or groups of emissions points. We are 
proposing to designate all of the blending and mixing processes in the 
manufacturing operation, within a single contiguous area and under 
common control, as the affected source. This proposed designation is 
consistent with the approach EPA employed for other paints and allied 
product manufacturing regulations, i.e., the major source NESHAP and 
the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). This proposed rule 
includes requirements for the control of primary and fugitive emissions 
from paints and allied products manufacturing operations.

C. How Are the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Metal and 
Volatile HAP Addressed by This Rule?

    For this proposed rule, we have selected particulate matter (PM) as 
a surrogate for paints and allied products manufacturing metal HAP. 
When emitted, each of the metal HAP compounds behaves as PM. The 
control technologies used for the control of PM emissions achieve 
comparable levels of performance for these metal HAP emissions, i.e. 
when PM is captured, HAP metals are captured non-preferentially as part 
of the PM. We also determined that it was not practical to establish 
individual standards for each specific type of metal HAP that could be 
present in the emissions, e.g., separate standards for compounds of 
cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel, because the types and quantities 
of metal HAP can vary widely in the raw materials. Therefore, emission 
standards requiring control of PM would also achieve comparable control 
of metal HAP emissions.

D. How Did We Determine GACT?

    As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), we are proposing standards 
representing GACT for the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing area 
source HAP emissions. As noted in section II of this preamble, the 
statute requires the Agency to establish standards for area sources 
listed pursuant to section 112(c). The statute does not set any 
condition precedent for issuing standards under section 112(d)(5), 
other than that the area source category or subcategory at issue must 
be one that EPA listed pursuant to section 112(c), which is the case 
here.
    Most of the facilities in this source category have good 
operational controls in place for particulate matter. Furthermore, we 
believe that almost all of the area source paints and allied products 
manufacturing facilities are small businesses. Below, we explain in 
detail our proposed GACT determinations.
 1. GACT for New and Existing Sources
    We gathered background information on paints and allied products 
manufacturing facilities from a review of operating permits, the NEI 
database, and discussions with industry representatives to identify the 
emission controls and management practices that are currently used to 
control volatile and metal HAP emissions. We identified the control 
technologies and management practices that minimize

[[Page 26149]]

emissions from paints and allied products during the manufacturing 
process and that are commonly used in the industry.
a. Management Practices for Volatile HAP
    The data indicate that add-on controls to reduce volatile HAP are 
used only sparingly on process vessels, as reported in both the State 
permits and the NEI database. This is probably due to the absence of 
Federal regulation of this industry and a lack of specific State or 
local rules. We believe that in the time since the data were collected 
for the 2002 NEI, most facilities have begun to produce low-VOC and low 
volatile HAP paints. This is a result of a shift in market demand due 
to the recent Federal paint and coating rules for other sources, such 
as the Boat Manufacturing, Fabric Surface Coating, Large Appliance 
Surface Coating, Metal Can Surface Coating, Metal Furniture Surface 
Coating, Plastic Parts, Aerospace, and Wood Furniture NESHAPs. Consumer 
demand for low-VOC paints may also be a factor.
    A common management practice that is used to reduce volatile HAP 
emissions is through the use of process vessel covers. The 
Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP estimated that 95 percent of the major 
source facilities in the paints and allied products manufacturing NAICS 
code use process vessel covers. We believe that the same percentage of 
the area source facilities in the paints and allied products 
manufacturing category are currently using process vessel covers; this 
information agrees with estimates provided by industry. Therefore, we 
propose the use of process vessel covers as GACT for volatile HAP in 
the paints and allied products manufacturing industry according to the 
following requirements:
    (1) During the preassembly/premix and grinding/milling 
manufacturing steps, process and storage vessels, except for process 
vessels which are mixing vessels, must be equipped with covers or lids 
meeting the requirements of paragraphs (A)(1)(i) through (iii) of this 
section. These vessels must be kept covered when not in use.
    (i) The covers or lids can be of solid or flexible construction, 
provided they do not warp or move around during the manufacturing 
process.
    (ii) The covers or lids must maintain contact along at least 90 
percent of the vessel rim.
    (iii) The covers or lids must be maintained in good condition.
    (2) During the preassembly/premix and grinding/milling 
manufacturing steps, mixing vessels must be equipped with covers that 
completely cover the vessel, except for safe clearance of the mixer 
shaft. The vessels must be kept covered during the manufacturing 
process, except for operator access for quality control testing of the 
product, and during the addition of pigments or other materials used to 
meet the final product specifications.
    (3) Leaks and spills of materials containing volatile HAP must be 
immediately minimized and cleaned up.
    (4) Waste solvent rags or other materials used for cleaning must be 
kept in closed storage vessels.
    The facility must use a monthly checklist as a record for the 
implemented work practices as listed above. A responsible official at 
the facility must sign off that all work practice requirements have 
been met. Existing written standard operating procedures may be used as 
the work practices plan if those procedures include the activities 
required by the final rule for a work practices plan.
b. Technology Control for Metal HAP
    Paints and allied products manufacturing operating permits were 
obtained from State agency Web sites to determine the prevalence of 
add-on controls for metal HAP. The permit information, as well as 
discussions with the industry, show that add-on controls for metal HAP 
emissions from process vessels are commonly used throughout the 
industry. We believe that particulate control devices are primarily 
used because of concerns with workplace safety and, in some cases, to 
satisfy OSHA regulations. Information from the operating permits 
indicates that 23 of 29 (79 percent) area source facilities use add-on 
controls for particulate emissions. Based on this permit information, 
we determined that the use of controls to reduce particulate emissions 
during the preassembly/premix and grinding/milling steps of the paints 
and allied products manufacturing process commonplace.
    To determine an applicable particulate matter standard, we reviewed 
the State operating permits for facilities in this source category. 
Most of the permits listed a concentration or mass emission particulate 
limit that requires testing using an appropriate particulate test 
method, in most cases EPA Method 5. We have concerns about the economic 
impact of particulate matter emissions testing for smaller facilities. 
The typical EPA Method 5 particulate matter emissions test on a stack 
costs between $3,000 and $10,000, which would be a significant economic 
burden for these area sources. Other area source rules and the States 
have used opacity as an effective surrogate for assessing mass 
emissions and to assure effective particulate emissions control. The 
use of visual emissions or opacity testing, as opposed to emission 
testing, is a lower cost method to determine compliance, and 
accommodates the different levels of activity that can occur from 
facility to facility, from product to product, and day to day within 
the same facility. This also reduces the cost impact on small 
businesses. There is a correlation between particulate matter 
concentration and opacity in the particulate matter control device 
outlet stream, and studies have shown that particulate concentrations 
are approximately zero at an opacity of zero.\3\ For example, a test at 
a wet cement kiln with a fabric filter showed that when outlet 
concentrations were less than 0.009 grains/dry standard cubic feet (gr/
dscf), opacity was less than 2 percent. This opacity is low enough that 
it would probably be observed as zero under most conditions. This in 
turn would result in a very low incidence of visible emissions during 
any observation period. A review of area source NESHAP opacity limits 
found several examples of particulate control devices being subject to 
zero or very low visible emission tests. Therefore, we believe that 
establishing a 5 percent opacity limit averaged over a six-minute 
period is an appropriate standard to effectively measure the 
effectiveness of a source's particulate emission control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Study of Benefits of Opacity Monitors Applied to Portland 
Cement Kilns. Prepared by Ronald Meyers, U.S. EPA, May 15, 1991, pp. 
3-1-3-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 112(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act gives the Administrator 
discretion to distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources in 
a category when establishing emissions standards under section 112(d). 
EPA is not proposing to subcategorize the paints and allied products 
manufacturing source category for purposes of the standards proposed in 
today's action based on our conclusion that there are no 
distinguishable differences in the grinding and mixing processes, which 
produce most of the HAP at paints and allied products manufacturing 
facilities. EPA solicits comments on its proposal to establish GACT 
standards for this source category without distinguishing among the 
sources based on class, type, or size. Commenters who believe EPA 
should establish subcategories for this source category should provide 
data to support their position.
    Another consideration of GACT is the cost of compliance. To 
estimate the cost impacts, we used the permit

[[Page 26150]]

information to estimate the percentage of the industry that already 
uses an add-on particulate control device. The most prevalent 
particulate control device used was a fabric or cartridge-type filter. 
Therefore, we used these technologies to estimate the annual cost of 
adding a particulate control device to a paints and allied products 
manufacturing facility, which was calculated to be $6,700. The total 
cost of requiring fabric filters on the estimated number of facilities 
that currently do not operate a particulate control device would be $3 
million and would reduce metal HAP emission by 4.2 tons/yr (3.8 Mg/yr). 
In addition, this regulation as proposed would reduce particulate 
matter emissions by 6,300 tons/yr (5,700 Mg/yr), and fine particulate 
emissions (PM2.5) by 3,000 tons per year (2,700 Mg/yr).
    For metal HAP, this rule proposes that all owners or operators of 
existing facilities route emissions from their pigment and solids 
addition processes to a particulate control device and that visible 
emissions from the particulate control device shall not exceed 5 
percent opacity when averaged over a six-minute period. The 
manufacturing processes include the addition of pigments and other 
solids to the process vessels, and grinding and milling of pigments and 
solids. After the addition processes, the pigment and associated metal 
HAP are in solution, and metal HAP emissions are minimal.
    The manufacturer's specifications for maintenance and all other 
functioning parameters must be followed. The particulate control device 
must be designed and operated so that visible emissions from the unit 
shall not exceed 5 percent opacity when averaged over a six-minute 
period.
c. Reduction of All HAP Emissions in the Paints Manufacturing Process
    The control technology and management practices proposed in this 
rule are equally effective at controlling emissions of HAP other than 
the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing volatile and metal HAP. 
Applying the proposed standards to only the Paints and Allied Products 
Manufacturing HAP would require the facility to speciate HAP, as 
opposed to measuring total HAP when demonstrating compliance. This 
would require the facility to measure only the Paints and Allied 
Products Manufacturing metal HAP, which is mixed in with the other 
particulate matter emissions, and is a small percentage of the total. 
Applying the proposed standards to only the Paints and Allied Products 
Manufacturing urban HAP would require the facility to use different 
test methods to quantify these HAP emissions, which would increase 
compliance costs with no environmental benefits.
    We are proposing to apply the standard to all HAP, as many of the 
area sources emit a significant amount of HAP in addition to the paints 
and allied products manufacturing urban HAP (for example, the listed 
HAP are only four percent of total HAP emissions at paints and allied 
products manufacturing facilities). Facilities that process, use, or 
generate HAP, but do not process, use, or generate any of the Paints 
and Allied Products volatile and metal HAP are not subject to the 
requirements of this NESHAP.
    We have determined that sources would not have to install different 
controls or implement different management practices to implement the 
proposed standards for all HAP. Also, as part of the GACT analysis, we 
have found that the costs of applying the proposed standards to all HAP 
emissions from this source category are reasonable. For all of these 
reasons, we propose to apply these standards to all volatile HAP 
emissions in the manufacturing process and all metal HAP emissions from 
the preassembly/premix and grinding/milling steps of the manufacturing 
operations at paints and allied products manufacturing area sources, 
once the applicability criteria set forth in CCCCCCC are met. We 
request comment on the environmental, cost, and economic impacts of 
this approach.

E. How Did We Select the Compliance Requirements?

    We are proposing notification, reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements to ensure compliance with this proposed rule. We are 
requiring an Initial Notification and Notification of Compliance Status 
because these requirements are consistent with Sec.  63.9 of the 
General Provisions of this part.
    For demonstrating ongoing compliance, the proposed requirements 
include daily, weekly, and annual inspections, semi-annual visible 
emission testing, monthly checklists and annual certifications that the 
management practices are being followed and the particulate control 
device is being properly operated according to manufacturer 
instructions. Based on our data, most facilities currently operate at 
the GACT level of control and almost all of the affected facilities are 
small businesses. Therefore, we are proposing a requirement that would 
ensure compliance without placing an undue burden on the affected 
facilities. We believe the proposed requirements for monthly 
checklists, particulate control device inspections, visible emissions 
testing, and annual certifications achieve that objective, and can be 
adequately done by facility employees.
    Under this proposed rule, each facility would prepare an annual 
compliance certification and keep it on site in a readily-accessible 
location. Facilities would be required to submit this annual compliance 
certification as a report only if there are any deviations from the 
work practice requirements during the year, and would include a 
description of the deviation with their compliance certification 
report. Deviations may include, but are not limited to, exceeding the 
opacity standard or failure to meet any requirements or management 
practices established in this proposed rule. We recognize that most of 
these facilities are small businesses; therefore we are requiring the 
submission of this annual compliance certification report only if 
deviations occur during the year so that there is not an undue economic 
burden.
    We are proposing that existing affected sources must achieve 
compliance two years after the final rule is published in the Federal 
Register. Because some facilities may be subject to EPA rules for the 
first time and because most of these facilities are small businesses, 
with 50 percent of them having less than 10 employees, we believe the 
2-year period would provide ample time for facilities to identify any 
changes that are needed to comply with the control technology, 
management practices, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements and 
institute those changes. All new affected sources would be required to 
comply upon the date of publication of the final rule, or startup, 
whichever is later.

F. How Did We Decide To Propose To Exempt This Area Source Category 
From Title V Permitting Requirements?

    We are proposing to exempt affected facilities in the Paint and 
Allied Products Manufacturing area source category from title V 
permitting requirements for the reasons described below.
    Section 502(a) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may 
exempt an area source category from title V if he determines that 
compliance with title V requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or 
unnecessarily burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section 
502(a). In December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the 
term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA

[[Page 26151]]

section 502 and developed a four-factor balancing test for determining 
whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area 
source category, such that an exemption from title V is appropriate. 
See 70 FR 75320, December 19, 2005 (``Exemption Rule'').
    The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for 
determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' on a 
particular area source category include: (1) Whether title V would 
result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements, 
including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting that are proposed 
for an area source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V 
permitting would impose significant burdens on the area source category 
and whether the burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the 
sources may have in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 
FR 75324); (3) whether the costs of title V permitting for the area 
source category would be justified, taking into consideration any 
potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 
75325); and (4) whether there are implementation and enforcement 
programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the 
proposed NESHAP for the area source category, without relying on title 
V permits (70 FR 75326).
    In discussing these factors in the Exemption Rule, we further 
explained that we considered 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 75323. Thus, in 
the Exemption Rule, we explained that not all of the four factors must 
weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to determine that title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category. 
Instead, the factors are to be considered in combination, and EPA 
determines whether the factors, taken together, support an exemption 
from title V for a particular source category.
    In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether 
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome 
on an area source category, we considered, consistent with the guidance 
provided by the legislative history of section