[Federal Register: July 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 135)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 38863-38917]
[DOCID:fr16jy07-15]

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

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area
Sources: Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production, Carbon Black
Production, Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds, Flexible
Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication, Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing, and Wood Preserving; Final Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-AR-2006-0897; FRL-8330-1]
RIN 2060-AN44

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area
Sources: Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production, Carbon Black
Production, Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds, Flexible
Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication, Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing, and Wood Preserving

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing six national emissions standards for hazardous
air pollutants for seven area source categories. The final emissions
standards and associated requirements for two area source categories
(Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane Foam
Fabrication) are combined in one subpart. These final rules include
emission standards that reflect the generally available control
technologies or management practices in each of these area source
categories.

DATES: These final rules are effective on July 16, 2007. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in these
rules is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July
16, 2007.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0897. All documents in the docket are
listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov.
 Although listed in the index, some information is

not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information 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
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,

Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sharon Nizich, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-
02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (919)
541-3207; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline. The information presented in this
preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information for Final Area Source Standards
III. Summary of Final Rules and Changes Since Proposal
    A. NESHAP for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production
    Area Sources
    B. NESHAP for Carbon Black Production Area Sources
    C. NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium
Compounds
    D. NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and
Fabrication Area Sources
    E. NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources
    F. NESHAP for Wood Preserving Area Sources
IV. Exemption of Certain Area Source Categories from Title V
Permitting Requirements
    A. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production
    B. Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication
    C. Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
    D. Wood Preserving
V. Summary of Comments and Responses
    A. Basis for Area Source Standards
    B. Proposed NESHAP for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production
Area Sources
    C. Proposed NESHAP for Carbon Black Production Area Sources
    D. Proposed NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources:
Chromium Compounds
    E. Proposed NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and
Fabrication Area Sources
    F. Proposed NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area
Sources
    G. Proposed NESHAP for Wood Preserving Area Sources
    H. Proposed Exemption of Certain Area Source Categories from
Title V Permitting Requirements
    I. Compliance with Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children
from Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    J. Compliance with Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by these
final standards include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Examples of regulated
           Category              NAICS  code \1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry:
Acrylic and modacrylic fibers   325222...........  Area source
 production.                                        facilities that
                                                    manufacture
                                                    polymeric organic
                                                    fibers using
                                                    acrylonitrile as a
                                                    primary monomer.
Carbon black production.......  325182...........  Area source
                                                    facilities that
                                                    manufacture carbon
                                                    black using the
                                                    furnace, thermal, or
                                                    acetylene
                                                    decomposition
                                                    process.
Chemical manufacturing:         325188...........  Area source
 chromium compounds.                                facilities that
                                                    produce chromium
                                                    compounds,
                                                    principally sodium
                                                    dichromate, chromic
                                                    acid, and chromic
                                                    oxide, from chromite
                                                    ore.
Flexible polyurethane foam      326150...........  Area source
 production.                                        facilities that
                                                    manufacture foam
                                                    made from a
                                                    polyurethane
                                                    polymer.

Flexible polyurethane foam      326150...........  Area source
 fabrication operations.                            facilities that cut
                                                    or bond flexible
                                                    polyurethane foam
                                                    pieces together or
                                                    to other substrates.
Lead acid battery               335911...........  Area source
 manufacturing.                                     facilities that
                                                    manufacture lead
                                                    acid storage
                                                    batteries made from
                                                    lead alloy ingots
                                                    and lead oxide.
Wood preserving...............  321114...........  Area source
                                                    facilities that
                                                    treat wood such as
                                                    lumber, ties, poles,
                                                    posts, or pilings
                                                    with a preservative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11393 of
subpart LLLLLL (NESHAP for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production
Area Sources), 40 CFR 63.11400 of subpart MMMMMM (NESHAP for Carbon
Black Production Area Sources), 40 CFR 63.11407 of subpart NNNNNN
(NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium Compounds),
40 CFR 63.11414 of subpart OOOOOO (NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane
Foam Production and Fabrication Area Sources), 40 CFR 63.11421 of
subpart PPPPPP (NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area
Sources), or 40 CFR 63.11428 of subpart QQQQQQ (NESHAP for Wood
Preserving Area Sources). If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the
air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative
as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information

and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of these final rules is available only by filing a petition for review
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by
September 14, 2007. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an
objection to these final rules that was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.

II. Background Information for Final Area Source Standards

    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify at least
30 hazardous air pollutants (HAP), which, as the result of emissions of
area sources,\1\ pose the greatest threat to public health in urban
areas. Consistent with this provision, in 1999, in the Integrated Urban
Air Toxics Strategy, EPA identified the 30 HAP that pose the greatest
potential health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to
as the ``Urban HAP.'' See 64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999. Section 112(c)(3)
requires EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories of area
sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the
emissions of the 30 Urban HAP are subject to regulation. EPA listed the
source categories that account for 90 percent of the Urban HAP
emissions in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy.\2\ Sierra Club
sued EPA, alleging a failure to complete standards for the area source
categories listed pursuant to CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)
within the time frame specified by the statute. See Sierra Club v.
Johnston, No. 01-1537 (D.D.C.). On March 31, 2006, the court issued an
order requiring EPA to promulgate standards under CAA section 112(d)
for those area source categories listed pursuant to CAA section
112(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An area source is a stationary source of hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions that is not a major source. A major source
is a stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP.
    \2\ Since its publication in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy in 1999, EPA has revised the area source category list
several times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among other things, the order requires that, by June 15, 2007, EPA
complete standards for six area source categories. On April 4, 2007, we
proposed NESHAP for the following seven listed area source categories
that we have selected to meet the June 15, 2007 deadline: (1) Acrylic
and Modacrylic Fibers Production; (2) Carbon Black Production; (3)
Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds; (4) Flexible Polyurethane
Foam Production; (5) Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations;
(6) Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing; and (7) Wood Preserving. See 72 FR
16632. These final NESHAP complete the required regulatory action for
seven area source categories.
    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the Administrator may, in lieu of
standards requiring maximum achievable control technology (MACT) under
section 112(d)(2), elect to promulgate standards or requirements for
area sources ``which provide for the use of generally available control
technologies or management practices by such sources to reduce
emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' As explained in the proposed
NESHAP, we are setting standards for these seven area source categories
pursuant to section 112(d)(5). See 72 FR 16638, April 7, 2007.

III. Summary of Final Rules and Changes Since Proposal

    This section summarizes the final rules and identifies and
discusses changes since proposal. For changes that were made as a
result of public comments, we have provided detailed explanations of
the changes and the rationale in the responses to comments in section V
of this preamble.

A. NESHAP for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production Area Sources

1. Applicability and Compliance Dates
    This final rule applies to any existing or new acrylic or
modacrylic fibers production plant that is an area source of HAP. The
owner or operator of an existing area source must comply with all the
requirements of this area source

NESHAP by January 16, 2008. The owner or operator of a new area source
must comply with this area source NESHAP by July 16, 2007 or upon
initial startup, whichever is later.
2. Emissions Standards
    The Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production area source category
was listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) for its contribution of the
Urban HAP acrylonitrile (AN). In response to comments, we have revised
the proposed AN requirements for existing area sources to include a new
compliance alternative. We have also revised the compliance provisions
for existing area sources to allow facilities to change the operating
limits for a wet scrubber control device.
    Existing area sources. The final standards for existing area
sources apply to emissions from the control devices for polymerization
and monomer recovery process equipment, spinning lines at plants that
do not have a monomer recovery process, and AN storage tanks. As
proposed, we are adopting the State permit requirements applicable to
the one existing area source as the NESHAP for existing acrylic and
modacrylic fibers production area sources.
    No changes have been made since proposal to the AN emissions limits
for control devices for polymerization and monomer recovery process
equipment. The AN emissions limit for the control device for
polymerization process equipment is 0.2 pound per hour (lb/hr). The AN
emissions limit for the control device for monomer recovery process
equipment is 0.05 lb/hr.
    In response to comments, we have revised the proposed rule to
include an alternative compliance option for existing area sources. The
new compliance option in Sec.  63.11395(b)(3) allows an existing area
source to comply with the same requirements that apply to process vents
for new area sources. Although the two requirements are expressed in
different units, they provide an equivalent level of control.
    No changes have been made since proposal to the control device
parameter operating limits for wet scrubbers. The daily average water
flow rate to the wet scrubber control device for polymerization process
equipment must not drop below 50 liters per minute (l/min). For the wet
scrubber control device for monomer recovery process equipment, the
daily average water flow rate must not drop below 30 l/min. We have
revised the proposed standard to include procedures for changing the
operating limits based on the results of a performance test. These
procedures are contained in Sec.  63.11395(k).
    As explained in the proposed rule, this rule does not include
requirements for spinning lines for existing sources that remove
residual AN using a monomer recovery process prior to spinning. As
proposed, existing sources that do not have a monomer recovery process
prior to spinning must meet the requirements for spinning lines in 40
CFR part 63, subpart YY.
    Acrylonitrile storage tanks meeting certain capacity/vapor pressure
conditions must comply with one of three control options: (1) A fixed
roof in combination with an internal floating roof, (2) an external
floating roof, or (3) a closed vent system and control device.
    In response to comments, we are clarifying in the final rule that
process and maintenance wastewater containing AN must be treated in a
wastewater treatment system. We are deleting the definition of
``wastewater'' because we have specifically defined ``process
wastewater'' and ``maintenance wastewater.''
    New area sources. No changes have been made to the proposed
emissions standards for new area sources. The final standards apply to
process vents, fiber spinning lines, AN storage tanks, process
wastewater, maintenance wastewater, and equipment leaks. The process
vent requirements apply to each vent stream with an AN concentration of
50 parts per million by volume (ppmv) or greater and a flow rate of
0.005 cubic meters per minute or greater. The owner or operator must
control AN emissions from process vents meeting this threshold by
reducing uncontrolled emissions by 98 weight percent or meeting an
emissions limit of 20 ppmv by venting vapors through a closed vent
system to a recovery device, control device, or flare. The owner or
operator must determine which process vents meet the threshold noted
above by using the procedures and methods in Sec.  63.1104 of subpart
YY.
    The emissions limits for fiber spinning lines require the owner or
operator to: (1) Reduce AN emissions by 85 weight-percent (e.g., by
venting emissions from a total enclosure through a closed vent system
to a control device that meets the requirements in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart SS), (2) reduce AN emissions from the spinning line to 0.5
pounds of AN per ton (lb/ton) of acrylic and modacrylic fiber produced,
or (3) reduce the AN concentration of the spin dope to less than 100
parts per million by weight (ppmw). The requirements in Sec.
63.1103(b)(4) of subpart YY apply to an enclosure for a fiber spinning
line.
    For all AN storage vessels at a new area source, the owner or
operator must: (1) Reduce AN emissions by 98 weight-percent by venting
emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control
devices as specified in Sec.  63.982(a)(1) of subpart SS or reduce AN
emissions by 95 weight-percent or greater by venting emissions through
a closed system to a recovery device as specified in Sec.  63.993 of
subpart SS; or (2) comply with the equipment standards for internal or
external floating roofs in 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW.
    Process wastewater and maintenance wastewater at new sources are
subject to the requirements in Sec.  63.1106(a) and (b) of subpart YY.
We are clarifying that wastewater that contains AN but which is below
the thresholds for control in subpart YY must be treated in a
wastewater treatment system. The owner or operator is also required to
comply with the equipment leak requirements in subpart YY. Subpart YY
applies the requirements in either subpart TT or UU to equipment that
contains or contacts 10 percent by weight or greater of AN and that
operates at least 300 hours per year.
3. Compliance Requirements
    No significant changes have been made to the compliance provisions
for existing sources. As proposed, we are including in this final
NESHAP the monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in the State operating permit for the one existing area
source. The only change since proposal is the addition of records of
process and maintenance wastewater streams that are treated in a
wastewater treatment system. Specifically, for existing sources,
continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) are required to measure
and record the scrubber water flow rates at least every 15 minutes. The
owner or operator of an existing source must determine compliance with
the daily average operating limits for the scrubber water flow rates on
a monthly basis and submit quarterly compliance reports to EPA or the
delegated authority. Compliance with the operating limits is to be
determined on a monthly basis; quarterly compliance reports also are
required. The owner or operator must keep records of each monthly
compliance determination and retain the records for at least 2 years
following the date of each compliance determination. If the daily
average water flow rate falls below the required operating limit, the
owner or operator must submit a report to EPA or the delegated
authority that identifies the

exceedance; the owner or operator would be required to submit the
report within 10 days of the exceedance.
    The owner or operator of an existing source must conduct a
performance test for each control device for polymerization process
equipment and monomer recovery process equipment. A performance test is
not required for an existing source if a prior performance test has
been conducted using the methods required by this rule, which are the
requirements contained in Sec.  63.1104 of subpart YY, and either no
process changes have been made since the test, or the owner or operator
can demonstrate that the results of the performance test, with or
without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite process
changes.
    For AN storage tanks at existing sources, the owner or operator
must comply with the applicable testing, inspection, and notification
procedures in 40 CFR 60.113b(a) and the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in 40 CFR 60.115b and 60.116b of subpart Kb. The testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 40 CFR part
65, subpart C apply if the owner or operator elected to comply with the
part 65 control option for AN storage tanks. See 40 CFR 60.110b(e).
    The owner or operator of an existing area source must comply with
certain notification requirements in Sec.  63.9 of the General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These requirements include a
notification of applicability and a notification of compliance status.
In the notification of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h),
the owner or operator of an existing source may certify initial
compliance with the emissions limits based on a previous performance
test if applicable. We have revised the proposed certification of
compliance for the emissions limit to include a certification for the
new alternative compliance option for process vents. The owner or
operator must also certify initial compliance with the NSPS
requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb.
    We are also requiring that the owner or operator of an existing
source comply with the requirements for startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM) plans, reports, and records in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3). As
proposed, we are allowing additional time (6 months after promulgation)
to allow for preparation of the plan.
    No changes have been made since proposal to the compliance
provisions for new area sources. The owner or operator of a new area
source must perform assessments \3\ to identify affected process vents,
equipment, and wastewater streams; conduct initial performance tests
and/or compliance demonstrations; and comply with the monitoring,
inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in each
applicable subpart. For process vents, the owner or operator must
comply with all testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. For other emissions
sources, the owner or operator must comply with all testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 40 CFR part
63, subpart SS or WW for AN tanks, and subpart TT or UU for equipment
leaks. Only specified provisions in subpart G apply for process
wastewater and maintenance wastewater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These assessments are used to determine which process vents
and wastewater streams must be controlled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The owner or operator of a new area source is also required to
comply with the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A),
including requirements for notifications; performance tests and
reports; SSM plans and reports; recordkeeping, and reporting. We have
identified in the final NESHAP the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63
applicable to existing and new sources.

B. NESHAP for Carbon Black Production Area Sources

1. Applicability and Compliance Dates
    The final NESHAP applies to each new or existing carbon black
production facility that is an area source of HAP. The owner or
operator of an existing affected source must comply with all the
requirements of this area source NESHAP by July 16, 2007. The owner or
operator of a new affected source must comply by July 16, 2007 or upon
initial startup, whichever is later.
2. Emissions Standards
    The Carbon Black Production area source category was listed
pursuant to section 112(c)(3) for regulation for its contribution of
the Urban HAP POM (polycyclic organic matter). We have made no changes
since proposal to the emissions standards for this source category.
    This final NESHAP requires the owner or operator of an existing or
new source to control HAP emissions from each carbon black production
main unit filter process vent that has a HAP concentration equal to or
greater than 260 ppmv. The specific control requirements are: (1)
Reduce emissions of HAP by using a flare meeting all the requirements
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS; or (2) reduce total HAP emissions by 98
weight-percent or to a concentration of 20 ppmv, whichever is less, by
venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of
control devices meeting the requirements 40 CFR 63.982(a)(2).
3. Compliance Requirements
    We have made no changes to the proposed compliance provisions for
carbon black production area sources. For existing and new area
sources, we are adopting in this final NESHAP the testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in subpart YY. The owner or
operator must demonstrate compliance with the emissions limit for
existing and new area sources by monitoring the operating parameters of
the control device or devices selected to comply with the requirements
of the NESHAP.
    The owner or operator of an existing or new area source must comply
with the subpart YY notification requirements in 40 CFR 63.1110. In the
notification of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.1110(d), the
owner or operator of an existing source may demonstrate initial
compliance with the emissions standards based on the results of a
performance test that has been previously conducted provided certain
conditions are met (e.g., using the same methods as the test methods in
the final rule).
    As proposed, we are requiring that the owner or operator of an
existing area source comply with the SSM requirements in 40 CFR
63.1111. Section 63.1111(a)(1) of subpart YY requires that the source
include provisions for an SSM plan.

C. NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium Compounds

1. Applicability and Compliance Dates
    The final rule applies to the owner or operator of a new or
existing area source that manufactures chromium compounds. The owner or
operator of an existing area source must comply with all the
requirements of this area source NESHAP by January 16, 2008. The owner
or operator of a new affected source must comply by July 16, 2007 or
upon initial startup, whichever is later. In response to comments, we
have also added a definition of ``chromium compounds manufacturing
facility.''
2. Emissions Standards
    The Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds area source category
was listed for regulation pursuant to section 112(c)(3) for its

contribution of the Urban HAP chromium. We have not revised the
emissions standards for this area source category since proposal.
However, we have revised Table 1 of subpart NNNNNN to clarify the
regulated process equipment. These changes include revising the title
of Table 1 to refer to emissions sources instead of emissions points,
changing the ``filter for sodium chromate slurry'' to ``residue dryer
system'', changing the ``reactor used to produce chromic acid'' to the
``melter used to produce chromic acid'', and removing the ``sodium
evaporation unit'' from the table. These changes do not affect the
estimated level of emissions control or reduction for the rule.
    The final NESHAP requires new and existing facilities to operate a
capture system that collects gases and fumes from each emissions source
and conveys the gases to a PM control device that controls emissions to
the levels required in the rule. Emissions limits for PM, in lb/hr
format, are established based on the process rate of the emissions
source. The PM emissions limits apply to more than 20 emissions sources
in the production of chromium compounds, including sodium chromate,
sodium dichromate, chromic acid, chromic oxide, and chromium dehydrate
at new and existing sources.
3. Compliance Requirements for Existing Area Sources
    As proposed, the compliance requirements for existing area sources
are based on the operation and maintenance, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements in the title V permit of the area source located
in North Carolina. The title V permit includes requirements for
inspections and maintenance of each type of control device, semiannual
reports of any deviation, and records of control device inspections and
maintenance. The control devices used by the existing area sources in
this source category include baghouses, dry electrostatic
precipitators, wet electrostatic precipitators, and wet scrubbers. The
monitoring requirements for existing area sources consist of inspection
and maintenance requirements specific to the type of control device.
    In response to comments, we have revised the proposed requirements
for initial and periodic inspections of control devices in several
respects. The final rule requires an initial inspection for each
installed control device which has operated within 60 days of the
compliance date. An initial inspection for an installed control device
which has not operated within 60 days of the compliance date must be
conducted prior to startup. In addition, we have revised the
requirements for initial inspections of the internal components of
control devices to state that an initial inspection is not required if
an inspection has been performed within the past 24 months (for an
electrostatic precipitator) or within the past 12 months (for a
baghouse or wet scrubber). The proposed requirements for initial
inspections that do not require shutting down the process and control
device, such as inspecting baghouses and ductwork for leaks and
verifying proper operation of electrostatic precipitators and wet
scrubbers, have not been revised. We have also clarified the timing for
periodic inspections by requiring subsequent inspections 12 or 24
months after the last inspections and then annual or biennial
inspections thereafter. We have also revised the final rule to clarify
that the requirements for internal inspections of control devices do
not apply to cyclonic scrubbers installed upstream of electrostatic
precipitators.
    For a baghouse, this final NESHAP requires monthly visual
inspections of the system ductwork and baghouse units for leaks. The
plant owner or operator must conduct an annual inspection of the
interior of each baghouse for structural integrity and condition of the
filter fabric. For electrostatic precipitators, plants are required to
conduct: (1) A daily check to verify that the electronic controls for
corona power and rapper operation are functioning, that the corona
wires are energized, and that adequate air pressure is present on the
rapper manifold; (2) a monthly visual inspection of the system
ductwork, cyclones (if applicable), housing unit, and hopper for leaks;
and (3) a biennial internal inspection to determine the condition and
integrity of corona wires, collection plates, plate rappers, hopper,
and air diffuser plates. For wet electrostatic precipitators, plants
also must conduct a daily check to verify water flow and a biennial
internal inspection to determine the condition and integrity of plate
wash spray heads. For wet scrubbers, plants are required to conduct:
(1) A daily check to verify water flow to the scrubber; (2) a monthly
visual inspection of the system ductwork and scrubber unit for leaks;
and (3) an annual internal inspection for structural integrity and
condition of the demister and spray nozzle.
    The owner or operator of an existing plant must record the results
of each inspection, the results of any maintenance performed on the
control device, and the date and time of each recorded action. The
results of inspections and maintenance of control equipment must be
recorded in a logbook (written or electronic). The logbook must be kept
onsite and made available to the permitting authority upon request. The
owner or operator of an existing plant is required to report any
deviations from the emissions limits or monitoring requirements in a
semiannual report submitted to the permitting authority.
    The owner or operator of an existing area source must submit an
initial notification of applicability and a notification of compliance
status according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). In the notification of
compliance status required by 40 CFR 63.9(h), the owner or operator
must certify that equipment has been installed and is operating for
each regulated emissions point and that the plant will comply with the
inspection and maintenance requirements. A performance test is not
required if a performance test has been conducted within the past 5
years using the specified test methods, and either no process changes
have been made since the test, or the owner or operator can demonstrate
that the results of the performance test, with or without adjustments,
reliably demonstrate compliance despite process changes. The final rule
also requires that the owner or operator comply with either the
requirements for SSM plans and reports in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) or with the
requirements in this final rule. The owner or operator is required to
submit a report if an event occurs that results in emissions in excess
of a PM limit and lasts for more than 4 hours.
4. Compliance Requirements for New Area Sources
    No changes have been made to the compliance requirements for new
area sources. The owner or operator of a new source must install and
operate a bag leak detection system for each baghouse used to comply
with a PM emissions limit. For additional information on bag leak
detection systems that operate on the triboelectric effect, see
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'', U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
September 1997, EPA-454/R-98-015, NTIS publication number PB98164676.
This document is available from the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS), 5385 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
    The owner or operator of a new source that uses a control device
other than a baghouse must submit a

monitoring plan to the permitting authority for approval. The plan must
describe the control device, the parameters to be monitored, and the
operating limits for the parameters established during a performance
test.
    The owner or operator of a new source is required to demonstrate
initial compliance with each applicable PM emissions limit by
conducting a performance test according to the requirements in 40 CFR
63.7. EPA Method 5 or 5D (40 CFR part 60, appendix A), as applicable,
is to be used to determine the PM emissions. All of the testing,
monitoring, operation and maintenance, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of the part 63 General Provisions apply to a new area
source. We have identified in the final NESHAP the General Provisions
of 40 CFR part 63 applicable to existing and new sources.

D. NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication
Area Sources

1. Applicability and Compliance Dates
    This final NESHAP applies to both new and existing flexible foam
production and flexible foam fabrication plants that are area sources.
In response to comments, we have revised the compliance dates to allow
more time for certain existing area sources to comply with the NESHAP.
The owner or operator of an existing slabstock flexible polyurethane
foam production-affected source must comply with all of the
requirements of this area source NESHAP by July 16, 2008 instead of
July 16, 2007. As proposed, the owner or operator of an existing molded
flexible polyurethane foam production, an existing rebond foam
production, or an existing flexible polyurethane foam fabrication
affected source must comply by July 16, 2007. The owner or operator of
a new area source must comply by July 16, 2007 or at startup, whichever
is later.
2. Emissions Standards and Management Practices
    The Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane
Foam Fabrication area source categories were listed pursuant to section
112(c)(3) for their contribution of the Urban HAP methylene chloride.
No changes have been made since proposal to the required emissions
standards and management practices. Table 1 of this preamble summarizes
the various types of foam production and fabrication area sources
covered by this final rule and the corresponding regulatory strategies.
As shown in the table below, slabstock foam producers may still use
limited amounts of methylene chloride as an auxiliary blowing agent
(ABA). The technologies determined to be GACT for slabstock foam
production area sources significantly reduce, but do not always
eliminate the use of methylene chloride as an ABA. Methylene chloride
use is prohibited for other uses at foam production and foam
fabrication facilities.

  Table 1.--Foam Production and Fabrication Processes and Corresponding
                               Regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Area source types                     Final regulation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Slabstock polyurethane foam           a. Emission limits for
 production.                              methylene chloride used as an
                                          auxiliary blowing agent (ABA);
                                         b. Controls on storage vessels;
                                         c. Management practices for
                                          equipment leaks; and
                                         d. Prohibition on use of
                                          methylene chloride as an
                                          equipment cleaner; or
                                          Eliminate use of methylene
                                          chloride in slabstock foam
                                          production processes.
2. Molded polyurethane foam production.  Prohibit use of methylene
                                          chloride as mold release agent
                                          or equipment cleaner.
3. Rebond foam production..............  Prohibit use of methylene
                                          chloride as mold release
                                          agent.
4. Foam fabrication adhesive use.......  Prohibit use of methylene
                                          chloride adhesives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For slabstock foam production area sources, we are requiring
emissions limits and management practices to reduce methylene chloride
emissions from the production line, storage tanks, leaking equipment,
and equipment cleaning. Emissions limits for methylene chloride used as
an ABA are based on a formula which varies depending on the grades of
foam being produced. Vapor balance systems or carbon beds are required
for methylene chloride storage vessels. The management practices
require plants to identify and correct leaking pumps and other
equipment in methylene chloride service. Specifically, owners or
operators must check periodically for equipment leaks (from quarterly
for pumps and valves to annual for connectors) using EPA Method 21 (40
CFR part 60, appendix A). Leaks, which are defined as a reading of
10,000 parts per million (ppm) or greater, must be corrected within 15
days of when they are detected. The use of methylene chloride to clean
mix heads and other equipment is prohibited.
    Slabstock foam facilities that do not use any methylene chloride at
the facility are not subject to these emissions limitations and
management practices. Such facilities are, however, required to submit
a one-time report.
    This final rule prohibits the use of methylene chloride-based mold
release agents at molded and rebond foam facilities, methylene
chloride-based equipment cleaners at molded foam facilities, and
methylene chloride-based adhesives for foam fabrication.
3. Compliance Requirements
    No changes have been made since proposal to the compliance
requirements. Slabstock foam area sources continuing to use methylene
chloride are required to monitor methylene chloride added at slabstock
production mixheads and the methylene chloride contained in and added
to methylene chloride storage tanks. Plants using carbon adsorber
systems to control emissions from methylene chloride storage tanks must
monitor the methylene chloride content of exhaust streams from outlet
vents. Plants using a recovery device to reduce methylene chloride
emissions are required to comply with a recovered methylene chloride
monitoring and recordkeeping program.
    The owner or operator of a slabstock foam production area source
that continues to use methylene chloride as an ABA must submit
semiannual reports containing information on allowable and actual
methylene chloride emissions, carbon adsorbers on storage tanks, and
equipment leaks. Owners and operators are also required to submit
annual compliance

certifications. Records are required to demonstrate compliance,
including a daily operating log of foam runs containing the grades of
foam produced and related data, and records related to storage tanks
and equipment leaks. Slabstock foam plants that do not use any
methylene chloride must submit a one-time certification as part of
their notification of compliance status.
    Molded foam, rebond foam, and foam fabrication area source
facilities which operate loop slitters must prepare, and keep on file,
compliance certifications which certify that the facility is not using
the prohibited methylene-chloride based products. The area source
plants must also maintain records documenting that the products they
are using do not contain any methylene chloride. These can be records
that would be kept in the absence of this final rule such as adhesive
usage information and Material Safety Data Sheets. Foam fabrication
area source plants which do not operate loop slitters have no
compliance certification or recordkeeping requirements.
    The owner or operator of each slabstock foam affected source that
continues to use methylene chloride and, therefore, is subject to the
methylene chloride emissions limits, is required to comply with several
requirements of the General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. We
have identified in the final NESHAP the General Provisions that apply
to existing and new sources.
    For slabstock foam production facilities that have eliminated the
use of methylene chloride and are not subject to the emissions
limitations in this final rule, we are requiring that owners or
operators submit a notification certifying that they do not use any
methylene chloride. Slabstock foam facilities that choose to use
methylene chloride in the future will be subject to the emission limits
and other requirements discussed above.

E. NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources

1. Applicability and Compliance Dates
    This final NESHAP applies to new and existing lead acid battery
manufacturing plants that are area sources. The owner or operator of an
existing source must comply with all the requirements of this area
source NESHAP by July 16, 2008. The owner or operator of a new source
must comply with this area source NESHAP by July 16, 2007 or at
startup, whichever is later.
2. Emissions Standards and Management Practices
    The Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category was listed
for regulation pursuant to section 112(c)(3) for its contribution of
the Urban HAP lead and cadmium. As proposed, we are adopting as the
NESHAP for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category the
numerical emissions limits for grid casting, paste mixing, three-
process operations, lead oxide manufacturing, lead reclamation, and
other lead emitting processes in 40 CFR 60.372 of the new source
performance standards (NSPS) for lead acid batteries. These lead
discharge limits are:
     0.40 milligram of lead per dry standard cubic meter of
exhaust (mg/m\3\) from grid casting facilities,
     1.00 mg/m\3\ from paste mixing facilities,
     1.00 mg/m\3\ from three-process operation facilities,
     5.0 mg per kilogram of lead feed from lead oxide
manufacturing facilities,
     4.50 mg/m\3\ from lead reclamation facilities, and
     1.0 mg/m\3\ from any other lead-emitting operations.
    We are also adopting the opacity limits from the lead acid battery
NSPS. The opacity of emissions must be no greater than 5 percent from
lead reclamation facilities and no greater than 0 percent from any
affected facility except lead reclamation facilities.
3. Compliance Requirements
    At proposal, we stated that we would adopt in this NESHAP the
compliance requirements in the NSPS for lead acid batteries. We
incorrectly stated in the proposal that title V would not add
monitoring to the proposed NESHAP. While that statement was accurate
for emissions units controlled by scrubbing systems, it was not
accurate for emissions units controlled by fabric filters. We
recognized our error during our consideration of comments submitted on
the proposal. We have incorporated the part 63 monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for all emissions units
instead of those in part 60. We concluded that the part 63 General
Provisions are more appropriate for this NESHAP than are the part 60
General Provisions that were proposed. We have also added periodic
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for emissions
units controlled by fabric filters.
    We are adopting in this NESHAP the testing and monitoring and
requirements in the NSPS for lead acid batteries. These provisions
include the requirement to conduct a performance test and opacity
measurement for each source. They also require continuous monitoring of
the pressure drop for sources controlled by scrubbing systems. In
addition to these requirements, we added to the final rule daily
recordkeeping and semiannual reporting requirements for emissions units
that are controlled by scrubbing systems.
    We added to the final rule monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for emissions units that are controlled by fabric filters.
These requirements direct facilities to conduct semiannual inspections
of fabric filter structure and bags, and to either: (1) Measure and
record the pressure drop across the fabric filter once per day, or (2)
conduct daily visible emission observations. If visible emissions are
detected, the final rule requires that an opacity measurement be made.
A weekly rather than daily alternative monitoring frequency is also
available for emissions units that utilize high efficiency particulate
air (HEPA) filters in combination with fabric filters.
    We are also adopting the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements and the initial notification and notification of
compliance requirements in the part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR part
63, subpart A). We concluded that the part 63 General Provisions are
more appropriate for this NESHAP than the part 60 General Provisions
that were proposed.
    We have clarified the deadline for submission of initial
notifications required by Sec.  63.9 of the General Provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A). The initial notification of applicability required
for existing facilities is due by November 13, 2007. The notification
of compliance status is due 60 days after the 1 year deadline for
compliance September 15, 2008. We have identified in the final NESHAP
the applicable General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63.
    The final NESHAP allows existing plants to utilize previously
conducted performance tests, when they are representative of current
conditions, to demonstrate compliance. Plants without representative
prior performance tests are required to conduct performance tests by
180 days after the compliance date.

F. NESHAP for Wood Preserving Area Sources

1. Applicability and Compliance Dates
    This final NESHAP applies to new and existing wood preserving
plants

that are area sources. The owner or operator of an existing source must
comply with all the requirements of this area source NESHAP by July 16,
2007. The owner or operator of a new source must comply by July 16,
2007 or at startup, whichever is later.
2. Emissions Standards and Management Practices
    The Wood Preserving area source category was listed for regulation
under section 112(c)(3) for its contribution of the following Urban
HAP: arsenic, chromium, methylene chloride, and dioxin. The only
changes to the rule made since proposal are clarifications of
applicability and the required management practices.
    We are adopting as the NESHAP for the Wood Preserving area source
category the control technologies and management practices that we have
determined are generally available, considering cost, for the wood
preserving industry. We have revised the rule since proposal to clarify
that the management practices and other recordkeeping and notification
requirements in the NESHAP apply to those facilities that are using a
wood preservative containing arsenic, chromium, dioxins, or methylene
chloride.
    The NESHAP requires that facilities using a pressure treatment
process use a retort or similarly enclosed vessel for the preservative
treatment of wood involving any wood preservative containing chromium,
arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride. Facilities using a thermal
treatment process involving any wood preservative containing chromium,
arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride are required to use process
treatment tanks equipped with air scavenging systems to capture and
control air emissions.
    This final rule also requires facility owners or operators using
any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or
methylene chloride to minimize emissions from process tanks and
equipment (e.g., retorts, other enclosed vessels, and thermal treatment
tanks), as well as storage, handling, and transfer operations. These
standards are to be documented in a management practices plan that must
include, but not be limited to, the following activities:
     Minimizing preservative usage;
     Maintaining records on the type of treatment process and
types and amounts of wood preservatives used at the facility;
     For the pressure treatment process, maintaining charge
records identifying pressure reading(s) inside the retort (or similarly
enclosed vessel, if applicable);
     For the thermal treatment process, maintaining records
that an air scavenging system is installed and operated properly during
the treatment process;
     For the pressure treatment process, we proposed a
requirement for facilities to fully drain the retort prior to opening
the retort door. In the final rule, we have clarified this provision to
require facilities to fully drain the retort to the extent practicable,
prior to opening the retort door;
     Storing treated wood product on drip pads or in a primary
containment area to convey preservative drippage to a collection system
until drippage has ceased;
     Promptly collecting any spills; and
     Performing relevant corrective actions or preventative
measures in the event of a malfunction before resuming operations.
    Existing written standard operating procedures may be used as the
management practices plan if those procedures include the minimum
activities required for a management practices plan.
3. Compliance Requirements
    No changes have been made since proposal to the compliance
requirements for wood preserving facilities. Plants that use any wood
preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene
chloride are required to comply with the notification requirements in
the part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). This final
rule establishes the content and deadlines for submission of the
notifications. We have explicitly identified in this final NESHAP the
applicable General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63.
    The final standards require recordkeeping to serve as monitoring
and deviation reporting to demonstrate compliance. The compliance
requirements for new and existing area sources are based on certain
notification requirements in the part 63 General Provisions. The
initial notification of applicability required by 40 CFR 63.9(b)(2)
requires the owner or operator to identify the plant as an area source
subject to the standards. The notification of compliance status
requires the owner or operator to certify compliance with the
standards. No other recordkeeping or reporting requirements in the
General Provisions are applicable.

IV. Exemption of Certain Area Source Categories From Title V Permitting
Requirements

    Section 502(a) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may
exempt an area source category from title V if he determines that
compliance with title V requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or
unnecessarily burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section
502(a). In December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the
term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and developed a
four-factor balancing test for determining whether title V is
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category, such
that an exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320,
December 19, 2005 (``Exemption Rule'').
    The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for
determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' on a
particular area source category include: (1) Whether title V would
result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements,
including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed
for an area source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V
permitting would impose significant burdens on the area source category
and whether the burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the
sources may have in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70
FR 75324); (3) whether the costs of title V permitting for the area
source category would be justified, taking into consideration any
potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR
75325); and (4) whether there are implementation and enforcement
programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the
NESHAP for the area source category, without relying on title V permits
(70 FR 75326).
    In discussing the above factors in the Exemption Rule, we explained
that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to which one or
more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for a given
source category, and then we assessed whether considered together those
factors demonstrated that compliance with title V requirements would be
`unnecessarily burdensome' on the category, consistent with section
502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, in the Exemption Rule, we
explained that not all of the four factors must weigh in favor of
exemption for EPA to determine that title V is unnecessarily burdensome
for a particular area source category. Instead, the factors are to be
considered in

combination, and EPA determines whether the factors, taken together,
support an exemption from title V for a particular source category.
    In response to the proposed rule, we received a comment concerning
the proposed title V exemptions. In response to this comment, we re-
examined the four factors for each of the area source categories for
which we had proposed an exemption. As explained below, after
evaluating the relevant factors, we again conclude that the
requirements of title V would be unnecessarily burdensome on the area
source categories for which we proposed an exemption from title V.
    In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome
on an area source category, we considered, consistent with the guidance
provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether
exempting the area source category would adversely affect public
health, welfare or the environment. See 70 FR 15254-15255, March 25,
2005. As discussed below in sections IV.A through IV.D of this
preamble, we have determined that the proposed exemptions from title V
would not adversely affect public health, welfare and the environment.
We therefore finalize the proposed exemptions in this rule.

A. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production

    In sections IV.A through IV.D of this preamble, we apply the four-
factor balancing test to determine whether title V is unnecessarily
burdensome on the area source category. Starting with the first factor,
which is to determine whether title V permits would result in
significant improvements to the compliance requirements for the Acrylic
and Modacrylic Fibers Production area source category, we compared the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of title V
permitting to those requirements in the final NESHAP. As noted above
(see section III.A of this preamble), the final NESHAP adopts the
compliance requirements in the State-issued permit for the one area
source plant currently in operation.
    Specifically, this final rule requires CPMS to measure and record
the water flow rate to the control device (wet scrubber) every 15
minutes and to determine the daily average flow rate. Periodic visual
inspections of AN storage tanks equipped with a fixed roof in
combination with an internal floating roof must be conducted according
to the NSPS requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. This final
rule, therefore, contains both continuous and noncontinuous monitoring
requirements, which constitute periodic monitoring. Under EPA's Final
Rule Interpreting the Scope of Certain Monitoring Requirements for
State and Federal Operating Permits Programs (71 FR 75422, December 15,
2006) (``Interpretive Rule''), if an applicable requirement, such as a
NESHAP, contains periodic testing or instrumental or non-instrumental
monitoring (i.e., periodic monitoring), permitting authorities are not
authorized to assess the sufficiency of or impose new monitoring
requirements on a case-by-case basis; therefore, title V would not
impose additional monitoring requirements on sources in this category.
    We also considered the extent to which title V could enhance
compliance through recordkeeping or reporting requirements, including
title V requirements for a 6-month monitoring report, deviation
reports, and an annual compliance certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and
71.6. The final rule for acrylic and modacrylic fibers production
requires the owner or operator to submit an initial certification of
compliance that must be signed by a responsible official. In addition,
the owner or operator must determine compliance with daily average
operating limits for the water flow rates to each control device on a
monthly basis and submit compliance reports to EPA or the delegated
authority on a quarterly basis. Should the daily average water flow
rate to a wet scrubber control device fall below the operating limits,
the plant must notify the delegated authority in writing within 10 days
of the identification of the exceedance. Reports of performance test
results are required. New and existing sources are also required to
comply with the requirements for SSM plans, reports, and records in 40
CFR 63.6(e)(3). When an SSM report must be submitted, it must consist
of a letter, containing the name, title, and signature of the owner or
operator or other responsible official who is certifying its accuracy.
    Records are required to demonstrate compliance with the NSPS
inspection and repair requirements for storage tanks in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Kb. Records are also required for the monthly compliance
determination for scrubber operating limits. The information required
in the final rule is similar to the information that must be provided
in the deviation reports and semiannual monitoring reports required
under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3).
    This final rule does not require an annual compliance certification
report, which is a requirement of a title V permit. See 40 CFR
70.5(c)(9)(iii) and 40 CFR 71.6(c)(5)(i). The EPA believes that the
annual certification reporting requirement is not necessary because the
initial compliance certification and subsequent quarterly reports are
more than adequate to determine compliance for existing sources. New
sources must submit notifications and reports required by the part 63
General Provisions. Moreover, the certifications that new and existing
sources must submit under the part 63 General Provisions and the final
rule include initial notification of compliance status; periodic and
immediate reports under the SSM provisions; and reports of excess
emissions and monitoring system performance.
    The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the
final rule for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production area source
category are substantially equivalent to such requirements under title
V. Therefore, we conclude that title V would not result in significant
improvements to the compliance requirements we are promulgating for
this area source category.
    We evaluated factor two to determine whether title V permitting
would impose a significant burden on the area source category and
whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the source
may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency. 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
average annual cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit
was $7,700 per year per source, including fees, or $38,000 per source
for a 5-year permit period. See Information Collection Request (ICR)
for Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, January 2000, EPA ICR Number
1587.05. There are certain activities associated with the part 70 and
71 rules that 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 6-
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 5 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 program's requirements. The ICR
for part 70 may help 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 40 CFR
70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
    In considering the second factor for the one existing area source
acrylic and modacrylic fibers plant, we examined the potential economic
resources of the parent company and whether the source would have any
difficulty in obtaining assistance from the permitting authority.
Although this area source plant is small (i.e., it is the smallest of
the four known plants in the source category), the parent company is a
multi-national corporation and is not a small business. In addition,
the plant has worked closely with the State permitting authority to
obtain State operating permits and a designation as a synthetic minor
source, which means the plant must keep HAP emissions below the major
source threshold. The State agency has assigned a staff person who is
specifically responsible for the permitting of sources at the plant.
This staff person is familiar with the production processes, emissions
sources, and permitting requirements for the plant; therefore, the
staff person can provide permitting assistance as needed. Consequently,
we have no evidence that obtaining a title V permit would impose a
significant burden on this particular area source or that the burden
would be aggravated by any difficulty in obtaining assistance from
permitting authorities. However, we do not know what circumstances
would exist for new sources in this category.
    The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance
likely to occur for such sources. While we concluded that the one
existing area source could sustain the cost of title V permit
requirements without a significant economic impact on the company as a
whole, we do not think the costs for the one existing area source are
justified because we do not think title V permitting would lead to
gains in compliance by the source. As discussed above for factor one,
we determined that the compliance requirements of this NESHAP are
substantially equivalent to the requirements of title V. Furthermore,
as discussed below for factor four, there are adequate implementation
and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure
compliance with the NESHAP. We conclude, therefore, that the costs of
title V are not justified for the one existing area source in this
category, even though we concluded the costs would not be burdensome on
the existing area source in this category. Furthermore, for new
sources, the requirements of title V may be a significant burden and,
since we have determined consistent with the first factor that there
would not be significant improvements in compliance under title V, we
likewise conclude that the cost would not be justified.
    The fourth factor we considered is whether there are implementation
and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure
compliance with this NESHAP without relying on title V permits. In the
proposal, we considered whether there are State programs in place to
enforce these area source NESHAP. We stated that we believe that the
State programs are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP.
We also noted that EPA retains authority to enforce these NESHAP
anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. We concluded that title V
permitting is ``unnecessary'' to assure compliance with these NESHAP
because the statutory requirements for implementation and enforcement
of these NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA are sufficient to
assure compliance with these area source NESHAP without title V
permits. We also noted that small business assistance programs required
by CAA section 507 may be used to assist area sources that have been
exempted from title V permitting. Also, States and EPA often conduct
voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs
(compliance assistance programs), which are not required by statute. We
determined that these additional programs will supplement and enhance
the success of compliance with these area source NESHAP and concluded
that in light of all of the above, that there are implementation and
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance
with these NESHAP without relying on title V permitting.
    In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only
enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted,
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to ensure
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the
NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. We do not have similar data for this
rule because we are issuing this final NESHAP today. In the Exemption
Rule, EPA exempted the categories from the requirements of title V
after the NESHAP was issued. Although we do not have the type of
enforcement data we had in the Exemption Rule, we have no reason to
think that States will be less diligent in enforcing this NESHAP. See
70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have adequate programs to enforce
section 112 regulations and provide assurances that it will enforce all
NESHAP before EPA will delegate the program. See 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E. There are State programs in place to enforce this area
source NESHAP and assure compliance with the NESHAP. In light of the
above, we conclude that there are implementation and enforcement
programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the
final rule without relying on title V permitting.
    Considering the factors in combination supports the finding in the
proposal that title V is unnecessarily burdensome on this area source
category. We found in the proposal and again here that title V would
not result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements
applicable to this area source category and that there are adequate
implementation and enforcement programs in place to assure compliance
with the NESHAP. Although we concluded that the cost of title V
permitting would not be burdensome on the one known existing area
source, we cannot conclude that title V would not be a significant
burden on new sources in the category. We also found that the cost is
not justified because we could not identify any potential gains in
compliance within the category if title V were required for this
category. Thus, we conclude that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production area
source category.
    In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome'', EPA also

considered, consistent with guidance provided by the legislative
history of section 502(a), whether exempting these area source
categories from title V requirements would adversely affect public
health, welfare, or the environment. We stated at proposal that
exemption of this area source category from title V requirements would
not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment because
the level of control would remain the same even if a title V permit
were required. We continue to believe that there would be no adverse
effects for all of the reasons supporting the exemptions as discussed
above.
    Importantly, the title V permit program does not impose new
substantive air quality control requirements on sources, but instead
requires that certain procedural measures be followed, particularly
with respect to determining compliance with applicable requirements. As
stated in our consideration of factor one for this category, title V
would not lead to significant improvements in the compliance
requirements applicable to existing or new area sources. We conclude,
therefore, that exempting this area source category from title V
permitting requirements in the final rule would not adversely affect
public health, welfare, or the environment.
    Moreover, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting
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. In this case, placing all
requirements for the one existing area source in a title V permit would
do little to clarify the requirements applicable to that source or
assist it in compliance with those requirements because of the
simplicity of the source and the NESHAP, and the fact that this source
is not subject to other NESHAP or to other requirements under the CAA.
Given that the emissions profile for new sources should be similar to
the existing source, we believe that new sources would be subject to
similar CAA requirements.
    For the foregoing reasons, we are exempting the Acrylic and
Modacrylic Fibers Production area source category from title V
permitting requirements.

B. Flexible Polyurethane Foam and Fabrication

    As discussed in the proposal, to determine whether title V permits
would result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements
in the final NESHAP for flexible polyurethane foam production and
fabrication area source categories (factor one in determining whether
title V permitting is ``unnecessarily burdensome''), we compared the
title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to those
requirements in the final NESHAP for these source categories.
    This final NESHAP does not contain monitoring or periodic reporting
requirements for molded foam production, rebond foam production, and
foam fabrication facilities that must eliminate the use of methylene
chloride, or for slabstock foam production facilities that elect to
totally eliminate the use of methylene chloride. Since these facilities
have discontinued the use of methylene chloride entirely, Urban HAP
emissions would be reduced without the need for continuous or periodic
monitoring of equipment or operations.
    For slabstock foam production facilities still using methylene
chloride as an ABA, the final NESHAP requires the same periodic
monitoring in the form of quantifying methylene chloride usage that
must be performed by major sources. Therefore, title V would not add
any monitoring to the final NESHAP. See the Interpretive Rule (71 FR
75422, December 15, 2006).
    We also considered the extent to which title V could enhance
compliance for area sources through recordkeeping or reporting
requirements, including title V requirements for a 6-month monitoring
report, deviation reports, and an annual compliance certification in 40
CFR 70.6 and 71.6. The final NESHAP requires area source foam plants
that have discontinued the use of methylene chloride to certify
compliance with the prohibition on methylene chloride in their
Notification of Compliance Status reports. For slabstock foam plants
still using methylene chloride, the final NESHAP requires the same
recordkeeping or reporting that must be performed by major sources. The
information required in the final reports and records is similar to the
information that must be provided in the deviation reports and required
for title V permitting under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3).
    The final NESHAP requires a report if a deviation occurs, but does
not require periodic compliance reports. The addition of periodic
reports for sources that are subject to monitoring requirements would
not result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements
in the final NESHAP for these area source categories. The final NESHAP
does not require an annual compliance certification report for
slabstock facilities that continue to use methylene chloride, as would
be required under a title V permit. See 40 CFR 70.5(c)(9)(iii) and 40
CFR 71.6(c)(5)(i). EPA believes that the annual certification reporting
requirement is not necessary because the deviation reports are adequate
to ensure compliance for new and existing sources. Furthermore, even
absent the requirement to submit annual compliance certifications,
sources must comply with all emission standards in the NESHAP. In
conclusion, we do not believe that title V would lead to significant
improvements in the compliance requirements for these categories.
    The second factor considered in determining whether title V is
``unnecessarily burdensome'' is whether title V permitting would impose
significant burdens on the flexible polyurethane foam production and
fabrication area sources and whether these burdens would be aggravated
by difficulty they may have in obtaining assistance from permitting
agencies. 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 $38,500 per source for a 5-year
permit period, including fees. See Information Collection Request for
Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, January 2000, EPA Number 1587.05.
    The EPA does not have specific estimates for the burdens and costs
of permitting flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication
area sources; however, 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 6-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 5 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' requirements.
    The ICR for part 70 further explains 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 40 CFR
70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
    In the proposal, we stated that we believed the cost of a title V
program would be a significant burden for the area sources in all the
categories that we proposed to exempt. For flexible polyurethane foam
production and fabrication, that conclusion was based on the types of
smaller establishments that make up these categories. We estimate that
over 90 percent of the firms in the NAICS code for these categories are
small businesses, with over half the firms having less than 20
employees. We believe that these small sources will likely lack the
technical resources needed to comprehend and comply with the permitting
requirements and the financial resources needed to hire the necessary
staff or outside consultants. Accordingly, we conclude that title V
would be a significant burden for these categories because almost all
the sources are small businesses with limited resources, and that it
would be difficult for them to meet the numerous requirements
applicable to sources under part 70 or 71, whether they have a standard
or general permit. Also, we are not sure what level of title V related
assistance permitting authorities would be able to provide such small
sources. Thus, for the final rule, we believe factor two supports title
V exemption for flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication
sources because title V compliance would impose a significant economic
and non-economic burden on sources in these categories.
    The third factor is whether the costs of title V permitting for
these area sources would be justified, taking into consideration any
potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources. We
concluded after consideration of the first factor that title V would
not result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements
in the final rule for flexible polyurethane foam production and
fabrication source categories. We also concluded in our consideration
of the second factor that title V permitting would be a significant
burden on the facilities and that the burden was associated with both
the financial cost of compliance as well as the time and effort that
these small facilities would have to devote to compliance with title V.
Furthermore, as discussed in our consideration of the fourth factor
below, there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in
place sufficient to ensure compliance with the NESHAP. Because the
costs, both economic and non-economic, are burdensome on these sources,
and title V would not lead to significant improvements in compliance
with the NESHAP, we conclude that requiring title V permitting is not
justified for the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source categories.
    The fourth factor we considered is whether there are implementation
and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure
compliance with this NESHAP without relying on title V permits. In the
proposal, we considered whether there are State programs in place to
enforce these area source NESHAP. We stated that we believe that the
State programs are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP.
We also noted that EPA retains authority to enforce these NESHAP
anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. We concluded that title V
permitting is ``unnecessary'' to assure compliance with these NESHAP
because the statutory requirements for implementation and enforcement
of these NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA are sufficient to
assure compliance with these area source NESHAP without title V
permits. We also noted that small business assistance programs required
by CAA section 507 may be used to assist area sources that have been
exempted from title V permitting. Also, States and EPA often conduct
voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs
(compliance assistance programs), which are not required by statute. We
determined that these additional programs will supplement and enhance
the success of compliance with these area source NESHAP and concluded
that in light of all of the above, that there are implementation and
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance
with this NESHAP without relying on title V permitting.
    In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only
enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted,
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to ensure
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the
NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. In proposing this rule, we did not have
similar data available on the specific enforcement as in the Exemption
rule, but we have no reason to think that States will be less diligent
in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have
adequate programs to enforce the HAP regulations and provide assurances
that it will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate the program.
See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E.
    In light of all of the above, we conclude that there are
implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to
assure compliance with the flexible polyurethane foam production and
fabrication NESHAP without relying on title V permitting.
    Balancing the four factors for these area source categories
strongly supports the proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily
burdensome. We determined in the proposal and above that title V would
not significantly improve the compliance requirements of the NESHAP and
that the requirements of title V would be a significant burden on the
facilities. We also determined that the costs of compliance with title
V would not be justified because it would not likely lead to gains in
compliance with the NESHAP and that there are sufficient implementation
and enforcement programs in place to assure compliance without reliance
on title V. All four factors weigh in favor of exemption, and we
conclude that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' for
the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane
Foam Fabrication area source categories.
    In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome'', EPA also considered,
consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section
502(a), whether exempting the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source categories from
title V requirements would adversely affect public health, welfare, or
the environment. Exemption of the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production
and Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source categories from
title V requirements would not adversely affect public health, welfare,
or the environment because the level of control would remain the same
if a title V permit were required.

    The title V permit program does not impose new substantive air
quality control requirements on sources, but instead requires that
certain procedural measures be followed, particularly with respect to
determining compliance with applicable requirements. As stated in our
consideration of factor one for this category, title V would not lead
to significant improvements in the compliance requirements applicable
to existing or new area sources. Therefore, we conclude that exempting
the flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication area sources
from title V permitting requirements in these rules will not adversely
affect public health, welfare, or the environment.
    Moreover, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting
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. In this case, however, we do not
believe that a title V permit is necessary to understand the
requirements applicable to these area sources, as the requirements are
not complicated to understand or implement. Furthermore, the sources in
this category are not subject to any other NESHAP or CAA requirements
to combine into one title V permit. For these reasons, we do not find
that title V permitting is necessary to improve understanding of and
achieve compliance with these standards.
    For the foregoing reasons, we are exempting the Flexible
Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication
area source categories from title V permitting requirements.

C. Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing

    In the proposal, we discussed whether title V permitting was
``unnecessarily burdensome'' for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
area source category. Factor one in determining whether title V
permitting is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is to determine whether
title V permits would result in significant improvements to the
compliance requirements in the final NESHAP. In this NESHAP, we
proposed adopting the compliance requirements in the NSPS for lead acid
battery manufacturing as the compliance requirements for this area
source category. The final rule includes the same provisions and
requires monitoring, recordkeeping and deviation reporting to ensure
compliance with the NESHAP. Specifically, the final rule requires that
a facility using a scrubbing system install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a monitoring device that measures and records the pressure drop
across the scrubbing system at least once every 15 minutes. Opacity
requirements are zero percent for five of the six emission sources and
five percent for the sixth. In addition to these requirements, we are
adding in the final rule monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for emissions units controlled by fabric filters. These
requirements direct facilities to perform and keep records of
semiannual fabric filter inspections and to either: (1) Measure and
record the pressure drop across the fabric filter once per day or (2)
conduct daily visible emission observations. If visible emissions are
detected, the final rule requires that an opacity measurement be made.
The alternative of weekly monitoring is also available for emissions
units that utilize HEPA filters in combination with fabric filters.
    Each facility must demonstrate compliance by either conducting a
performance test or submitting the results of a recent performance test
conducted using the methods and procedures in the final NESHAP. Because
both the continuous and noncontinuous monitoring methods required by
the final NESHAP constitute periodic monitoring, title V would not
result in significant improvements to monitoring in the final NESHAP.
See the Interpretive Rule (71 FR 75422, December 15, 2006).
    We also considered the extent to which title V could enhance
compliance through recordkeeping or reporting requirements, including
title V requirements for a 6-month monitoring report, deviation
reports, and an annual compliance certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and
71.6. Records are required to demonstrate compliance. Plants are
required to comply with the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements in the part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR part
63, subpart A). The information required in the NESHAP is similar to
the information that must be provided in the deviation reports and
semiannual monitoring reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40
CFR 71.6(a)(3).
    The NESHAP for lead acid battery manufacturing requires the owner
or operator to submit an initial certification of compliance that must
be signed by a responsible official. The NESHAP does not require an
annual compliance certification report, as would be required under a
title V permit. See 40 CFR 70.5(c 9)(iii) and 40 CFR 71.6(c)(5)(i). EPA
believes that the title V annual certification reporting requirement is
not necessary because the semiannual reports are adequate to ensure
compliance for new and existing sources. Furthermore, even absent the
requirement to submit annual compliance certifications, sources must
comply with all emission standards in the NESHAP. Therefore, the
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the final
NESHAP for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category are
substantially equivalent to requirements under title V. We conclude
that title V would not result in significant improvements to the
compliance requirements for this area source category.
    The second factor considered in determining whether title V
permitting is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is whether title V
permitting would impose a significant burden for the Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing area source category and whether that burden would be
aggravated by any difficulty these sources may have in obtaining
assistance from permitting agencies. Subjecting any source to title V
permitting imposes certain burdens and costs that do not exist outside
of the title V program. EPA previously estimated that the true average
annual cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit was
$38,500 per source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. See
Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit
Regulations, January 2000, EPA ICR Number 1587.05.
    EPA does not have specific estimates for the burdens and costs of
permitting lead acid battery manufacturing area sources; however, 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 6-
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 5
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' requirements.
    The ICR for part 70 may help 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 40 CFR
70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
    In considering the second factor for lead acid battery
manufacturing, we examined the potential economic resources of the
plants and their parent companies and whether they would have any
difficulty in obtaining assistance from the permitting authority. There
are a few multi-national corporations that own several lead acid
battery manufacturing plants that would be subject to this NESHAP, and
those facilities would have resources adequate to absorb the economic
and non-economic burdens associated with complying with the title V
permitting requirements. However, there are many plants that are small
businesses for which the title V permitting requirements would be a
significant burden, both economic and non-economic. In addition to the
small businesses currently subject to the NSPS, there are some small
plants \4\ that are not subject to the NSPS that will be subject to the
NESHAP. These small businesses will be burdened complying with the
NESHAP, even if title V compliance is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The new source performance standard (NSPD) applied only to
plants that produced or had the design capacity to produce in one
day batteries containing an amount of lead equal to or greater than
5.9 megagrams (6.5 tons).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through discussions with the industry trade organization, we have
learned that very few lead acid battery manufacturing facilities
currently are subject to a title V permit for either lead or other
criteria pollutants. Some plants have synthetic minor permits to remain
below the threshold for title V permitting for criteria pollutants. As
such, if title V permits were required the sources would have
difficulty obtaining assistance from the permitting authorities as they
developed and applied for title V permits. This difficulty stems from
the fact that there are about 60 plants in this area source category,
and permitting authorities'' resources are limited. Thus, the
difficulty sources would have obtaining appropriate guidance from
permitting authorities would only increase the already significant
economic and non-economic burdens of title V on the small facilities
with limited resources.
    The third factor is whether the costs of title V permitting for
these area sources would be justified, taking into consideration any
potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources. We
evaluated the monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting requirements of the
proposed NESHAP when considering the first factor and concluded above
that title V would not lead to significant improvements to the
compliance requirements for this category. In considering the second
factor, we concluded that some of the existing area sources could
comply with the title V permit requirements without a significant
economic impact on the company as a whole. But, we also concluded that
the costs would be a significant burden for small facilities,
particularly those not currently covered by the NSPS because they would
have to comply with the NESHAP and title V simultaneously. In addition,
under the fourth factor below, we find that there are adequate
implementation and enforcement programs in place to enforce the
provisions of the NESHAP. We believe that the costs of compliance with
title V are, therefore, not justified for this area source category
given the little potential for gain in compliance benefits.
    The fourth factor we considered is whether there are implementation
and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure
compliance with this NESHAP without relying on title V permits. In the
proposal, we considered whether there are State programs in place to
enforce these area source NESHAP. While we did not state this in the
proposal, we know that States have been enforcing the NSPS on which the
NESHAP is based for this source category for some time and that the
State programs are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP.
    We noted at proposal that EPA retains authority to enforce these
NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. We concluded that
title V permitting is ``unnecessary'' to assure compliance with these
NESHAP because the statutory requirements for implementation and
enforcement of these NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA are
sufficient to assure compliance with these area source NESHAP without
title V permits. We also noted that small business assistance programs
required by CAA section 507 may be used to assist area sources that
have been exempted from title V permitting. Also, States and EPA often
conduct voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, and education
programs (compliance assistance programs), which are not required by
statute. We determined that these additional programs will supplement
and enhance the success of compliance with these area source NESHAP and
concluded that in light of all of the above, that there are
implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to
assure compliance with these NESHAP without relying on title V
permitting.
    In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only
enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted,
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to ensure
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the
NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. In proposing this rule, we did not have
similar data available on the specific enforcement as in the Exemption
Rule, but we have no reason to think that States will be less diligent
in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have
adequate programs to enforce the section 112 regulations and provide
assurances that it will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate the
program. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E.
    In light of all of the above, we conclude that there are
implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to
assure compliance with these NESHAP without relying on title V
permitting.
    Balancing the four factors for this area source category supports
the proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome. In
considering the first factor, we concluded that title V would not lead
to significant improvements in the compliance requirements. We
concluded after consideration of the second factor that title V would
impose a significant burden on the small facilities, particularly those
not subject to the NSPS, but that the burden would not be significant
for sources owned by larger companies. We concluded that the costs
would not be justified given the little potential gain in the
compliance likely to occur. We also determined that there are adequate
implementation and enforcement programs in place to enforce the NESHAP
and, furthermore, States have in fact been enforcing the provisions of
the NSPS. All four factors individually support exemption, and
collectively they support the finding in the proposal. Therefore, we
conclude that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily

burdensome'' for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source
category.
    In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome'', EPA also considered,
consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section
502(a), whether exempting the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area
source category from title V requirements would adversely affect public
health, welfare, or the environment. Exemption of the Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing area source category from title V requirements would not
adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment because the
level of control would remain the same if a permit were required. The
title V permit program does not impose new substantive air quality
control requirements on sources, but instead requires that certain
procedural measures be followed, particularly with respect to
determining compliance with applicable requirements. As stated in our
consideration of factor one for this category, title V would not lead
to significant improvements in the compliance requirements applicable
to existing or new area sources. There is no evidence in the record
that leads us to question these conclusions. Therefore, we conclude
that exempting the lead acid battery manufacturing area sources from
title V permitting requirements in this rule will not adversely affect
public health, welfare, or the environment.
    Furthermore, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting
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. In this case, however, we do not
believe that a title V permit is necessary to understand the
requirements applicable to the lead acid battery manufacturing area
sources. These plants are straightforward in design and are not covered
by regulations with requirements that are very complicated to
understand or implement. The permits we have examined for the Lead Acid
Battery Manufacturing area source category currently consist of a
single document that applies to all sources and to lead and the other
criteria pollutants emitted. For these reasons, we do not find that
title V permitting is necessary to improve understanding of and achieve
compliance with these standards.
    For the foregoing reasons, we are exempting the Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing area source category from title V permitting
requirements.

D. Wood Preserving

    As discussed in the proposal, we compared the title V monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements (factor one) to the
requirements in the NESHAP for the Wood Preserving area source
category. EPA determined that the management practices currently used
at most facilities is GACT and the rule requires recordkeeping that
serves as monitoring and deviation reporting to ensure compliance with
the NESHAP. The monitoring component of the first factor favors title V
exemption because title V is unnecessary to provide adequate monitoring
for wood preserving area sources. Because the NESHAP requires
management practices for certain treatment processes and requires
recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring, additional monitoring
requirements that might be added under title V would be unnecessary to
assure compliance. Monitoring other than recordkeeping is not practical
or appropriate in this case because the requirements are management
practices. Records are required to ensure that the management practices
are followed, including records of the type of preservative treatment
process used, the types and quantities of preservatives used, and
charge records of retort pressure.
    As part of the first factor, we have considered the extent to which
title V could potentially enhance compliance for area sources covered
by this final rule through recordkeeping or reporting requirements. For
any affected wood preserving area source facility, the NESHAP requires
an initial notification, a compliance status report, and deviations
must be reported within 30 days. We considered the various title V
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including requirements for a
6-month monitoring report, deviation reports, and an annual
certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6.
    The wood preserving NESHAP also requires affected facilities to
certify compliance with the management practices required by the rule.
In addition, wood preserving facilities must maintain records showing
compliance with the required management practices and report
deviations. The information required in the deviation reports and
records is similar to the information that must be provided in the
deviation reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3). We acknowledge that title V might impose additional
compliance requirements on this category, but, as stated in the
proposal, we conclude that the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of the NESHAP for wood preserving are sufficient to ensure
compliance with the provisions of the NESHAP, and title V would not
significantly improve those compliance requirements.
    Under the second factor, we determine whether title V permitting
would impose a significant burden on the area sources in the category
and whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the
source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency.
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 average cost of obtaining and complying with a title
V permit was $38,500 per source for a 5-year permit period, including
fees. See Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit
Regulations, January 2000, EPA ICR Number 1587.05. The EPA does not
have specific estimates for the burdens and costs of permitting wood
preserving area sources; however, 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 6-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 5 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 program's requirements. The ICR
for part 70 provides additional information on 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 40 CFR
70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
    In assessing the second factor for wood preserving facilities, we
found that over 90 percent of the 393 plants are small businesses, most
with only a few employees. These small sources 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. As discussed above, title V permitting would
impose significant economic and non-economic costs on these area
sources, and, accordingly, we conclude that title V is a significant
burden for sources in this category. Most are small businesses with
limited resources, and under title V they would be subject to numerous
mandatory activities with which they would have difficulty complying,
whether they were issued a standard or a general permit. Furthermore,
given the large number of sources in the category and the relatively
small size, it would likely be difficult for them to obtain assistance
from the permitting authority. Thus, we find that factor two strongly
supports title V exemption for wood preserving facilities.
    The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance
likely to occur for such sources. We explained above under the second
factor that the economic and non-economic costs of compliance with
title V would impose a significant burden on most of the 393 wood
preserving facilities. We also concluded in considering the first
factor that, while title V might impose additional requirements, the
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP
assure compliance with the management practices imposed in the NESHAP.
In addition, below in our consideration of the fourth factor we find
that there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in
place to assure compliance with the NESHAP. Because the costs, both
economic and non-economic, of compliance with title V are so high, and
the potential for gains in compliance is low, title V permitting is not
justified for this source category. Accordingly, the third factor
supports title V exemptions for wood preserving area sources.
    The fourth factor we considered in determining if title V is
unnecessarily burdensome is whether there are implementation and
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance
with the NESHAP without relying on title V permits. In the proposal, we
considered whether there are State programs in place to enforce these
area source NESHAP. We stated that we believe that the State programs
are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP. We also noted
that EPA retains authority to enforce these NESHAP anytime under CAA
sections 112, 113, and 114. We concluded that title V permitting is
``unnecessary'' to assure compliance with these NESHAP because the
statutory requirements for implementation and enforcement of these
NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA are sufficient to assure
compliance with these area source NESHAP without title V permits. We
also noted that small business assistance programs required by CAA
section 507 may be used to assist area sources that have been exempted
from title V permitting. Also, States and EPA often conduct voluntary
compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs (compliance
assistance programs), which are not required by statute. We determined
that these additional programs will supplement and enhance the success
of compliance with these area source NESHAP and concluded that in light
of all of the above, there are implementation and enforcement programs
in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP
without relying on title V permitting.
    In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only
enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted,
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to ensure
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the
NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. In proposing this rule, we did not have
similar data available on the specific enforcement as in the Exemption
rule, but we have no reason to think that States will be less diligent
in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have
adequate programs to enforce the section 112 regulations and provide
assurances that it will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate the
program. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E.
    In light of all of the above, we conclude that there are
implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to
assure compliance with the Wood Preserving NESHAP without relying on
title V permitting.
    Balancing the four factors for this area source category strongly
supports the proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome.
While title V might add additional compliance requirements if imposed,
we concluded that there would not be significant improvements to the
compliance requirements in the NESHAP because the requirements in this
final rule are specifically designed to assure compliance with the
standards and management practices imposed on this area source
category. We also concluded that the economic and non-economic costs of
compliance with title V, in conjunction with the likely difficulty this
large number of small sources would have obtaining assistance from the
permitting authority, would impose a significant burden on the sources.
We determined that the high relative costs would not be justified given
that there is likely to be little or no potential gain in compliance if
title V were required. And, finally, there are adequate implementation
and enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP.
Thus, we conclude that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' for the Wood Preserving area source category.
    In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome'', EPA also considered at
proposal, consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history
of section 502(a), whether exempting the Wood Preserving area source
category from title V requirements would adversely affect public
health, welfare, or the environment. Exemption of the Wood Preserving
area source category from title V requirements would not adversely
affect public health, welfare, or the environment because the level of
control would remain the same if a permit were required. The title V
permit program does not impose new substantive air quality control
requirements on sources, but instead requires that certain procedural
measures be followed, particularly with respect to determining
compliance with applicable requirements. As stated in our consideration
of factor one for this category, title V would not lead to significant
improvements in the compliance requirements applicable to existing or
new area sources.
    Furthermore, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting
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. In this case, however, placing all
requirements for the sources in a title V permit would do little to
clarify the requirements applicable to the sources or assist them in
compliance with those requirements because of the simplicity of the
sources and the NESHAP, and the fact that these sources are not subject
to other NESHAP or to other requirements under the CAA. We have no
reason to think that new sources would be substantially different from
the existing sources. In addition, we explained in the Exemption Rule
that requiring permits for the large number of area sources could, at
least in the first few years of implementation, potentially adversely
affect public health, welfare, or the environment by shifting State
agency resources away from assuring compliance for major sources with
existing permits to issuing new permits for these area sources,
potentially reducing overall air program effectiveness. For the final
rule, we conclude that title V exemptions for the wood preserving area
sources will not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment for all of the reasons explained above.
    For the foregoing reasons, we are exempting the Wood Preserving
area source category from title V permitting requirements.

V. Summary of Comments and Responses

    We received a total of 18 comments on the proposed NESHAP from
seven industry trade associations, representatives of eight affected
facilities, one environmental group, and two State agencies during the
public comment period. Sections V.A through V.J of this preamble
provide responses to the significant public comments received on the
proposed NESHAP.

A. Basis for Area Source Standards

    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's decision to issue GACT
standards pursuant to section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT standards
pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), for six of the seven area
source categories at issue in the proposed rule is arbitrary and
capricious because EPA provided no rationale for its decision to issue
GACT standards. The commenter makes this argument for the following six
source categories: Acrylic and modacrylic fibers production, carbon
black production, chemical manufacturing: Chromium compounds, flexible
polyurethane foam production/flexible polyurethane foam fabrication,
and lead acid battery manufacturing.
    Response: As the commenter itself recognizes, in section 112(d)(5),
Congress gave EPA explicit authority to issue alternative emission
standards for area sources. Specifically, section 112(d)(5), which is
entitled ``Alternative standard for area sources,'' provides:

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

    There are two critical aspects to section 112(d)(5). First, section
112(d)(5) applies only to those categories and subcategories of area
sources listed pursuant to section 112(c). The commenter does not
dispute that EPA listed the six area source categories noted above
pursuant to section 112(c)(3). Second, section 112(d)(5) provides that
for area sources listed pursuant to section 112(c), EPA ``may, in lieu
of'' the authorities provided in section 112(d)(2) and 112(f), elect to
promulgate standards pursuant to section 112(d)(5). Section 112(d)(2)
provides that emission standards established under that provision
``require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions'' of HAP (also
known as MACT). Section 112(d)(3), in turn, defines what constitutes
the ``maximum degree of reduction in emissions'' for new and existing
sources. See section 112(d)(3). \5\ Webster's dictionary defines the
phrase ``in lieu of'' to mean ``in the place of'' or ``instead of.''
See Webster's II New Riverside University (1994). Thus, section
112(d)(5) authorizes EPA to promulgate standards under section
112(d)(5) that provide for the use of generally available control
technologies or management practices (GACT), instead of issuing MACT
standards pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). The statute does
not set any condition precedent for issuing standards under section
112(d)(5) other than that the area source category or subcategory at
issue must be one that EPA listed pursuant to section 112(c), which is
the case here.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Specifically, section 112(d)(3) sets the minimum degree of
emission reduction that MACT standards must achieve, which is known
as the MACT floor. For new sources, the degree of emission reduction
shall not be less stringent than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source, and for
existing sources, the degree of emission reduction shall not be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of the existing sources for which the
Administrator has emissions information. Section 112(d)(2) directs
EPA to consider whether more stringent--so called beyond-the-floor
limits--are technologically achievable considering, among other
things, the cost of achieving the emission reduction.
    \6\ Section 112(d)(5) also references section 112(f). See CAA
section 112(f)(5) (entitled ``Area Sources'' and providing that EPA
is not required to conduct a review or promulgate standards under
section 112(f) for any area source category or subcategory listed
pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and for which an emission standard is
issued pursuant to section 112(d)(5)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter argues that EPA must provide a rationale for issuing
GACT standards under section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT standards. The
commenter is incorrect, however. Had Congress intended that EPA first
conduct a MACT analysis for each area source category and only if cost
or some other reason made applying the MACT standard inappropriate for
the category would EPA be able to issue a standard under section
112(d)(5), Congress would have stated so expressly in section
112(d)(5). Congress did not require EPA to conduct any MACT analysis,
floor analysis or beyond-the-floor analysis, before the Agency could
issue a section 112(d)(5) standard. Rather, Congress authorized EPA to
issue GACT standards for area source categories listed under section
112(c)(3), and that is precisely what EPA has done in this rulemaking.
    Although EPA has no obligation to justify why it is issuing a GACT
standard for an area source category as opposed to a MACT standard, EPA
must set a GACT standard that is consistent with the requirements of
section 112(d)(5) and have a reasoned basis for its GACT determination.
As explained in the proposed rule and below, in determining what
constitutes GACT for a particular area source category, EPA evaluates