Proposal To Exempt Area Sources Subject to NESHAP From Federal
and State Operating Permit Programs
[Federal Register: March 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 57)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15250-15264]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25mr05-11]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 63, 70, and 71
[OAR-2004-0010; FRL-7889-5]
RIN 2060-AM31
Proposal To Exempt Area Sources Subject to NESHAP From Federal
and State Operating Permit Programs
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to exempt permanently from the title V
operating permit program five categories of nonmajor (area) sources
subject to national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP). The EPA is proposing to make a finding for these categories,
consistent with the Clean Air Act requirement for making such an
exemption, that compliance with Title V permitting requirements is
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on the
categories. The five source categories are dry cleaners, halogenated
solvent degreasers, chrome electroplaters, ethylene oxide (EO)
sterilizers and secondary aluminum smelters. The EPA is proposing to
decline making such a finding for a sixth category, area sources
subject to the secondary lead smelter NESHAP. A previous deferral from
permitting for these six categories expired on December 9, 2004,
subjecting all such sources to the title V program unless and until EPA
finalizes an exemption for a category.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2004-
0010, by one of the following methods:
? Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
? Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET,
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
? E-mail: Send electronic mail (e-mail) to EPA Docket Center
at a-and-r-docket@epamail.epa.gov.
? Fax: Send faxes to EPA Docket Center at (202) 566-1741.
? Air and Radiation Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460.
? Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. 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. OAR-2004-0010.
The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at http://
www.epa.gov/edocket, 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 EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-
mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal regulations.gov websites are
``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through EDOCKET or 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, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal Register of May 31,
2002 (67 FR 38102).
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available, i.e., 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
EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room B102, 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: Mr. Jeff Herring, Information Transfer
and Program Integration Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Mail Code C304-04, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-3195; fax number:
[[Page 15251]]
(919) 541-5509; and e-mail address: herring.jeff@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline. The contents of the preamble are listed in the following
outline:
I. Background
A. Affected Entities
B. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
II. Rationale for Today's Proposed Exemptions from Title V
A. General Approach
B. Dry Cleaning
C. Chrome Plating
D. Halogenated Solvent Degreasing
E. Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers
F. Secondary Aluminum
III. General Permits
IV. Request for Comment on Secondary Lead Area Sources
V. Environmental Results Program
VI. The Effects of the End of the Deferrals for Area Sources
VII. Administrative Requirements
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 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. Background
A. Affected Entities
The entities affected by this rulemaking are area sources subject
to a NESHAP promulgated under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act)
since 1990 and listed in the table below. An ``area source'' is a
source that is not a ``major source'' of hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
under the NESHAP regulations. A ``major source'' under the NESHAP
regulations is ``any stationary source or group of stationary sources
located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or
has the potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10
tons per year or more of any [HAP] or 25 tons per year or more of any
combination of [HAP] * * *'' See definitions of ``area source'' and
``major source'' at 40 CFR 63.2.
This proposal, if finalized, would affect only whether an area
source regulated by a NESHAP is required to obtain a title V operating
permit and whether States are allowed to issue title V permits to
exempt sources. It would have no other effect on any other requirements
of the NESHAP regulations, nor on the requirements of the State or
Federal title V operating permit programs.
The affected categories are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Category NESHAP number of
sources \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perchloroethylene dry cleaning.... Part 63, Subpart M.. 30,000
Hard and decorative chromium Part 63, Subpart N.. 5,000
electroplating and chromium
anodizing.
Commercial ethylene oxide Part 63, Subpart O.. 40
sterilization.
Halogenated solvent cleaning...... Part 63, Subpart T.. 3,800
Secondary aluminum production..... Part 63, Subpart RRR 1,316
Secondary lead smelting........... Part 63, Subpart X.. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This estimated number includes both major and area sources, even
though only area sources would be affected by this rulemaking. For dry
cleaners and ethylene oxide sterilizers, almost all sources are area
sources. For other categories listed here, EPA does not have
information on the number of area sources.
B. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Section 502(a) of the Clean Air Act (Act) sets forth the sources
required to obtain operating permits under title V. These sources
include: (1) Any affected source subject to the acid deposition
provisions of title IV of the Act; (2) any major source; (3) any source
required to have a permit under Part C or D of title I of the Act; (4)
``any other source (including an area source) subject to standards or
regulations under section 111 or 112'' [i.e., a source subject to new
source performance standards (NSPS) under section 111 or NESHAP under
section 112], and (5) any other stationary source in a category
designated by regulations promulgated by the Administrator. See
Sec. Sec. 70.3(a) and 71.3(a). The requirements of section 502(a) are
primarily implemented through the operating permit program rules: Part
70, which sets out the minimum requirements for title V operating
permit programs administered by State, local, and tribal permitting
authorities (57 FR 32261, July 21, 1992), and part 71, the Federal
operating permit program requirements that apply where EPA or a
delegate agency authorized by EPA to carry out a Federal permit program
is the title V permitting authority (61 FR 34228, July 1, 1996). The
area sources subject to NSPS under section 111 or NESHAP under section
112 [addressed in category (4) above] are identified in Sec. Sec.
70.3(a)(2) and (3) and Sec. Sec. 71.3(a)(2) and (3) as among the
sources subject to title V permitting requirements.
Section 502(a) of the Act also provides that ``the Administrator
may, in the Administrator's discretion and consistent with the
applicable provisions of [the Clean Air Act], promulgate regulations to
exempt one or more source categories (in whole or in part) from the
requirements [of section 502(a)] if the Administrator finds that
compliance with such requirements is impracticable, infeasible, or
unnecessarily burdensome on such categories, except that the
Administrator may not exempt any major source from such requirements.''
Under current regulations, area sources subject to a NSPS or NESHAP may
be deferred from permitting, permanently exempt from permitting, or
required to get a permit.
In the part 70 final rule issued on July 21, 1992, EPA permanently
exempted from title V two categories of area sources that are subject
to section 111 and 112 standards established prior to the part 70 rule
(pre-1992 standards): New residential wood heaters subject to subpart
AAA of part 60 (NSPS), and asbestos demolition and renovation
operations subject to subpart M of part 61 (NESHAP). See Sec. Sec.
70.3(b)(4) and 71.3(b)(4). The EPA also allowed permitting authorities
under part 70 the option to defer permitting for other area sources
subject to pre-1992 standards, while for part 71 purposes, we simply
deferred them. The rationale for these deferrals was based on factors
such as the burden imposed on the area sources and the impact on
permitting authorities. See 57 FR 32261-32263 (July 21, 1992), and
Sec. Sec. 70.3(b)(1) and 71.3(b)(1).
[[Page 15252]]
The post-1992 standards, including the NESHAP for area sources that
are the subject of today's proposal, previously have been addressed in
Sec. Sec. 70.3(b)(2) and 71.3(b)(2), which states that EPA will
determine whether to exempt from title V permitting any or all area
sources subject to post-1992 NSPS or NESHAP at the time each new
standard is promulgated. Consequently, EPA issued title V exemptions
for several area sources subject to NESHAP in final rules under part 63:
? All area sources within the NESHAP for publicly owned
treatment works (POTW), Subpart VVV. See 63 FR 64742, October 21, 2002
and Sec. 63.1592.
? Those area sources conducting cold batch cleaning within
the NESHAP for halogenated solvent cleaning, Subpart T. See 59 FR
61802, December 2, 1994, and Sec. 63.468(j). [Note that there are
other area sources subject to this NESHAP that were subject to the
deferral from permitting that expired on December 9, 2004; see next
paragraph.]
? Three types of area sources (any decorative chromium
electroplating operation or chromium anodizing operation that uses fume
suppressants as an emission reduction technology, and any decorative
chromium electroplating operation that uses a trivalent chromium bath
that incorporates a wetting agent as a bath ingredient) within the
NESHAP for hard and decorative chromium electroplating and chromium
anodizing tanks, Subpart T. See 61 FR 27785, June 3, 1996, and Sec.
63.340(e)(1). [Note that there are other area sources subject to this
NESHAP that were subject to the deferral from permitting that expired
on December 9, 2004; see next paragraph.]
The EPA has also issued deferrals from title V permitting for area
sources subject to post-1992 NESHAP in three final rules under part 63.
These final rules deferred title V permitting for all remaining areas
sources subject to the NESHAP above (those not exempted), and deferred
title V permitting for all area sources subject to various other NESHAP:
? Area sources subject to the NESHAP for Perchloroethylene
dry cleaning, subpart M; chromium electroplating and anodizing, subpart
N; commercial ethylene oxide sterilization, subpart O; and secondary
lead smelting, subpart X. See 61 FR 27785, June 3, 1996;
? Area sources subject to the NESHAP for halogenated solvent
cleaning, subpart T. See 59 FR 61801, December 2, 1994, as amended by a
June 5, 1995 correction notice (60 FR 29484); and
? Area sources subject to the NESHAP for secondary aluminum
production, subpart RRR. See 65 FR 15690, March 23, 2000.
These rules established an initial 5-year deferral of area source
permitting, which expired on December 9, 1999. The expiration date for
the deferrals was extended to December 9, 2004 in a another final rule
(64 FR 69637, December 14, 1999), which justified the extension on the
grounds that the conditions that prompted the previous deferrals had
not changed. Today's notice addresses all six categories of area
sources subject to a post-1992 NESHAP that were subject to deferrals
from permitting that expired on December 9, 2004.
The deferral to date of title V permitting for the six categories
of area sources subject to NESHAP addressed in this proposal was based,
in large part, on the belief that requiring permitting in the earlier
stages of program implementation would impose an impracticable,
infeasible and unnecessary burden on the sources due to their
substantial lack of technical and legal expertise and experience in
environmental regulations. In addition, permitting of area sources
would strain the resources of permitting authorities and compete with
resources needed for major sources, which would make it difficult for
area sources to obtain assistance from the permitting authorities. See
61 FR 27785, June 3, 1996; 59 FR 61801, December 2, 1994; and FR 15690,
March 23, 2000. Now that the implementation of State title V permit
programs has reached the point where most of the major sources have
been issued their initial permits, EPA is no longer considering an
extension of the deferrals based on the reasons that were important
years ago. Instead, we are now proposing to permanently exempt from
title V permitting five of these six categories of area sources subject
to NESHAP for different reasons discussed below.
Under today's proposal, an area source is only exempt from title V
permitting if it is not required to get a permit for other reasons. For
example, if a particular NESHAP exempts an area source of HAP from
permitting, the source would be required to obtain a permit if it is
also a major source for a criteria pollutant (consistent with the
definition of ``major source'' in Sec. 70.2). In such a situation,
Sec. 70.3(a)(1) would independently require a major source permit,
which would include the area source.
The EPA also wishes to clarify its position with respect to title V
permitting of area sources after the effective date of any permanent
exemptions we may finalize. To date, the deferrals from title V
permitting for these area sources have been optional for State part 70
permit programs. A few States have reported to us that they have issued
title V operating permits for various area sources that have been
subject to these deferrals. See docket items 0002 and 0008. However,
EPA believes that the Act does not authorize permitting authorities,
including State and local agencies and EPA, to permit area sources
under title V after EPA finalizes exemptions from title V for them. The
EPA believes the Act contemplates that only those area sources required
to be permitted under section 502(a), and not exempted by the
Administrator through notice and comment rulemaking, are properly
subject to title V requirements. Section 506(a) provides that
permitting authorities ``may establish additional permitting
requirements not inconsistent with this Act.'' The EPA believes that it
would be inconsistent with the Act for States to include sources in
their title V programs that EPA has exempted from title V because
section 502(a) of the Act grants the Administrator alone discretion to
define the universe of area sources subject to the title V programs.
The EPA interprets Section 506(a) as preserving for States the ability
to establish additional permitting requirements, such as procedural
requirements, for sources properly covered by the program. In addition,
EPA interprets Section 116 of the Act as allowing States to issue non-
title V permits to sources that have been exempted from, or are outside
the scope of, the title V program. If such programs are approved in a
SIP, they would be federally enforceable. The EPA believes that State
issuance of title V permits to area sources that EPA has exempted from
title V permitting requirements would conflict with Congress's intent
that EPA define the universe of sources subject to title V and would be
an obstacle to the implementation of the title V program. Even if the
statute were ambiguous in this regard, EPA would exercise its
discretion to interpret it this way to promote effective title V
implementation.
This means that State or local permitting authorities must stop
issuing new title V permits to area sources after the effective date of
any EPA exemption for such area sources, unless the sources are subject
to title V for other reasons. Also, under the proposal's approach, if a
State has already issued a permit to an area source and the area source
is not subject to title V for other reasons, the
[[Page 15253]]
State would have to take an action to revoke, terminate, or deny the
permit, after the effective date of any EPA exemption for such an area
source. Unless a State permitting authority has a more specific
procedure for terminating such permits, they must normally use the
procedures for reopening for cause under Sec. 70.7(f). Section
70.7(f)(1)(i) would require reopening for cause in this circumstance
because once EPA has promulgated a title V exemption within the NESHAP
(applicable requirement), the title V permit would no longer assure
compliance with the applicable requirement. For the same reasons, State
permitting authorities would generally be required to deny any
application for a permit renewal for an area source EPA has exempted
from title V, and EPA could find it necessary to object to the issuance
of a permit for any such source or to take action to terminate or
revoke such permit. (See section 505(e) of the Act, 40 CFR 70.7(c), (f)
and 70.8(c).) The EPA requests comment on our interpretation that
States may not issue title V permits to area sources we have
permanently exempted from title V and that any existing permits for
such sources must be terminated, revoked, or denied.
If we finalize this proposal to exempt certain area sources from
title V and to not allow States to permit such sources, certain
revisions to part 70 will also be necessary. First, Sec. 70.3(a)
requires State title V programs to provide for permitting ``at least
the following sources,'' and then Sec. Sec. 70.3(a)(1) through (5)
provides a specific list of sources to be permitted. The ``at least''
language has been interpreted by some to mean that States may require
permits from area sources exempted from title V through notice and
comment rulemaking by EPA. However, because EPA believes the Act does
not allow the issuance of title V permits to area sources that we have
exempted from title V, we propose to delete this ``at least'' language
from Sec. 70.3(a). No similar changes are necessary for part 71.
Second, Sec. 70.3(b)(3) allows any exempt source to ``opt to apply for
a permit under a part 70 program.'' Section 71.3(b)(3) contains similar
language. Because EPA believes the Act does not allow States to permit
area sources subject to permanent exemptions from permitting, we
propose to delete these provisions from part 70 and part 71. This
proposed change means that area sources that have been exempted through
rulemaking by EPA would not be able to volunteer for a title V permit
because the permitting authority would not be allowed by our
interpretation of sections 502(a) and 506(a) of the Act to permit such
sources under title V. Third, the prefatory phrase of Sec. 70.3(b)(4),
``Unless otherwise required by the state to obtain a part 70 permit,''
suggests that States may require title V permits from area sources we
have exempted from title V, including sources subject to part 60
(NSPS), subpart AAA, for residential wood heaters; and sources subject
to part 61 (NESHAP), subpart M, for asbestos demolition and renovation.
Because the prefatory phrase of Sec. 70.3(b)(4) is inconsistent with
our interpretation of section 502(a) and 506(a) of the Act, we propose
to delete it from part 70. No changes are necessary to the parallel
regulatory provision of Sec. 71.3(b)(3) to conform with this
interpretation.
II. Rationale for Today's Proposed Exemptions from Title V
A. General Approach
Section 502(a) of the Act provides that `` * * * the Administrator
may, in the Administrator's discretion and consistent with the
applicable provisions of this Act, promulgate regulations to exempt one
or more source categories (in whole or in part) from the requirements
of this subsection if the Administrator finds that compliance with such
requirements is impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome
on such categories, except that the Administrator may not exempt any
major source from such requirements.''
The legislative history of the provision is not extensive, but does
suggest that EPA should not grant exemptions where doing so would
adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment. See
Chafee-Baucus Statement of Senate Managers, Environment and Natural
Resources Policy Division 1990 CAA Leg. Hist. 905, Compiled November,
1993 (in that ``[t]he Act requires EPA to protect the public health,
welfare and the environment, * * * this provision of the permits title
prevents EPA from exempting sources or source categories from the
requirements of the permit program if such exemptions would adversely
affect public health, welfare, or the environment'').
In several previous rulemakings, EPA has stated that it would
continue to evaluate the permitting authorities' implementation and
enforcement of the standards for area sources not covered by title V
permits. (See 61 FR 27785, June 3, 1996; and 64 FR 69639, December 14,
1999). In developing today's proposal, EPA sought and relied on
information from State and local permitting agencies on the level of
oversight they perform on the sources addressed in today's proposal.
Agencies responded with information on whether they issue State
permits, perform routine inspections, and provide compliance assistance
to these area sources and also information on the compliance rate and
number of sources in each category. These results are summarized for
each category of area sources in docket item 0002.
The EPA also sought input from State small business ombudsmen and
several trade associations representing dry cleaning, metal finishing,
solvent cleaning and the aluminum industry. These representatives
responded with recommendations and information on the area sources and
compliance assistance programs currently available to them in certain
States. This information is in the docket. (See docket items 0003,
0006, and 0008.)
Consistent with the statute, today's analysis focuses on whether
compliance with title V permitting is ``impracticable, infeasible, or
unnecessarily burdensome'' on the source categories. For the sources
addressed in today's proposal, EPA has found the ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' criterion to be particularly relevant. The EPA's inquiry
into whether this criterion is satisfied for the area sources addressed
in today's notice was primarily based on consideration of four factors,
described below. The EPA determined on a case-by-case basis the extent
to which one or more of the four factors is present for a given source
category, and then determined whether, considered together, those
factors that are present demonstrated that compliance with title V
requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome.
The first factor is whether title V would add any significant
compliance requirements to those already required by the NESHAP. We
looked at the compliance requirements of the NESHAP to see if they were
substantially equivalent to the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of Sec. Sec. 70.6 and 71.6 that we believe may be
important for assuring compliance with the NESHAP. The purpose of this
was to determine if title V is ``unnecessary'' to improve compliance
for these NESHAP requirements at these areas sources. Thus, a finding
that title V would not result in significant improvements to compliance
requirements, over the compliance requirements already required by the
NESHAP, would support a conclusion that title V
[[Page 15254]]
permitting is ``unnecessary'' for area sources in that category. One
way that title V may improve compliance is by requiring monitoring
(including recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring) to assure
compliance with the emission limitations and control technology
requirements imposed in the standard. The authority for adding new
monitoring in the permit is in the ``periodic monitoring'' provisions
of Sec. Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B), which only allows
new monitoring to be added to the permit when the underlying standard
does not already require ``periodic testing or instrumental or
noninstrumental monitoring (which may consist of recordkeeping designed
to serve as monitoring).'' Also see the so-called ``umbrella
monitoring'' rule, which explains the minimum monitoring requirements
for operating permits (69 FR 3202, January 22, 2004). Under the
umbrella monitoring rule interpretation and the periodic monitoring
rule, title V permits would not typically add any new monitoring for
post-1992 NESHAP, including the NESHAP that are addressed in today's
proposal. Because of this, title V permits are not likely to add any
new or different monitoring (including recordkeeping designed to serve
as monitoring) to the NESHAP, and thus, at least with regard to
assuring compliance with the NESHAP through monitoring, title V
permitting for area sources in that category is likely to be
``unnecessary.'' In addition, title V imposes a number of recordkeeping
and reporting requirements that may be important for assuring
compliance. These include requirements for a monitoring report at least
every six months, prompt reports of deviations, and an annual
compliance certification. See Sec. Sec. 70.6(a)(3) and 71.6(a)(3),
Sec. Sec. 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1), and Sec. Sec. 70.6(c)(5) and
71.6(c)(5). When we use this first factor in our findings below, we
will discuss the extent to which the compliance requirements of the
NESHAP are substantially equivalent to the compliance requirements of
part 70 and 71 discussed here.
The second factor is whether the area sources subject to a NESHAP
possesses characteristics that would contribute to title V permitting
imposing a significant burden on them, and whether this burden could be
aggravated by difficulty in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies.
The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is
whether the costs of title V permitting for area sources subject to a
NESHAP would be justified, taking into consideration any potential
gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources.
Concerning the second and third factors, subjecting any source to
title V permitting imposes certain burdens and costs that do not exist
outside of the title V program. The EPA estimated that the true average
annual cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit was $7,700
per year per source, including fees. (See Information Collection
Request for Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, January 2000, EPA
# 1587.05, docket item 0007.) The EPA does not have specific
estimates for the burdens and costs of permitting area sources,
however, the permit rules allow area source permits to have a reduced
scope, compared to major source permits. Major source permits are
required to include all applicable requirements for all relevant
emissions units in the major source. See Sec. Sec. 70.3(c)(1) and
71.3(c)(1). The permit rules require area source permits to include all
applicable requirements applicable to the emissions units that cause
the source to be subject to title V permitting. See Sec. Sec.
70.3(c)(2) and 71.3(c)(2). Because of this, there may be emissions
units at a facility that would not be included in an area source permit
(because they are not subject to the NESHAP that triggered the
requirement to get the permit), but would be included in any major
source permit for a similar facility. In addition, EPA does not have
specific estimates for source burdens and costs associated with general
permits. However, we have made some assumptions about how burdens and
costs would be reduced for general permits, and this is discussed more
thoroughly in Section III of this preamble. Nevertheless, irrespective
of the number of units included in the permit and the type of permit
(standard or general), there are certain source activities associated
with the part 70 and 71 rules. These activities are mandatory and
impose burdens on the source. They include: Reading and understanding
permit program guidance and regulations; obtaining and understanding
permit application forms; answering follow-up questions from permitting
authorities after the application is submitted; reviewing and
understanding the permit; collecting records; preparing and submitting
monitoring reports on a six-month or more frequent basis; preparing and
submitting prompt deviation reports, as defined by the State, which may
include a combination of written, verbal, and other communications
methods; collecting information, preparing, and submitting the annual
compliance certification; preparing applications for permit revisions
every five years; and, as needed, preparing and submitting applications
for permit revisions. In addition, although not required by the permit
rules, many sources obtain the contractual services of professional
scientists and engineers (consultants) to help them understand and meet
the permitting programs's requirements. The ICR for part 70 may help
you to understand the overall burdens and costs, as well as the
relative burdens of each activity described here. Also, for a more
comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70 sources (hence,
burden on sources), see the requirements of Sec. Sec. 70.3, 70.5,
70.6, and 70.7.
The fourth factor is whether adequate oversight by State and local
permitting authorities could achieve high compliance with the
particular NESHAP requirements without relying on title V permitting. A
conclusion that high compliance can be achieved without relying on
title V permitting would support a conclusion that title V permitting
is ``unnecessary'' for those sources. Information contained in docket
items 0002, 0003, 0006 and 0008 shows that many permitting authorities
have alternative compliance oversight programs that result in high
compliance with NESHAP requirements without relying on title V permits.
In addition to determining whether compliance with title V
requirements would be ``impracticable, infeasible or unnecessarily
burdensome'' for the area sources, EPA also considered, consistent with
the guidance provided by the legislative history of section 502(a),
whether exempting the area sources would adversely affect public
health, welfare, or the environment.
The EPA believes the vast majority of area sources proposed today
for exemption from title V permitting in this notice are typically
subject to not more than one NESHAP, and few other requirements under
the Act, and that these NESHAP are relatively simple in how they apply
to these sources. One of the primary purposes of the title V program is
to clarify, in a single document, the various and sometimes complex
regulations that apply to sources in order to improve understanding of
these requirements and to help sources to achieve compliance with the
requirements. The vast majority of NSPS and NESHAP standards apply only
to major sources, with only a small number of such standards regulating
any activities at area sources. It is beyond the scope of this notice
to provide a comprehensive list of Federal standards that specifically
[[Page 15255]]
regulate area sources, but there are currently only about 12 NESHAP and
NSPS, and several categories of solid waste incinerators under section
129 that do so. Because there are so few standards that regulate areas
sources, the likelihood that multiple NSPS or NESHAP would apply to
these areas source is low. Also see docket item 0008, where State of
Georgia officials explain that State operating permits for halogenated
solvent cleaners, chrome platers, and secondary aluminum smelters are
``significantly less complex'' than title V permits, and where, for
cost estimation purposes, they consider major source EO sterilizers and
area MACT sources comparable because they are ``(1) relatively simple
facilities with a single process, and (2) generally subject to only one
applicable requirement--the ethylene oxide MACT standard.'' Aside from
Federal standards that may impose applicable requirements on these area
sources, EPA-approved SIP's will contain so-called ``generic''
applicable requirements that are likely to apply to these area sources.
``Generic'' applicable requirements are relatively simple requirements
that apply identically to all emissions units at a facility (e.g.,
source-wide opacity limits and general housekeeping requirements).
Because of their nature, EPA has previously advised States that they
did not warrant comprehensive treatment in permits. (See White Paper
Number 2 for Improved Implementation of the Part 70 Operating Permits
Program, March 5, 1996.) For these reasons, as well as the source-
specific reasons described below, EPA believes exempting these sources
will not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment.
Also, requiring permitting of area sources will likely cause, at
least in the first few years of implementation, permitting authorities
to shift resources away from assuring compliance for major sources with
existing permits, to issuing new permits for area sources. This has the
potential, at least temporarily, to reduce the overall effectiveness of
the States' title V permit programs, which could potentially adversely
affect public health, welfare, or the environment. See docket item
0008, where State of Georgia officials explain that permitting all the
area sources proposed for exemption in today's notice would triple the
number of title V permits issued in the State of Georgia, and that,
among other possible implementation concerns, it would be ``difficult
if not impossible'' for them to obtain approval to obtain additional
full time employees. Although State permit programs have authority to
raise whatever fees are necessary to cover the costs of the program, in
most States, the program does not have independent authority to
increase its budget or fees. In many States, any such increases must be
approved by the legislature within the State budget process, which can
lead to significant delays in getting necessary authority to meet new
demands.
Finally EPA solicits comment on our general approach to determining
if these area sources should be exempt from permitting. First, we
solicit comment on whether the factors we used to reach the findings in
today's proposal are the most appropriate factors to use for these
purposes, and if there are other factors that may be more appropriate.
Second, we solicit comment on how these NESHAP apply to these area
sources, any circumstances where multiple NESHAP may apply to area
source subject to these NESHAP, the other applicable requirements that
apply to these area sources, and the nature of these other applicable
requirements. Third, we solicit input on the likelihood that requiring
permits of area sources subject to these NESHAP will cause permitting
authorities to shift resources away from major sources, at least on a
temporary basis, the potential affect this may have on assuring
compliance with existing permits for major sources, and the potential
for this to adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment. Fourth, we solicit comment on the specific burdens and
costs on these area sources in the event that they are required to get
permits, including the potential for difficulty for the source in
obtaining assistance from the permitting authority, and whether the
costs for sources are justified with respect to any potential
compliance gains that may be achieved through permitting. Fifth, we
solicit comment seeking more accurate data on the number of area
sources subject to each specific NESHAP addressed in today's proposal.
B. Dry Cleaning
The dry cleaning NESHAP applies to an estimated 30,000 area source
dry cleaning facilities using Perchloroethylene, or PCE, which is known
to cause cancer in animals, which is suspected to cause cancer in
humans, and which also has non-cancer toxic effects.
The EPA proposes to exempt area source dry cleaners from title V
for three reasons.
First, requiring title V permits would impose a relatively
significant burden on these sources. Dry cleaners are typically very
small ``mom and pop'' retail establishments employing only a few
people. Dry cleaners have extremely limited technical and economic
resources. According to the International Fabricare Institute, 85
percent of dry cleaners are small, single-family, independent
operations. The average dry cleaner employs 5 people. Profit margins
are less than 1% on average, and the average (median) dry cleaner has
annual revenues (sales) of $200,000. (See economic profile in docket
Item 0004.) Unlike the larger major sources, area source dry cleaners
would typically have no staff trained in environmental requirements and
would find it difficult to hire outside professionals to help them
understand and assure compliance with the permitting requirements. Also
see discussion in section II.A of this preamble on the burdens and
costs that title V permitting imposes on sources generally.
In EPA's outreach in recent years, several State agencies have told
us that, in their experience, implementing area source emissions
standards, such as the dry cleaning NESHAP, through permits did not
result in increased compliance with the emissions standards. They
reported that successful implementation of emission standards at area
sources could only be achieved by spending significant one-on-one
effort explaining the requirements in simple, non-regulatory terms the
operators could understand. Even so, agencies reported that many
follow-up visits were needed to verify that the requirements were
understood and followed. (See docket items 0003, 0006, and 0008.) This
experience illustrates that permitting may not significantly help area
sources to reach compliance with the standards, and that permitting
would impose an added burden that they would find difficult to meet,
given the lack of financial and technical resources of the majority of
such sources.
Adding to this burden on dry cleaners is the difficulty they may
encounter in obtaining adequate and timely assistance from permitting
authorities. The addition of 30,000 area source dry cleaners to the
national title V universe of approximately 18,000 major sources would
substantially increase the volume of sources requiring operating
permits. In some jurisdictions, the number of area source dry cleaners
needing permits would dwarf the current title V source universe. For
example, Sacramento County (15 title V sources) reports 400 dry
cleaners; Puget Sound (44 title V sources) estimates over 500 dry
cleaners. State and local permitting authorities are beginning to renew
significant numbers of title V permits
[[Page 15256]]
and the resources needed to permit area source dry cleaners would
likely compete with the resources needed for the permitting of major
sources.
Second, the costs associated with title V permitting would be
significant for the average dry cleaner. While there are no cost
estimates for area sources in the ICR, it is reasonable to assume that
the cost of permitting area sources will be less because they are
generally less complex than major sources and the permits contain fewer
emissions units and fewer applicable requirements. Even if costs for
dry cleaners were only half the average cost for a major source, the
costs would still represent an excessively high percentage of sales for
the average dry cleaner. This would be especially true for the smallest
dry cleaners, those that collect only $75,000 per year in revenue. (See
Economic Impact Analysis of Regulatory Controls in the Dry Cleaning
Industry, EPA-45/3-91-021b.) Also, as described above, the judgement of
many permitting authorities is that implementing area source emissions
standards, such as the dry cleaning NESHAP, through permits would not
result in increased compliance with the emissions standards. Thus, EPA
believes that the costs of title V permitting for area sources subject
to the drycleaner NESHAP would not be justified taking into
consideration the low potential for compliance gains from permitting
such sources.
Third, title V permitting is not necessary to improve compliance
for dry cleaners. Based on EPA's outreach, out of 25 State and local
agencies that reported a compliance rate for area sources dry cleaners,
13 reported that they were able to achieve high compliance rates
without title V permits. (See table for dry cleaners in docket item
0002.) These agencies employ a mix of State permits, frequent
inspections and appropriate compliance assistance. While the remaining
permitting authorities reported lower compliance rates, the outreach
shows that title V permitting is not a necessary element for achieving
high levels of compliance with the NESHAP for area sources, when States
have other options available to them, such as inspection and oversight
programs.
Furthermore, resources needed to permit dry cleaners would compete
with resources needed to permit major sources, and might actually
reduce the overall effectiveness of the title V program. This is
especially true for area source dry cleaners because we estimate there
are as many as 30,000 of them nationally, with the total number of
major sources required to get permits estimated at about 18,000 nationally.
Taken together, these factors support a finding that title V
permitting would be unnecessarily burdensome on area sources subject to
the dry cleaner NESHAP and that title V exemption for these sources
would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment.
Therefore, EPA proposes that area sources subject to this NESHAP be
exempt from title V permitting.
C. Chrome Plating
The NESHAP for hard and decorative chrome electroplating and
chromic acid anodizing, subpart N, regulates a number of different
operations, which are significant emitters of chromium compounds to the
atmosphere. About two-thirds of the chromium compound emissions from
all chromium sources are in the form of chromium VI. Human studies have
established that inhaled chromium VI is a human carcinogen, resulting
in an increased risk of lung cancer. Chromium VI also has acute
noncancer effects on the respiratory, gastrointestinal and neurological
systems.
The EPA permanently exempted from title V permitting several area
source operations that are regulated by the standard (any decorative
chromium electroplating operation or chromium anodizing operation that
uses fume suppressants as an emission reduction technology, and any
decorative chromium electroplating operation that uses a trivalent
chromium bath that incorporates a wetting agent as a bath ingredient),
see Sec. 63.340(e)(1). (Also see the final rule, 61 FR 27785, June 3,
1996.) The rationale used to exempt these operations was that the
standard could be implemented outside of a title V permit, and that the
standard had recordkeeping and reporting requirements similar to what
title V would impose.
Although no specific cost or burden estimates are available to EPA
for area sources subject to this NESHAP, EPA believes that the costs
and burdens of title V permitting for an area source subject to this
NESHAP would be significant. For information on burdens and cost
associated with title V permitting in general, see the detailed
discussion in section II.A of this preamble.
For today's proposal, EPA also considered whether title V would add
any significant compliance requirements to those already required by
the NESHAP. After a comparison of the compliance requirements of the
NESHAP to those of title V, EPA concludes that they are substantially
equivalent. As explained in section II.A, chrome electroplaters already
have ``periodic testing or instrumental or noninstrumental monitoring
(which may consist of recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring),''
thus, title V's periodic monitoring rules would not apply to these
sources, and title V would not add any monitoring for these sources
over what is already required by the NESHAP. The chromium NESHAP
requires area sources to submit ongoing compliance status reports,
which must include a description of the NESHAP limitations or work
practice standards, the operating parameters monitored to show
compliance, information about the results of monitoring, including
about excess emissions and exceedances, and a certification by a
responsible official that work practices were followed. See Sec.
63.347(h). Similarly, title V rules require a 6-month monitoring
report, prompt reporting of deviations, and an annual compliance
certification. See Sec. Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(iii) 71.6(a)(3)(iii), and
Sec. Sec. 70.6(c)(5) and 71.6(c)(5). Title V requires deviation
reports and monitoring reports to be submitted at least every 6 months,
while the NESHAP requires excess emissions reports to be submitted on
an annual basis, unless periods of excess emissions exceed 1 percent of
operating time, or malfunctions exceed 5 percent of operating time, in
which case the reports must be submitted on a semiannual basis. The
NESHAP requirement for an on-going compliance status reports also
satisfies many of the requirements of title V for the annual compliance
certification. Although these two sets of requirements are not exactly
the same, they are very similar, and the differences are not
significant. Thus, EPA believes the compliance requirements of title V
and the NESHAP are substantially equivalent, such that title V
permitting will likely result in added burdens, which are unnecessary
to improve compliance.
Taken together, these factors support a finding that title V
permitting would be unnecessarily burdensome on area sources subject to
the chromium electroplating NESHAP and that title V exemption for these
sources would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment. Therefore, EPA proposes that area sources subject to this
NESHAP be exempt from title V permitting.
D. Halogenated Solvent Degreasing
The EPA proposes to exempt area sources regulated by solvent
degreasing NESHAP from title V for two reasons.
[[Page 15257]]
First, requiring title V permits would impose a significant burden
on area source solvent cleaners (degreasers) subject to this NESHAP.
Area source degreasing operations are typically very small operations
employing only a few people. (See economic data in docket item 0004.)
We believe these operations have limited technical and economic
resources and little experience in environmental regulations. Unlike
the larger major sources, area source degreasing operations typically
have no staff trained in environmental requirements and are generally
unable to afford to hire outside professionals to assist them with
understanding and meeting the permitting requirements. In addition, our
outreach to States showed a general preference by them for implementing
each of the NESHAP addressed in today's proposal through one-on-one
outreach, including followup visits, rather than by using title V
permits. (See docket items 0003, 0006, and 0008.) Thus, EPA believes
title V permits will not significantly help these sources to comply
with the NESHAP requirements, and that the permitting requirements
would be an additional burden they would have difficulty meeting.
Although no specific cost or burden hour estimates are available to EPA
for area sources in general, or for sources subject to this NESHAP in
particular, EPA believes that the costs and burdens of title V
permitting for an area sources subject to this NESHAP would be
significant. For information on burdens and cost associated with title
V permitting in general, see the detailed discussion in section II.A of
this preamble.
Second, requiring title V permits of area source solvent degreasers
does not appear necessary to improve compliance with the NESHAP. From
EPA's research on area source oversight, 10 State and local agencies
(of 48 reporting) have shown the ability to achieve high compliance
rates with area source halogenated solvent cleaners without title V
permits. See table for degreasers in docket item 0002. These agencies
employ a mix of State permits, frequent inspections and appropriate
compliance assistance. While the remaining permitting authorities
reported lower (or unknown) compliance rates, EPA believes this
outreach shows that title V permitting is not a necessary element for
achieving high levels of compliance by these area sources with the NESHAP.
Taken together, these factors support a finding that title V
permitting would be unnecessarily burdensome on area sources subject to
the halogenated solvent degreaser NESHAP and that title V exemption for
these sources would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment. Therefore, EPA proposes that area sources subject to this
NESHAP be exempt from title V permitting.
E. Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers
Ethylene oxide (EO) sterilizers are a source of emissions of
ethylene oxide, which is classified as a probable human carcinogen and
has adverse effects on the reproductive system. Although no specific
cost or burden hour estimates are available for area sources in
general, or for sources subject to this NESHAP, EPA believes that the
costs and burdens of title V permitting for these sources would be
significant. For information on burdens and cost associated with title
V permitting in general, see the detailed discussion in section II.A of
this preamble.
First, EPA considered whether title V added any significant
compliance requirements to those already required by the EO sterilizer
NESHAP. We compared the compliance requirements of the NESHAP with
title V's requirements, and found that the requirements are
substantially equivalent when the source employs continuous monitoring
methods to assure proper operation and maintenance of its control
equipment. The EPA also notes that although we have no data to show the
percentage of area sources regulated by this standard that actually
employ continuous monitoring methods, we believe most EO sterilizers
will use both thermal oxidizers and scrubbers to meet the emission
limitations of the standard, that continuous monitoring methods
(instrumentational temperature readings) will be used to show
compliance when thermal oxidizers are employed, and that noncontinuous
monitoring methods (e.g., weekly readings of glycol levels in tanks)
will be used to show compliance when scrubbers are employed.
Both the continuous and noncontinuous monitoring methods required
by these standards provide ``periodic testing or instrumental or
noninstrumental monitoring (which may consist of recordkeeping designed
to serve as monitoring),'' thus, title V's periodic monitoring rules
would not apply to these sources, whether they employ continuous or
noncontinuous monitoring methods, and title V would not add any
monitoring for these sources over what is already required by the
NESHAP.
When continuous monitoring is used, the NESHAP requires excess
emissions reports to be submitted on a semiannual basis. These excess
emissions reports must include information about continuous monitoring
of process and control system parameters, and periods of excess
emissions, including any corrective actions taken (Sec. 63.10(e)(3)).
This information is similar to the information required in the prompt
deviation and monitoring reports under the title V rules (Sec. Sec.
70.6(a)(3)(iii) and 71.6(a)(3)(iii)). The annual compliance
certification report requirement of title V is not met by the NESHAP,
so the permit would impose this additional compliance obligation, if
the source were required to get a permit. When monitoring is not
continuous, the NESHAP does not require excess emissions reports to be
submitted, and consequently, title V would add more requirements, such
as prompt deviation reporting, six-month monitoring reports, and an
annual certification of compliance.
At least for sources with continuous monitoring methods, EPA
believes the absence of the annual certification report is not likely
to have a significant impact on compliance with the NESHAP. In
particular, EPA points to the monitoring requirements of the standards,
which meets all title V requirements, and the excess emission report
requirements, which provide useful compliance data based on the
monitoring results, including identification of all periods of
noncompliance with the emission standard or control system parameters.
Even though the differences between the NESHAP and the title V
compliance requirements are more pronounced in this case (compared to
chrome electroplaters, for example), we believe the differences are not
significant enough to find that requiring title V permits would result
in significant improvements to compliance requirements, compared to the
compliance requirements required by the NESHAP. Thus, at least for
sources using continuous monitoring methods, we believe title V would
not add requirements that would significantly improve compliance with
the EO sterilizer NESHAP, and thus, title V would be unnecessary for
these area sources. Although EPA believes the typical source subject to
this NESHAP uses both continuous and noncontinuous monitoring, we
solicit comment on the percentage of area sources subject to this
NESHAP that use continuous monitoring methods. In addition, we solicit
comment on the extent to which NESHAP compliance may be improved by
requiring these area sources to conduct annual
[[Page 15258]]
compliance certification under title V, including the extent to which
any such improvements would be derived from the threat of enforcement
for a false compliance certification.
Second, regardless of the type of monitoring used, requiring title
V permits of these area sources is not necessary to achieve compliance.
Based on EPA's outreach, 10 State and local agencies reported their
compliance rates for area sources regulated by the EO sterilizer NESHAP
as either high (in 9 cases) or ``in compliance'' (in 1 case) without
relying on title V operating permits. (See table for EO sterilizers in
docket item 0002.) These agencies employ a mix of State permits,
frequent inspections and appropriate compliance assistance. This shows
that title V permitting is not a necessary element for achieving high
levels of compliance for these area sources.
Taken together, these factors support a finding that title V
permitting would be unnecessarily burdensome on area sources subject to
the EO sterilizer NESHAP and that title V exemption for these sources
would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment.
Therefore, EPA proposes that area source subject to this NESHAP be
exempt from title V permitting.
F. Secondary Aluminum
The EPA proposes to exempt area sources subject to the secondary
aluminum NESHAP from title V permitting for three reasons.
First, title V permitting would impose a burden on area sources
subject to the secondary aluminum NESHAP that would be difficult for
them to meet with current resources. In 2001, there were over 1,300
facilities in the secondary aluminum industry. Half of these facilities
employed fewer than 20 employees. (See economic data in docket item
0004.) These small sources would likely lack the technical resources
needed to comprehend and comply with permitting requirements and the
financial resources needed to hire the necessary staff or outside
consultants. Although no specific cost or burden hour estimates are
available for area sources subject to this NESHAP, EPA believes that
the costs and burdens of title V permitting for an area source subject
to this NESHAP would be significant. For information on burdens and
cost associated with title V permitting in general, see the detailed
discussion in section II.A of this preamble.
Second, EPA considered whether title V added any significant
compliance requirements to those already required by the secondary
aluminum NESHAP. We compared the compliance requirements of the NESHAP
with title V's requirements, and found that the requirements are
substantially equivalent when the source employs continuous monitoring
of temperature to show compliance with the NESHAP. The EPA also notes
that no specific data are available, but EPA believes most secondary
aluminum facilities will comply with the standard using baghouses or
thermal oxidizers (using continuous temperature monitoring to show
compliance), while a few will use scrubbers (using noncontinuous
compliance methods). Both the continuous and noncontinuous monitoring
methods required by these standards provide ``periodic testing or
instrumental or noninstrumental monitoring (which may consist of
recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring).'' Thus, title V's
periodic monitoring rules would not apply to these sources, whether
they employ continuous or noncontinuous monitoring methods, and title V
permits would not add any monitoring for these sources over what is
already required by the NESHAP.
For most sources (where continuous temperature monitoring is used),
the NESHAP requires excess emissions reports to be submitted on a
semiannual basis. These excess emissions reports must include
information about continuous monitoring of process and control system
parameters, and periods of excess emissions, including any corrective
actions taken [see Sec. 63.10(e)(3)]. This information is similar to
the information required in the prompt deviation and six-month
monitoring reports of the title V rules (Sec. Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(iii) and
71.6(a)(3)(iii)). The requirement of title V for an annual compliance
certification report is not met by the NESHAP, so this obligation would
be added to the requirements imposed by the permit, if the source were
required to get a permit. The EPA believes the absence of the annual
certification report for these area sources is not likely to have a
significant impact on compliance. In particular, EPA points to the
monitoring requirements of the standards, which meets all title V
requirements, and the excess emission report requirements, which
provide useful compliance data based on the monitoring results,
including identification of all periods of noncompliance with the
emission standard or control system parameters. Although there are
differences between the NESHAP and title V compliance requirements, we
believe the differences are not great enough to have a significant
affect on compliance with the NESHAP for these area sources. Thus, for
most area sources subject to the secondary aluminum NESHAP, title V
would not add requirements that would significantly improve compliance
with the NESHAP, and thus, title V would be unnecessary for these area
sources. The EPA solicits comment on the percentage of area sources
subject to this NESHAP that use continuous monitoring methods. In
addition, we solicit comment on the extent to which NESHAP compliance
may be improved by requiring these area sources to conduct annual
compliance certification under title V, including the extent to which
any such improvements would be derived from the threat of enforcement
for a false compliance certification.
Third, requiring title V permits of these area sources is
unnecessary to improve compliance. Four out of five State and local
agencies have shown that they are able to achieve high compliance rates
with area source secondary aluminum facilities without title V permits.
(See table for secondary aluminum in docket item 0002.) These agencies
employ a mix of State permits, frequent inspections and appropriate
compliance assistance. This shows that title V permitting is not a
necessary element for achieving high levels of compliance with the
secondary aluminum standard for area sources.
Taken together, these factors support a finding that title V
permitting would be unnecessarily burdensome on area sources subject to
the secondary aluminum NESHAP and that title V exemption for these
sources would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment. Therefore, EPA proposes that area source subject to this
NESHAP be exempt from title V permitting.
III. General Permits
In the preceding Section of this preamble, EPA discusses proposed
findings of unnecessary burden for five categories of area sources. In
doing so, we generally discussed burdens and costs associated with
title V permitting for sources. This information was focused primarily
on the area sources being issued standard (non-general) title V
permits. However, title V allows issuance of general permits in
appropriate circumstances. See section 504(d) of the Act, and
Sec. Sec. 70.6(d) and 71.6(d). A general permit is issued by the
permitting authority for a source category as defined by certain types
of equipment, operations, processes, and emissions. A general permit
under title V provides a streamlined process for
[[Page 15259]]
issuing permits to a large number of similar sources. Specifically,
this means that, compared to standard permits under title V, general
permits typically require less comprehensive permit applications and
have simpler permit application procedures. Area sources in the NESHAP
categories addressed in today's proposal have essentially similar
operations or processes, emit pollutants with similar characteristics,
and are subject to the same or substantially similar requirements
governing emissions, operation, monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting, thus, such sources may be candidates for general permits.
Although general permits could potentially reduce the burdens and
costs of permitting area sources, when all of the factors used in our
analysis in Section II of this preamble are considered for general
permits, EPA believes the potential burden and cost reduction is not
sufficient enough to cause us to alter the findings we made in the
preceding Section of the preamble. The following analysis looks at how
each of the factors we used in Section II might be affected under a
general permitting approach.
The first factor, whether title V would add significant compliance
requirements, chiefly monitoring recordkeeping, and reporting, to those
already required by the NESHAP, was cited in Section II of this
preamble for area sources subject to the NESHAP for chrome plating, EO
sterilizing, and secondary aluminum. Under the permit rules, general
and standard permits are subject to the same permit content
requirements under Sec. Sec. 70.6 and 71.6, including recordkeeping,
reporting, and monitoring requirements. Thus, with respect to the first
factor, title V would affect units to which the NESHAP applies in the
same manner for general permits, as for standard permits.
The second factor, the overall burdens on the sources and whether
permitting authorities can provide adequate assistance to the sources,
was cited in Section II of this preamble for area sources subject to
NESHAP for dry cleaning, solvent degreasing, and secondary aluminum.
For these sources, the previous analysis pointed out that these sources
lacked resources and experience with environmental regulations.
Although general permit would potentially simplify the permit
application process, a general permit would still contain the same
applicable requirements of the NESHAP. This is true because the permit
content requirements of Sec. Sec. 70.7 and 71.6, such as monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting, are the same for standard and general
permits. Thus, even if applying for a general permit is less of a
burden, sources will have significant burdens and costs associated with
understanding and complying with the general permit requirements. (Also
see section II.A of this preamble for a discussion of the costs and
burdens imposed by title V on sources). Accordingly, although general
permits may reduce the cost of applying for a permit, there is a
possibility that the remaining burdens of complying with the permit and
obtaining assistance to understand it will continue to be significant
for these area sources.
The third factor, whether costs of title V permitting are excessive
with respect to any expected gains in compliance that may be achieved
from permitting, was cited in Section II of this preamble for area
sources subject to the NESHAP for dry cleaning. Many area source dry
cleaners and degreasers are small businesses with limited resources and
environmental experience. Even though general permits may reduce the
costs of applying for a permit, we believe the economic data in the
docket for these sources shows that the remaining costs of complying
with the permit and obtaining assistance to understand it will continue
to be significant for these area sources. Also, EPA's outreach in
recent years has shown that some State agencies generally do not
believe that implementing area source standards through permits will
result in increased compliance, and EPA believes this will be as true
with general permits as with standard permits.
The fourth factor, whether adequate oversight by the permitting
authority would result in compliance without permitting, was cited in
Section II of this preamble for area sources subject to NESHAP for dry
cleaning, solvent degreasing, EO sterilizing, and secondary aluminum.
In our analysis in Section II of this preamble, we looked at the
compliance rates that permitting authorities could achieve without
permits, such as through State permit programs and comprehensive
oversight programs. In effect, we considered whether title V was
necessary for compliance with the NESHAP to be achieved. As we
explained in Section II of this preamble, the permit content
requirements of Sec. Sec. 70.6 and 71.6 for monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting are identical for general and standard permits. Because
of this, we believe the analysis done in section II of this preamble
will apply with equal force for general permits. Consistent with that
analysis, compliance can largely be achieved for these source
categories without relying on operating permits.
Nevertheless, as an alternative to today's proposal, EPA seeks
comment on the option of requiring permitting authorities to issue
general permits to the five categories of area sources proposed for
exemption from title V. Specifically, EPA invites comment on the extent
to which there would be ``unnecessary burden'' on the area sources if
general permits were issued to them, or if compliance with general
permits would be impracticable or infeasible for them. The EPA notes
that while some States claim that the permitting of area sources will
strain the resources of permitting authorities, a few States have
successfully implemented a general permit program for area sources. The
sources in these five source categories of area sources may be good
candidates for general permits. For example, the State of Florida
currently issues general permit under its title V program for these
five categories of area sources. Under this program, an area source in
Florida mails in a notification form that informs the Florida Air
Quality Division that it is eligible for a general permit. In the form
the source agrees to comply with all the specific conditions of the
general permit rule.
IV. Request for Comment on Secondary Lead Area Sources
In contrast to the five categories discussed above, we propose to
decline making a finding that title V permitting for secondary lead
area sources is impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome.
Although it is not necessary for EPA to issue a proposed rule before
declining to make such a finding, we are requesting comment here to
determine whether or not EPA should make such a finding, and, in turn,
whether or not EPA should finalize an exemption for this source
category as well. At this time we are proposing to decline making such
a finding because we did not find that an exemption from title V
permitting is warranted for area sources subject to the NESHAP for
secondary lead smelters. We considered the same factors as for the
previous categories, but we did not find information or data at this
time that would lead us to a finding that an exemption from title V
permitting is warranted in the same manner as we believe exemptions are
warranted for area sources subject to other NESHAPS addressed in
today's notice. (See section II of this notice.) Although we are
proposing to decline making such a finding, in the alternative, if EPA
receives information or data sufficient to support a finding that
permitting area source lead smelters would be
[[Page 15260]]
``impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome'' on such
sources and we determine that title V exemption for these sources would
``not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment'' we
could opt to make such a finding and exempt this source category from
permitting as well.
Secondary lead smelters have been identified by the EPA as
significant emitters of several chemicals identified in the Act as
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) including but not limited to lead
compounds, arsenic compounds, and 1,3-butadiene. Chronic exposure to
arsenic and 1,3-butadiene is associated with skin, bladder, liver and
lung cancer and other developmental and reproductive effects. Exposure
to lead compounds results in adverse effects on the blood, central
nervous system and kidneys.
Section 502(a) of title V does not require EPA to offer any
justification for not exempting area sources from title V permitting. A
justification is required only if an area source is exempted from title
V. Nevertheless, we offer the following explanation to help the public
understand EPA's reasons for proposing to allow the deferrals to expire.
The EPA is proposing to allow the title V deferrals to expire for
area sources subject to the secondary lead smelter NESHAP because,
unlike the five source categories we are proposing to exempt, EPA could
not find, consistent with the Act, that compliance with the title V
requirements is impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome
on such source categories. Only 3 secondary lead smelters area sources
are believed by EPA to exist. (Also see section I.A. of this preamble
for an estimate of affected entities for each source category addressed
by this proposal.) Also, EPA believes that two of these sources already
have been issued title V permits by their respective permitting
authorities. Thus, requiring title V permits for these area sources
appears neither impracticable nor infeasible. We also do not have any
information to suggest that it has been unnecessarily burdensome, but
we ask for comment on whether there is additional information that
could further inform EPA's decision whether to make such a finding.
If EPA reaches a final decision that a 502(a) finding for secondary
lead smelters is unwarranted, any secondary lead area source that has
not already applied for a title V permit would be required to submit a
title V permit application by December 9, 2005, as provided in Sec.
63.541(c) of subpart X. Also, as provided in Sec. 70.3(c)(2) and Sec.
71.3(c)(2), assuming the source is not subject to title V for another
reason, the permit for the source must include the requirements of
subpart X and all other applicable requirements that apply to emissions
units affected by subpart X, while any units not subject to subpart X
may be excluded from the permit. (See 68 FR 57518, October 3, 2003,
footnote #7 on page 57534.)
V. Environmental Results Program
The EPA has a strong interest in ensuring that sources in the five
area source categories proposed to be exempted from title V continue to
comply with their NESHAP requirements. From our outreach, we believe
that State and local permitting authorities can determine the best way
to ensure compliance with these standards.
One successful alternative to case-by-case permitting is an
oversight program developed by the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, called the Environmental Results Program
(ERP). This alternative program has proven very effective in ensuring
compliance by small sources with their applicable environmental
requirements. The ERP model offers a sector-based approach (which can
be a multimedia approach) that replaces facility-specific State permits
with industry-wide environmental performance standards and annual
certifications of compliance. The ERP applies three innovative and
interlinked tools to enhance and measure environmental performance.
These tools supplement a State's traditional compliance inspection and
compliance assistance efforts and consist of: (1) An annual facility-
specific, self certification questionnaire; (2) compliance assistance
to include ``plain language'' workbooks describing the applicable
regulations in a user's friendly approach and outreach workshops to
educate and train affected facility owner/operators; and (3) a
performance measurement methodology to track and validate facility
performance. This methodology includes statistically valid compliance
inspections protocols to measure group performance and target
inspections. The ERP compliance assistance workbooks include all
applicable regulatory requirements as well as pollution prevention and
best management practice opportunities.
Fourteen States now implement ERP projects (across 9 small
business-dominated sectors). The EPA encourages States to investigate
how the ERP model might be beneficial to their compliance and oversight
efforts. The EPA can provide assistance to States interested in
conducting ERP projects. To learn more on why the ERP model is unique,
what problems it was designed to solve and more details on how to set
up projects, contact Scott Bowles, EPA National Center for
Environmental Innovation, telephone (202) 566-2208, e-mail
bowles.scott@epa.gov and/or visit EPA's Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/permits/.
VI. The Effects of the End of the Deferrals for Area Sources
The deferrals from title V permitting for the six categories of
areas sources addressed in this preamble expired on December 9, 2004
and those area sources became subject to title V on that date. Sections
70.5(a)(1)(i) and 71.5(a)(1) allow sources subject to the program up to
one year (or such earlier date as the permitting authority may
establish) to submit complete permit applications (e.g., up to December
9, 2005 for sources subject on December 9, 2004). After submittal of a
complete permit application, Sec. Sec. 70.7(a)(2) and 71.7(a)(2)
require permitting authorities to issue final operating permits within
18 months (by June 9, 2007, for applications submitted on December 9,
2005).
Because the deferrals for these five area source categories have
already expired, even though EPA is proposing permanent exemptions for
five of the six categories of area sources addressed in this notice,
these five categories of area sources are technically subject to title
V requirements until the exemptions are finalized. At the present time,
EPA expects to issue a final rule in the summer of 2005, taking final
action on the proposed exemptions. As noted above, State and local
permitting authorities are required to receive applications within a 1-
year period from the end of the deferral (i.e., by December 9, 2005),
although some States have shortened this period to 6 months. Given the
anticipated timing of these two events, we leave it to the permitting
authority to decide when to call for applications. Should an
application call be made, an EPA guidance document, EPA White Paper for
Streamlined Development of Part 70 Permit Applications (White Paper I),
July 10, 1995, describes a possible method for allowing a simplified,
phased, two-step approach to application preparation which may be of
interest. Under the White Paper I approach, the first step consists of
submittal, by the appropriate deadline, of an application that contains
enough information for the permitting authority to find it
administratively complete, consistent with procedures for determining
applications complete
[[Page 15261]]
approved into their title V program by EPA, and in the second step,
application updates as needed to support draft permit preparation.
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is significant and,
therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines significant
regulatory action as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action''
because it raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
Because today's action would permanently exempt five categories of
area sources subject to NESHAPs from title V permitting requirements,
this action would provide a net decrease in information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. The current part 70 and part 71 rules, specifically
Sec. Sec. 70.3(a)(3) and 71.3(a)(3), impose permitting requirements on
all area sources subject to section 112 standards not previously
permanently exempted through notice and comment rulemaking. The sources
addressed in today's notice were subject to deferrals from permitting
that expired on December 9, 2004. (See 59 FR 61801, December 2, 1994,
amended by 60 FR 29484, June 5, 1995; 61 FR 27785, June 3, 1996; 65 FR
15690, March 23, 2000; and 64 FR 69637, December 14, 1999). Because
these area sources are currently subject to permitting requirements and
because today's action proposes to permanently exempt the majority of
such sources from these requirements (except for secondary lead
sources), this action will provide a net decrease in information
collection burdens for these sources. The information collection burden
for title V permitting was estimated as part of the promulgation of the
part 70 and 71 rules. The Information Collection Request (ICR) for the
part 70 rule (ICR 1587.06) was extended until March 31, 2007, in
November 2004 by OMB (OMB 2060-0243). The ICR for the part 71 rule (ICR
1713.05) was also extended until March 31, 2007, in November 2004 by
the OMB (OMB 2060-0336).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an Agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures
Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) Small business that is
a small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards (See 13 CFR part 121); (2) a
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule. As explained in more
detail above, today's action permanently exempts a large number of area
sources from title V permitting and this action will provide a net
decrease in information collection burdens for these sources. We have
therefore concluded that today's proposed rule will relieve regulatory
burden for these affected small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995(UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements. The EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The estimated administrative burden hour
and costs associated with obtaining and complying with a title V permit
were
[[Page 15262]]
developed upon promulgation of the operating permit rules (part 70) and
are presented in Chapter 6 of U.S. EPA 1999, Regulatory Impact Analyses
for the Operating Permit Program, Innovative Strategies and Economics
Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. However, as explained above, this rule would reduce burden
by exempting some of these sources from permitting.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This
proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. As described in section D, above
(on UMRA), this rule would reduce the overall number of sources subject
to the title V program. In addition, this proposed rule would not
modify the relationship of the States and EPA for purposes of
implementing the title V permit program. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this proposed rule. Although section 6 of Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA actively engaged the
States in the development of this proposed rule. The EPA periodically
informed representatives of State and local air pollution control
agencies of the actions EPA was considering concerning this proposed
rule. The EPA also sought information from State and local agencies
concerning their oversight activities for area sources and used that
information in development of this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have ``Tribal implications'' as specified in Executive Order 13175.
This proposed rule concerns the exemption of area sources from the
title V permit program. The Tribal Air Rule (TAR) gives Tribes the
opportunity to develop and implement CAA programs such as title V, but
it leaves to the discretion of the Tribe whether to develop these
programs and which programs, or appropriate elements of a program, they
will adopt. This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications as
defined by Executive Order 13175. It does not have a substantial direct
effect on one or more Indian Tribes, since no Tribe has implemented a
title V permit program at this time. Furthermore, this proposed rule
does not affect the relationship or distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. The
CAA and the TAR establish the relationship of the Federal government
and Tribes concerning title V and this proposed rule does not modify
that relationship. Because this proposed rule does not have Tribal
implications, Executive Order 13175 does not apply.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. The proposed
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the Agency does
not have reason to believe the environmental health risks or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001),
because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable VCS. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical
standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionate high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minorities and low-income populations. The EPA believes
that this proposed rule should not raise any environmental justice issues.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 63
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 70
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 71
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 15263]]
Dated: March 21, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Acting Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as set forth below.
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart M--[Amended]
2. Section 63.320 is amended by revising paragraph (k) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.320 Applicability.
* * * * *
(k) If you are an owner or operator of an area source subject to
this subpart, you are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit
under 40 CFR part 70 or 71, provided you are not required to obtain a
permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 71.3(a) for a reason other than your
status as an area source under this subpart. Notwithstanding the
previous sentence, you must continue to comply with the provisions of
this subpart applicable to area sources.
Subpart N--[Amended]
3. Section 63.340 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.340 Applicability and designation of source.
* * * * *
(e) If you are an owner or operator of an area source subject to
this subpart, you are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit
under 40 CFR part 70 or 71, provided you are not required to obtain a
permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 71.3(a) for a reason other than your
status as an area source under this subpart. Notwithstanding the
previous sentence, you must continue to comply with the provisions of
this subpart applicable to area sources.
4. Table 1 to Subpart N is amended by revising the entry for Sec.
63.1(c)(2) to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart N of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
Subpart N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
General provisions reference subpart N Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(2)............. Yes.............. Sec. 63.340(e) of
Subpart N exempts
area sources from
the obligation to
obtain Title V
operating permits.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart O--[Amended]
5. Section 63.360 is amended by:
a. Revising the entry for Sec. 63.1(c)(2) in Table 1; and
b. Revising paragraph (f).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.360 Applicability.
* * * * *
Table 1 of Section 63.360--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart O
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to sources Applies to sources
Reference using 10 tons in using 1 to 10 tons in Comment
subpart O* subpart O*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.1(c)(2)......................... Yes Sec. 63.360(f) exempts
area sources subject to
this subpart from the
obligation to obtain Title
V operating permits.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(f) If you are an owner or operator of a source using less than 10
tons that is subject to this subpart, you are exempt from the
obligation to obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 71, provided you
are not required to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 71.3(a) for
a reason other than your status as an area source under this subpart.
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with
the provisions of this subpart applicable to area sources.
* * * * *
Subpart T--[Amended]
6. Section 63.460 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.460 Applicability and designation of source.
* * * * *
(h) If you are an owner or operator of an area source subject to
this subpart, you are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit
under 40 CFR part 70 or 71, provided you are not required to obtain a
permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 71.3(a) for a reason other than your
status as an area source under this subpart. Notwithstanding the
previous sentence, you must continue to comply with the provisions of
this subpart applicable to area sources.
Sec. 63.468 [Amended]
7. Section 63.468 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (j).
8. Appendix B to Subpart T is amended by revising the entry for
Sec. 63.1(c)(2) to read as follows:
[[Page 15264]]
Appendix B to Subpart T--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart T
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart T
Reference ------------------------------------------------ Comment
BCC BVI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(2).................. Yes................... Yes................... Subpart T, Sec. 63.460(h)
exempts area sources
subject to this subpart
from the obligation to
obtain Title V operating
permits.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart RRR--[Amended]
9. Section 63.1500 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1500 Applicability.
* * * * *
(e) If you are an owner or operator of an area source subject to
this subpart, you are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit
under 40 CFR part 70 or 71, provided you are not required to obtain a
permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 71.3(a) for a reason other than your
status as an area source under this subpart. Notwithstanding the
previous sentence, you must continue to comply with the provisions of
this subpart applicable to area sources.
* * * * *
10. Appendix A to Subpart RRR is amended by revising the entry for
Sec. 63.1(c)(2) to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart RRR--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart RRR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Requirement Applies to RRR Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.1(c)(2).................. ...................... Yes................... Sec. 63.1500(e) exempts
area sources subject to
this subpart from the
obligation to obtain Title
V operating permits.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 70--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Section 70.3 is amended as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a) introductory text.
b. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(3).
c. By revising paragraph (b)(4) introductory text.
Sec. 70.3 Applicability.
(a) Part 70 sources. A State program with whole or partial approval
under this part must provide for permitting of the following sources:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) The following source categories are exempted from the
obligation to obtain a part 70 permit:
* * * * *
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Sec. 71.3 [Amended]
2. Section 71.3 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b)(3).
[FR Doc. 05-5932 Filed 3-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}