National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Chemical Preparations Industry, 69194-69217 [E9-30500]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 30, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69194-69217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30500]



[[Page 69193]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area 
Sources: Chemical Preparations Industry; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 74 , No. 249 / Wednesday, December 30, 2009 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 69194]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0028; FRL-9095-1]
RIN 2060-AN46


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area 
Sources: Chemical Preparations Industry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating national emissions standards for control 
of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from the chemical preparations area 
source category. These final emissions standards for new and existing 
sources reflect EPA's final determination regarding the generally 
available control technology or management practices (GACT) for the 
source category.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 30, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0028. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
Federal Docket Management System index at https://www.regulations.gov. 
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically in 
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Area Source NESHAP 
for Chemical Preparations Manufacturing Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 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: Mr. Warren Johnson, Outreach and 
Information Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
(C404-05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5124; fax number: 
(919) 541-0242; e-mail address: johnson.warren@epa.gov.

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

I. General Information
    A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
    B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information for This Final Rule
III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
IV. Summary of Final Standards
    A. Do the Final Standards Apply to My Source?
    B. When Must I Comply With the Final Standards?
    C. What Are My Final Standards?
    D. What Are My Initial and Continuous Monitoring Requirements?
    E. What Are My Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?
    F. What Are the Title V Permit Requirements?
V. Summary of Comments and Responses
    A. Source Category Listing and Applicability
    B. Alternative Standards
    C. GACT Limits
    D. Initial Compliance
    E. Continuous Monitoring, Inspections and Reporting
    F. Title V Permitting
    G. Cost Impacts
    H. Miscellaneous
VI. Impacts of the Final 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?
VII. 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 and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    The regulated category and entities potentially affected by the 
final standards include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      NAICS      Examples of regulated
             Category                code \1\           entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All other miscellaneous chemical       325998  Area source facilities
 product and preparation                        that manufacture
 manufacturing.                                 chemical preparations
                                                containing metal
                                                compounds of chromium,
                                                lead, manganese, or
                                                nickel, except for
                                                manufacturers of
                                                indelible ink, India
                                                ink, writing ink, and
                                                stamp pad ink. Chemical
                                                preparations include,
                                                but are not limited to,
                                                fluxes, water treatment
                                                chemicals, rust
                                                preventatives and
                                                plating chemicals,
                                                concrete additives,
                                                gelatin, and drilling
                                                fluids.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. Chemical preparation operations described by the NAICS code 
325998 that manufacture indelible ink, India ink, writing ink, and 
stamp pad ink are subject to area source regulations for paints and 
allied products (40 CFR Subpart CCCCCCC). See 40 CFR 63.11599. 
Therefore, chemical preparation operations that manufacture indelible 
ink, India ink, writing ink or stamp pad ink, or any combination 
thereof, are subject to the paints and allied products area source rule 
and those operations must comply all applicable requirements specified 
in Subpart CCCCCCC. Such operations are not subject to the final 
chemical preparations area source rule. To determine whether operations 
at your facility are regulated by this action, you should examine the 
applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11579 of subpart BBBBBBB (NESHAP 
for Area Sources: Chemical Preparations Industry). If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity or operations at your

[[Page 69195]]

facility, consult either the delegated authority for the entity or your 
EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A 
(General Provisions).

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly final 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.

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review 
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
by March 1, 2010. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these 
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the 
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose 
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for 
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the 
outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration 
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the 
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation 
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background Information for This Final Rule

    Section 112(d) of the CAA requires EPA to establish national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for both major 
and area sources of hazardous air pollutants (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 that, 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 
Integrated Urban Air Toxics 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 also implemented these 
requirements through the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy. A 
primary goal of the Integrated Urban Air Toxics 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 technology 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, which is particularly important 
when developing regulations for source categories, like this one, that 
have almost 40 percent of firms classified as small businesses 
according to the Small Business Administration (SBA) standards in 13 
CFR 121.201. For this source category, small businesses are defined as 
those with fewer than 500 employees.
    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 employed by those 
sources are transferable and generally available to area sources. In 
appropriate 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 being considered. Finally, as 
noted above, in determining GACT for a particular category of area 
sources, we consider the costs and economic impacts of using available 
control technologies and management practices on sources in that 
category.
    We are promulgating these national emission standards in response 
to a court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to sign final rules 
establishing emission standards for two source categories listed 
pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) by December 16, 2009 (Sierra Club 
v. Johnson, no. 01-1537, D.D.C., March 2006). We intend to publish a 
separate rulemaking in the Federal Register for the other source 
category due in December 2009.

III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

    The final rule contains several revisions and clarifications to the 
proposed rule in response to public comments. We explain the reasons 
for the following changes in detail in the summary of comments and 
responses (section V of this preamble):
     Revised the definition of chemical preparation to mean a 
target HAP-containing product, or intermediate used in the manufacture 
of other products, manufactured in a process operation described by the 
NAICS code 325998 if the operation manufactures target HAP-containing 
products or intermediates other than indelible ink, India ink, writing 
ink, and stamp pad ink. Indelible ink, India ink, writing ink, and 
stamp pad ink manufacturing operations are subject to regulation under 
the paints and allied products area source rule (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart CCCCCCC), not this rule.
     Revised the emission standard for existing sources to 
include an

[[Page 69196]]

alternative standard of 0.03 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/
dscf) particulate matter (PM) concentration at the outlet of the 
control device as an alternative to routing process vent streams to a 
control device with a 95 percent PM reduction efficiency.
     Added standards for new sources that require either 
routing process vent streams to a control device with a 98 percent PM 
efficiency or meeting the 0.03 gr/dscf alternative standard mentioned 
above.
     Revised the standards to include a mechanism that allows 
sources (which in these standards means the collection of emission 
points from chemical preparations operations) to demonstrate and 
certify that the process vent streams in the chemical preparation 
operations at the facility will not exceed PM concentrations of 0.03 
gr/dscf. This revision is intended to significantly reduce monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for sources that have, or can 
establish, very small process emissions.
     Revised the monitoring requirements to provide options for 
the use of bag leak detection systems, audible parameter monitor alarm 
systems, or a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS). We also 
removed the use of a continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) as 
an alternative to a CPMS, since we are unaware of any existing chemical 
preparations area sources currently using CEMS to monitor PM emissions, 
and do not expect any sources to operate a CEMS system to monitor 
compliance with the final standards (see discussion in section V.E.).
     Clarified the averaging requirements for sources using a 
CPMS so that the average is calculated on the basis of either a 24-hour 
rolling period or a batch period (i.e., the period that equipment is 
processing a batch of target HAP-containing materials), whichever is 
less.
     Revised the reporting requirements to require only annual 
reporting if no deviations occur, but semiannual reporting if a 
deviation occurred within the reporting period.
     Modified the inspection requirements for vent collection 
system ductwork that is difficult or dangerous to access.
     Revised the definition of ``responsible official'' to make 
it easier for sources to identify the appropriate person at a chemical 
preparations facility.
     Corrected a typographical error in Table 2 to specify that 
the PM test method is Method 5, not 5A.
     Corrected a typographical error in Sec.  63.11585 where 
there were two paragraphs identified as paragraph (b).
     Clarified the definition of ``chemical preparation'' to 
specify that it applies to target HAP-containing products or 
intermediates.
     Revised the definition of ``target HAP-containing'' to 
clarify separate minimum concentration levels for trivalent and 
hexavalent chromium compounds.

IV. Summary of Final Standards

A. Do the Final Standards Apply to My Source?

    The final subpart BBBBBBB standards apply to each existing and new 
area source chemical preparations facility, as defined in the final 
rule. The standards do not apply to research or laboratory facilities, 
as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA. They also do not apply to 
chemical preparation operations described by the NAICS code 325998 that 
manufacture indelible ink, India ink, writing ink, and stamp pad ink, 
which are subject to area source regulations for paints and allied 
products (40 CFR part 63, Subpart CCCCCCC).

B. When Must I Comply With the Final Standards?

    All existing area source facilities subject to this final rule are 
required to comply with the rule requirements no later than December 
30, 2010. New sources are required to comply with the rule requirements 
by December 30, 2009 or upon startup of the facility, whichever is 
later.
    Because the majority of existing sources in this category are 
already well-controlled, we believe that one year is a reasonable 
amount of time to allow existing sources to conduct compliance 
demonstrations and prepare the initial reports required for compliance 
with the final rule.

C. What Are My Final Standards?

    As we explained in the proposed rule, PM is a surrogate for the 
target HAP (i.e., metal compounds of chromium, lead, manganese, and 
nickel). The final standards for existing sources require process vent 
streams from chemical manufacturing processes with equipment that uses, 
contains or contacts target HAP to either be routed to a control device 
with a 95 percent PM reduction efficiency or to meet an outlet 
concentration of 0.03 gr/dscf, with or without control. For new sources 
the final standards require these process vent streams to either be 
routed to a control device with a 98 percent PM reduction efficiency or 
the process vent stream must meet an outlet concentration of 0.03 gr/
dscf, with or without control. On a process by process basis, if an 
existing source can demonstrate and certify that the PM concentration 
of each of the process vent streams from equipment that uses, contains 
or contacts target HAP within a chemical preparation operation will not 
exceed 0.03 gr/dscf, then the source is not required to route the 
process vent streams to a control device with a 95 percent PM reduction 
efficiency. The final rule includes appropriately reduced recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements for sources that can comply with the 0.03 
gr/dscf alternative standard without the use of a control device.

D. What Are My Initial and Continuous Monitoring Requirements?

    The final standards require an initial compliance assessment that 
process vent streams are either being routed to a control device with a 
95 percent (98 percent for new sources) PM reduction efficiency or with 
an outlet PM concentration of 0.03 gr/dscf, or a certification that 
process vent streams from equipment that either contains, contacts, or 
is processing target HAP-containing materials will not exceed a PM 
concentration of 0.03 gr/dscf. The owner and operator must also 
establish parameter values (e.g., liquid flow or pressure drop) for the 
control device that will be monitored to demonstrate continuous 
compliance or must install a bag system leak detection system or 
audible parameter monitoring alarm which indicates failure of the 
particulate control system.
    The rule provides alternatives for demonstrating initial 
compliance. Specifically, initial compliance assessments to determine 
whether the PM percent reduction standard or outlet concentration 
standard are being met may consist of performance testing, control 
device manufacturer performance guarantees, or engineering 
calculations. Sources that opt to demonstrate and certify that the PM 
concentration of each of the process vent streams from equipment that 
either contains, contacts, or is processing target HAP-containing 
materials within a chemical preparation operation will not exceed 0.03 
gr/dscf must provide either emission test data or engineering 
calculations to support their certification.
    For existing sources, the final standards require owners or 
operators to conduct the initial compliance assessment by June 28, 
2011. Owners or operators of new sources are required to

[[Page 69197]]

conduct compliance assessments by June 28, 2010 or 180 days after 
startup, whichever is later.
    The rule provides alternative for demonstrating continuous 
compliance. Continuous compliance with the final emission limits is 
demonstrated by monitoring control device operating parameters 
established during the initial compliance assessment or with a bag leak 
detector system. For an existing source that opts to use a CPMS, the 
final standards for demonstrating continuous compliance are based upon 
an overall average per batch or over 24 hours, whichever is less, when 
the equipment either contains, contacts, or is processing target HAP-
containing materials. As alternatives to a CPMS, sources must install 
either a bag leak detection system, such as a triboelectric monitor and 
alarm, or a parameter monitor alarm that will alert operators of 
periods when the device parameters (such as pressure drop or scrubber 
liquid flow rate) are outside the operating upper or lower threshold or 
range specified by the control device manufacturer.
    In the final rule, sources certifying that the particulate matter 
concentration of each of the process vent streams from equipment that 
uses, contains or contacts target HAP within a chemical preparation 
operation will not exceed 0.03 gr/dscf have appropriately reduced duct 
collection system inspection requirements to ensure that the basis for 
the grain loading does not change. In addition, they must record 
material loss information that supports their certification for each 
subsequent quarter and must continue to operate in accordance with 
their certifications.

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

    Affected new and existing sources are required to comply with 
certain reporting requirements set forth in this final rule as well as 
certain requirements set forth in the General Provisions (40 CFR part 
63, subpart A), as identified in Tables 5 and 6 of this final rule. The 
General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, 
recordkeeping, and reporting. Among other requirements, each facility 
is required to submit an initial notification that complies with the 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.9(b) of the General Provisions within 120 
days of the effective date of the final rule and a notification of 
compliance status that complies with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9(h) 
within 60 days after completion of the initial compliance assessment. 
Sources must keep records to identify periods when equipment contains, 
contacts, or is processing target HAP-containing materials, as well as 
records of control device performance guarantees, inspections and 
monitoring system calibrations for CPMS, if applicable. Facilities are 
also required to submit semi-annual compliance summary reports if a 
deviation occurs within the reporting period. If no deviation occurs, 
then annual compliance summary reports must be submitted.
    Sources certifying that the particulate matter concentration of 
each of the process vent streams from equipment that either contains, 
contacts, or is processing target HAP-containing materials within a 
chemical preparation operation will not exceed 0.03 gr/dscf have 
appropriately reduced recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

F. What Are the Title V Permit Requirements?

    This final rule exempts the chemical preparations manufacturing 
area source category from title V permitting requirements unless the 
affected source is otherwise required by law to obtain a title V 
permit. For example, sources that have title V permits because they are 
major sources under the criteria pollutant program would maintain those 
permits.

V. Summary of Comments and Responses

    During the comment period on the proposed rule, we received eleven 
comment letters, which were submitted by industry, small business 
environmental assistance programs and environmental advocacy groups. 
Sections V.A. through V.H. summarize some of the more significant 
comments and explain our response. For comment summaries and responses 
not addressed in this preamble, see the response to comment document in 
the docket for this rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0028.

A. Source Category Listing and Applicability

    Comment. Several commenters contended that EPA did not provide the 
opportunity to comment on the addition of the chemical preparations 
source category to the area source category list and that chemical 
preparations should not be regulated as a source category per sections 
112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) of the CAA.
    Response. We listed the chemical preparations source category on 
November 22, 2002, under CAA section 112(c)(3) in one of a series of 
amendments (67 FR 70427) to the original source category list included 
in the 1999 Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, for which there was 
opportunity to comment. We included this source category on the section 
112(c)(3) area source category list, based upon emissions data for the 
1990 baseline year, for its contribution toward meeting the CAA section 
112(c)(3)'s requirement that we list sufficient categories and 
subcategories of sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 
percent of the area source emissions of the 30 hazardous air pollutants 
that present the greatest threat to public health in the largest number 
of urban areas are subject to regulation under CAA section 112. The 
chemical preparations area source category was listed for its 
contributions toward meeting the 90 percent requirement for compounds 
of chromium, manganese, lead and nickel. The commenters in this case 
were concerned that this source category would overlap with other 
source categories for which they are subject. The overlap concerns are 
addressed in the following comment response.
    Comment. Several commenters contended that the chemical 
preparations area source category as defined in the proposed rule 
overlaps with the chemical manufacturing and paint and allied products 
source categories and advocated that the applicability of the rule be 
further clarified to avoid confusion regarding which area source 
regulation applies to a particular operation.
    Response. When the chemical preparations area source category was 
initially listed, it was identified as consisting of facilities covered 
by standard industrial classification (SIC) code 2899. We subsequently 
moved to the use of North American Industrial Classification System 
(NAICS) codes, rather than SIC codes, to identify the types of 
facilities included in a particular area source category. SIC codes are 
translated to NAICS codes using the U.S. Census Bureau's ``bridge''. 
The ``bridge'' correlates the four-digit SIC code to the corresponding 
six-digit NAICS code or codes. As discussed in the background 
information document for the proposal (See Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0028), under the ``bridge'' the 2899 SIC code translates to four 
separate NAICS codes (311942--Spice and extract manufacturing, 325199--
All other basic organic chemical manufacturing, 325510--Paint and 
coating manufacturing, 325998--All other miscellaneous chemical product 
and preparation manufacturing). As a result,

[[Page 69198]]

at the time of proposal, we believed that it was possible for the 
chemical preparations source category to consist of operations that 
could be classified under one of these four possible North American 
Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes, depending on the 
product or intermediate the operation was producing. In the proposed 
rule, we, therefore, identified all four categories as potentially 
containing sources subject to the chemical preparations area source 
rule. Based on comments we received on the proposal, however, we now 
recognize that the chemical preparations area source category as listed 
consists exclusively of sources classified by NAICS code 325998. (For a 
more detailed discussion of the circumstances, see the final technical 
support document included in the docket for this final rule.) We also 
realized that the NAICS code 311942, spice and extract manufacturing, 
is not a source of target HAP emissions, since operations conducted at 
facilities included in that NAICS code produce table salt and other 
food products. In addition, we have determined that sources in NAICS 
code 325999 are subject to the chemical manufacturing area source rule 
(40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV) and that sources in NAICS code 325510 
are subject to the paint and allied products area source rule (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart CCCCCCC). For these reasons, this final rule only 
applies to facilities classified by NAICS code 325998. (40 CFR 63.11579 
and 63.11588.) Based on these comments, we also recognized that even 
within the 325998 NAICS code there was some overlap with the paint and 
allied products area source rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCCC). 
Specifically, we recognized that sources in the 325998 NAICS code that 
manufacture indelible ink, India ink, writing ink, and stamp pad ink 
are subject to regulation under the paint and allied products area 
source rule. (40 CFR 63.11599) Operations at sources in the 325998 
NAICS code that manufacture indelible ink, India ink, writing ink, or 
stamp pad ink, or any combination thereof, are, therefore, not subject 
to this final rule. (40 CFR 63.11579 and 63.11588.)
    To facilitate these changes, the definition of ``chemical 
preparation'' in the final rule has been revised to read as follows:
    Chemical preparation means a target HAP-containing product, or 
intermediate used in the manufacture of other products, manufactured in 
a process operation described by the NAICS code 325998 if the operation 
manufactures target HAP-containing products or intermediates other than 
indelible ink, India ink, writing ink, and stamp pad ink. Indelible 
ink, India ink, writing ink, and stamp pad ink manufacturing operations 
are subject to regulation by the paints and allied products area source 
rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCCC).

B. Alternative Standards

    Comment. Several commenters asked questions regarding whether their 
operations were subject to the rule and, presuming their operations 
were subject, expressed support for including an alternative compliance 
option based on a PM concentration. One commenter described an 
operation where liquids containing target HAP compounds were mixed in a 
closed tank. According to the commenter, PM matter is not emitted from 
this mixing operation. The commenter further stated that demonstrating 
95 percent control would be difficult, since there were no discernable 
PM emissions from this operation.
    Response. We agree with the commenter, and have added an 
alternative standard of 0.03 gr/dscf PM concentration to the final 
rule. Sources may either meet the requirement to route the process vent 
stream to a control device with a 95 percent PM reduction efficiency or 
the 0.03 gr/dscf PM concentration standard. Furthermore, sources 
demonstrating and providing a certification statement that each of the 
process vent streams from equipment that either contains, contacts, or 
is processing target HAP-containing materials within a chemical 
preparation operation will not exceed 0.03 gr/dscf have appropriately 
reduced reporting, recordkeeping and inspection requirements (to ensure 
that the basis for the PM concentration certification does not change).

C. GACT Limits

    Comment. One commenter contends that, ``EPA failed to calculate any 
potential HAP reductions from the proposed rule, because the proposed 
rule will not actually lead to any reductions.'' The commenter believes 
that the proposed rule is `` * * * to preserve the status quo * * *'' 
and that the level of control currently in place is the accepted level 
of control.
    Response. The commenter does not challenge any aspect of EPA's 
proposed GACT determination for this area source category. Instead, the 
commenter makes a blanket assertion that EPA is not acting consistently 
with the purposes of the area source provisions in the CAA (i.e., 
sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B)), because it is not requiring 
emission reductions beyond the level that is currently being achieved 
from this well-controlled source category. In support of this 
assertion, the commenter compares the requirements in the proposed rule 
to the area source category's current emission and control status. Such 
a comparison is flawed.
    Congress promulgated the relevant CAA area source provisions in 
1990 in light of the level of area source HAP emissions at that time. 
Congress directed EPA to identify not less than 30 HAP which, as a 
result of emissions from area sources, present the greatest threat to 
public health in the largest number of urban areas, and to list 
sufficient area source categories to ensure that area sources 
representing 90 percent of the 30 HAP listed are subject to regulation. 
As explained in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, EPA based its 
listing decisions on the baseline National Toxics Inventory (NTI) that 
the Agency compiled for purposes of implementing its air toxics program 
after the 1990 CAA Amendments (64 FR 38706, 38711, n.10). The baseline 
NTI reflected HAP emissions from chemical preparations manufacturing 
area sources in 1990. Thus, contrary to the commenter's suggestion, the 
relevant emission level for comparison is the emission level reflected 
in our baseline NTI, not the current emission level.
    Furthermore, in promulgating the area source provisions in the CAA, 
Congress did not require EPA to issue area source standards that must 
achieve a specific level of emission reduction. Rather, Congress 
authorized EPA to issue standards under section 112(d)(5) for area 
sources that reflect GACT for the source category. To qualify as being 
generally available, a GACT standard would most likely be an existing 
control technology or management practice: ``[A]n equipment standard 
would require neighborhood dry cleaning establishments to employ the 
commercially available systems associated with the lowest measured 
emissions * * *. S. Rep. 101-128, at 171-172 (emphasis added). Thus, it 
is both reasonable and consistent with Congressional intent that the 
GACT-based standards being finalized today codify the use of the 
existing effective PM control approach being used by sources in the 
category. For all of these reasons, this final rule is consistent with 
sections 112(c)(3), 112(k)(3)(B), and 112(d)(5).
    Comment. One commenter asserted that, although section 112(d)(5) 
does authorize EPA to issue GACT standards in lieu of maximum 
achievable control

[[Page 69199]]

technology (MACT) standards, the Agency's decision to do so is subject 
to familiar administrative law requirements. The commenter maintained 
that to be non-arbitrary, the decision must--at a minimum--be supported 
by a rational explanation. The commenter stated that EPA has provided 
no explanation whatsoever for its apparent decision to issue GACT 
standards instead of MACT standards and, for this reason alone, its 
decision is arbitrary and capricious.
    The commenter stated that EPA's decision to issue GACT standards 
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT standards pursuant 
to section 112(d)(2) and (3), is arbitrary and capricious because EPA 
provided no rationale for its decision to issue GACT standards. The 
commenter also claimed that the proposed standards are based solely on 
cost and are thus unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter claims that CAA 
section 112(d)(5) does not direct EPA to set standards based on what is 
cost effective; rather, according to the commenter EPA must establish 
GACT based on the ``methods, practices and techniques which are 
commercially available and appropriate for application by the sources 
in the category considering economic impacts.'' The commenter stated 
that, because cost effectiveness is not relevant under CAA section 
112(d)(5), the reliance on cost effectiveness as the sole determining 
factor in establishing GACT renders the proposed standards unlawful.
    Response. As the commenter recognizes, in section 112(d)(5), 
Congress gave EPA explicit authority to issue alternative emission 
standards for area sources. Specifically, section 112(d)(5), which is 
titled, ``Alternative standard for area sources,'' provides:

    With respect only to categories and subcategories of area 
sources listed pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, the 
Administrator may, in lieu of the authorities provided in paragraph 
(2) and subsection (f) of this section, elect to promulgate 
standards or requirements applicable to sources in such categories 
or subcategories which provide for the use of generally available 
control technologies or management practices by such sources to 
reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants. See CAA section 
112(d)(5).

    There are two critical aspects to section 112(d)(5). First, section 
112(d)(5) applies only to those categories and subcategories of area 
sources listed pursuant to section 112(c). The commenter does not 
dispute that EPA listed the chemical preparations area source category 
pursuant to section 112(c). Second, section 112(d)(5) provides that, 
for area sources listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3), EPA ``may, in 
lieu of'' the authorities provided in section 112(d)(2) and 112(f), 
elect to promulgate standards pursuant to section 112(d)(5).
    Section 112(d)(2) provides that emission standards established 
under that provision ``require the maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions'' of HAP (also known as MACT). Section 112(d)(3), in turn, 
defines what constitutes the ``maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions'' for new and existing sources. See section 112(d)(3). 
Webster's dictionary defines the phrase ``in lieu of'' to mean ``in the 
place of'' or ``instead of.'' See Webster's II New Riverside University 
(1994). Thus, section 112(d)(5) authorizes EPA to promulgate standards 
under section 112(d)(5) that provide for the use of GACT, instead of 
issuing MACT standards pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). 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)(3), which is the case here.
    The commenter argues that EPA must provide a rationale for issuing 
GACT standards under section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT standards. The 
commenter is incorrect. Had Congress intended that EPA first conduct a 
MACT analysis for each area source category, Congress would have stated 
so expressly in section 112(d)(5). Congress did not require EPA to 
conduct any MACT analysis, floor analysis or beyond-the-floor analysis 
before the Agency could issue a section 112(d)(5) standard. Rather, 
Congress authorized EPA to issue GACT standards for area source 
categories listed under section 112(c)(3), and that is precisely what 
EPA has done in this rulemaking.
    Although EPA need not justify its exercise of discretion in 
choosing to issue a GACT standard for an area source listed pursuant to 
section 112(c)(3), EPA still must have a reasoned basis for the GACT 
determination for the particular area source category. The legislative 
history supporting section 112(d)(5) provides that GACT is to 
encompass:

    * * * 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. 
See Senate Report on the 1990 Amendments to the Act (S. Rep. No. 
101-228, 101st Cong. 1st session. 171-172). The discussion in the 
Senate report clearly provides that EPA may consider costs in 
determining what constitutes GACT for the area source category.

    Congress plainly recognized that area sources differ from major 
sources, which is why Congress allowed EPA to consider costs in setting 
GACT standards for area sources under section 112(d)(5), but did not 
allow that consideration in setting MACT floors for major sources 
pursuant to section 112(d)(3). This important dichotomy between section 
112(d)(3) and section 112(d)(5) provides further evidence that Congress 
sought to do precisely what the title of section 112(d)(5) states--
provide EPA the authority to issue ``[a]lternative standards for area 
sources.''
    Notwithstanding the commenter's claim, EPA properly issued 
standards for the area source category at issue here under section 
112(d)(5) and in doing so provided a reasoned basis for its selection 
of GACT for the chemical preparations area source category. As 
explained in the proposed rule and below, EPA evaluated the control 
technologies and management practices that reduce PM emissions at 
chemical preparations manufacturing facilities. In its evaluation, EPA 
used information from industry contacts and reviewed operating permits 
to identify the emission controls and management practices that are 
currently used to control PM emissions.
    In our evaluation, we determined that all of the chemical 
preparations operations are currently controlled with either a fabric 
filter or wet scrubber.
    The commenter further argues that EPA inappropriately chose GACT 
based solely on costs, and, according to the commenter, cost is not 
relevant to GACT determinations and as such the standards are unlawful. 
We disagree. Contrary to the commenter's assertions, the Agency's 
consideration of cost effectiveness in establishing GACT and the 
Agency's views on what is a cost effective requirement under section 
112(d)(5) are relevant. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit 
has stated that cost effectiveness is a reasonable measure of cost as 
long as the statute does not mandate a specific method of determining 
cost. See Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 201 (DC Cir. 2001) 
(finding that EPA's decision to consider costs on a per ton of 
emissions removed basis is reasonable because CAA section 213 did not 
mandate a specific method of cost analysis).
    The commenter also failed to provide any information indicating 
that our cost-effectiveness determinations were unreasonable and, 
likewise, failed to provide any information concerning the

[[Page 69200]]

economic impacts associated with requiring the standards that the 
commenter suggests represent GACT. The commenter appears to take issue 
with the manner in which the Agency establishes GACT but provides no 
alternative approach, instead only attacking the Agency's consideration 
of cost (i.e., cost-effectiveness) as a consideration in the 
establishment of GACT. The Agency proposed GACT standards for the 
chemical preparations area source category that were established 
consistent with the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(5).
    Finally, even though not required, EPA did provide a rationale for 
why it set a GACT standard in the proposed rule. In the proposal, we 
explained that the facilities in the chemical preparations area source 
category at issue here are already well controlled for the urban HAP 
for which the source category was listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3). 
See 74 FR 39018 through and 39019. Consideration of costs and economic 
impacts is especially important for the well-controlled area sources at 
issue in this final action. Given the current, well-controlled emission 
levels, a MACT floor determination, where costs cannot be considered, 
could result in only marginal reductions in emissions at very high 
costs for the area source category.

D. Initial Compliance

    Comment. Several commenters contended that EPA proposed a very 
short compliance deadline for existing sources--only one year from 
issuance of the final rule. The commenters argue that the proposed one-
year compliance deadline is premised upon EPA's assumption, which they 
do not agree with, that sources will not have to install or modify air 
pollution control or monitoring equipment to meet the standards.
    Response. We generally disagree, particularly when additional 
flexibilities included in the final rule are considered. The comment 
appears to be premised on an incorrect assumption that new control 
devices will need to be installed to comply with the PM emission 
limits. We continue to believe that additional add-on controls will not 
be needed to comply with the final GACT standards, particularly since 
we revised the proposed GACT limits by providing an alternative PM 
concentration limit. Likewise, we have revised the proposed monitoring 
requirements by providing compliance alternatives for existing and new 
facilities. Sources may use a CPMS, a bag leak detection system or a 
parameter monitor alarm system that notifies the operator when the 
device is operating outside the manufacturer's recommended range. A bag 
leak detection system or parameter monitor alarm systems are 
significantly less complicated to install and operate than a CPMS and 
provide a comparable level of assurance that the source is operating in 
compliance with applicable requirements. Sources that already operate 
CPMS have the option of continuing to use their existing system to 
demonstrate compliance. Consequently, we believe that the proposed 
compliance deadline of 1 year is adequate.

E. Continuous Monitoring, Inspections and Reporting

    Comment. One commenter stated that CEMS are not applicable to small 
chemical preparations operations.
    Response. We agree with the commenter that current permit data do 
not support requiring CEMS for existing sources. The final rule does 
not contain any CEMS requirements.
    Comment. Several commenters contended that the use of CPMS was 
uncommon at existing chemical preparations facilities, and that the 
costs of installing these systems were not accounted for in the 
proposed rule.
    Response. We agree that requiring CPMS installation and operation 
for existing sources that do not already utilize such a system to 
monitor their control device's performance may not be economically 
feasible based upon data from the commenters. As a result, we have 
revised the rule so that existing and new sources can demonstrate 
continuous compliance through the use of any of the following: (1) A 
CPMS; (2) a bag leak detection system that notifies operators when a 
leak is detected; or (3) a parameter monitor with an audible alarm that 
notifies operators when a monitored control device parameter, such as 
pressure drop or scrubber liquid flow rate, is outside of the control 
device manufacturer's recommendations. Note that neither the bag leak 
detection system nor the parameter monitor alarm systems require a data 
acquisition and handling system to function properly, which, according 
to commenters, is the predominant portion of the cost of a CPMS.
    Comment. Several commenters contended that the inspection 
requirements were too burdensome, arguing that the vent collection 
system may be difficult to access or inspect and that inspections are 
unnecessary because the vent collection systems are induced draft 
systems.
    Response. We disagree that the proposed requirements are too 
burdensome. The required inspections are simple external visual 
assessments of the integrity of the collection system. This should be 
easily accomplished by sources. While these may be induced draft 
systems, we believe that they still warrant inspection. For example, an 
inspection can identify points along the ductwork where PM may be 
building up inside the duct and consequently falling out of leaks in 
the ductwork, indicating not only the existence of a possible leak, but 
that the amount of vacuum that the system was designed to induce is not 
being achieved. We do, however, recognize the need for inspection 
safety and have added provisions to the final rule that reduce 
inspection requirements for sections of ductwork that are deemed to be 
unsafe or difficult to inspect.
    Comment. Several commenters contended that semiannual reporting is 
too burdensome for area sources and is more appropriate for major 
source requirements.
    Response. We have revised the final rule reporting requirements so 
that sources must submit an annual report instead of semi-annual 
reports if no deviations occur. If a deviation occurs, then a semi-
annual report must be submitted that summarizes the deviation and 
describes the corrective actions taken by the facility.

F. Title V Permitting

    Comment. One commenter argued that the agency's proposal to exempt 
the chemical preparations area source category from title V 
requirements is unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter states that 
section 502(a) of the CAA authorizes EPA to exempt area source 
categories from title V permitting requirements if the Administrator 
finds that compliance with such requirements is ``impracticable, 
infeasible or unnecessarily burdensome.'' 42 U.S.C. section 7661a(a). 
The commenter notes that EPA did not claim that title V requirements 
are impracticable or infeasible for the chemical preparations area 
source category it proposes to exempt, but that EPA instead relied 
entirely on its claim that title V would be ``unnecessarily 
burdensome.''
    Response. Section 502(a) of the CAA states, in relevant part, that:

    * * * [t]he Administrator may, in the Administrator's discretion 
and consistent with the applicable provisions of this chapter, 
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

[[Page 69201]]

impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on such 
categories, except that the Administrator may not exempt any major 
source from such regulations. See 42 U.S.C. section 7661a(a).

    The statute plainly vests the Administrator with discretion to 
determine when it is appropriate to exempt non-major (i.e., area) 
sources of air pollution from the requirements of title V. The 
commenter correctly notes that EPA based the proposed exemptions solely 
on a determination that title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' and 
did not rely on whether the requirements of title V are 
``impracticable'' or ``infeasible,'' which are alternative bases for 
exempting area sources from title V.
    To the extent the commenter is asserting that EPA must determine 
that all three criteria in CAA section 502 are met before an area 
source category can be exempted from title V, the commenter misreads 
the statute. The statute expressly provides that EPA may exempt an area 
source category from title V requirements if EPA determines that the 
requirements are ``impracticable, infeasible or unnecessarily 
burdensome.'' See CAA section 502. If Congress had wanted to require 
that all three criteria be met before a category could be exempted from 
title V, it would have stated so by using the word ``and,'' in place of 
``or.'' For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, 
we believe that it is appropriate to exempt sources in the chemical 
preparation area source category, which are not otherwise required to 
have a title V permit, from title V permitting and, on that basis, have 
retained the exemption in the final rule.
    Comment. One commenter stated that in order to demonstrate that 
compliance with title V would be ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' EPA must 
show, among other things, that the ``burden'' of compliance is 
unnecessary. According to the commenter, by promulgating title V, 
Congress indicated that it viewed the burden imposed by its 
requirements as necessary as a general rule. The commenter maintained 
that the title V requirements provide many benefits that Congress 
viewed as necessary. Thus, in the commenter's view, EPA must show why, 
for any given category, special circumstances make compliance 
unnecessary. The commenter believed that EPA has not made that showing 
for the chemical preparations area source category it proposes to 
exempt.
    Response. EPA does not agree with the commenter's characterization 
of the demonstration required for determining that title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome for an area source category. As stated above, 
the CAA provides the Administrator discretion to exempt an area source 
category from title V if he/she 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 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''). In addition to interpreting the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' and developing the four factor balancing 
test in the Exemption Rule, EPA applied the test to certain area source 
categories.
    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 NESHAP for the area source 
category, without relying on title V permits (70 FR 75326).
    In discussing the above factors in the Exemption Rule, we 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, we concluded 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.
    The commenter asserts that ``EPA must show that the ``burden'' of 
compliance is unnecessary.'' This is not, however, one of the four 
factors that we developed in the Exemption Rule in interpreting the 
term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502, but rather a new 
test that the commenter maintains EPA ``must'' meet in determining what 
is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' under CAA section 502. EPA did not re-
open its interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA 
section 502 in the August 5, 2009 proposed rule for the chemical 
preparation area source category. Rather, we applied the four factor 
balancing test articulated in the Exemption Rule to this source 
category. Had we sought to re-open our interpretation of the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and modify it from what 
was articulated in the Exemption Rule, we would have stated so in the 
August 5, 2009 proposed rule and solicited comments on a revised 
interpretation, which we did not do. Accordingly, we reject the 
commenter's attempt to create a new test for determining what 
constitutes ``unnecessarily burdensome'' under CAA section 502, as that 
issue falls outside the purview of this rulemaking.
    Moreover, had the comment been framed as a request to reopen our 
interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 
502, which it was not, we would deny such request because we have a 
court-ordered deadline to complete this rulemaking by December 16, 
2009. In any event, although the commenter espouses a new 
interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 
502 and attempts to create a new test for determining whether the 
requirements of title V are ``unnecessarily burdensome'' for an area 
source category, the commenter does not explain why EPA's 
interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is arbitrary, 
capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law. We maintain that 
our interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in section 
502, as set forth in the Exemption Rule, is reasonable.
    Comment. One commenter stated that exempting a source category from 
title V permitting requirements deprives both the public generally and 
individual members of the public who would obtain and use permitting 
information

[[Page 69202]]

from the benefit of citizen oversight and enforcement that Congress 
plainly viewed as necessary. According to the commenter, the text and 
legislative history of the CAA provide that Congress intended ordinary 
citizens to be able to get emissions and compliance information about 
air toxics sources and to be able to use that information in 
enforcement actions and in public policy decisions on a State and local 
level.
    The commenter stated that Congress did not think that enforcement 
by States or other government entities was enough; if it had, Congress 
would not have enacted the citizen suit provisions, and the legislative 
history of the CAA would not show that Congress viewed citizens' access 
to information and ability to enforce CAA requirements as highly 
important both as an individual right and as a crucial means to 
ensuring compliance. According to the commenter, if a source does not 
have a title V permit, it is difficult or impossible--depending on the 
laws, regulations and practices of the State in which the source 
operates--for a member of the public to obtain relevant information 
about its emissions and compliance status. The commenter stated that 
likewise, it is difficult or impossible for citizens to bring 
enforcement actions.
    The commenter continued that EPA does not claim--far less 
demonstrate with substantial evidence, as would be required--that 
citizens would have the same ability to obtain compliance and emissions 
information about sources in the categories it proposes to exempt 
without title V permits. The commenter also said that likewise, EPA 
does not claim--far less demonstrate with substantial evidence--that 
citizens would have the same enforcement ability. Thus, according to 
the commenter, the exemptions EPA proposes plainly eliminate benefits 
that Congress thought necessary. The commenter claimed that to justify 
its exemptions, EPA would have to show that the informational and 
enforcement benefits that Congress intended title V to confer--benefits 
which the commenter argues are eliminated by the exemptions--are for 
some reason unnecessary with respect to the categories it proposes to 
exempt.
    The commenter concluded that EPA does not even acknowledge these 
benefits of title V, far less explain why they are unnecessary, and 
that, for this reason alone, EPA's proposed exemptions are unlawful and 
arbitrary.
    Response. Once again, the commenter attempts to create a new test 
for determining whether the requirements of title V are ``unnecessarily 
burdensome'' on an area source category. Specifically, the commenter 
argues that EPA does not claim or demonstrate with substantial evidence 
that citizens would have the same access to information and the same 
ability to enforce under these NESHAP, absent title V. The commenter's 
position represents a significant revision of the fourth factor that 
EPA developed in the Exemption Rule in interpreting the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502. For all of the reasons 
explained above, the commenter's attempt to create a new test for EPA 
to meet in determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' 
on an area source category cannot be sustained. This rulemaking did not 
re-open EPA's interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' 
in CAA section 502. EPA reasonably applied the four factors to the 
facts of the chemical preparation area source category, and the 
commenter has not identified any flaw in EPA's application of the four 
factor test.
    Moreover, as explained in the proposal, we considered 
implementation and enforcement issues in the fourth factor of the four 
factor balancing test. Specifically, the fourth factor of EPA's 
unnecessarily burdensome analysis provides that EPA will consider 
whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that 
are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP without relying on 
title V permits. See 74 FR 39021.
    In applying the fourth factor here, EPA determined that there are 
adequate enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the 
CAA. As stated in the proposal, we believe that State-delegated 
programs are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP and that 
EPA retains authority to enforce this NESHAP under the CAA. See 74 FR 
39021. We also indicated that States and EPA often conduct voluntary 
compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs to assist 
sources and that these additional programs will supplement and enhance 
the success of compliance with this NESHAP. See 74 FR 39021. The 
commenter does not challenge the conclusion that there are adequate 
State and Federal programs in place to ensure compliance with and 
enforcement of the NESHAP. Instead, the commenter provides an 
unsubstantiated assertion that information about compliance by the area 
sources with these NESHAP will not be as accessible to the public as