### 9 9 D-1 

# Appendi

x D Calcag ni Me morandum

This a ppendix cont ains a re produc ti on of a Memorandum f

rom Jo hn Calga gni e nti tl ed, " Limi tations of Poten tial to Em it with R espect to T itle V A pplicab ility Thresho lds," da ted S eptem ber 1 8, 19 92. "The t ext you are vie wing i s a c omputer -ge nerated or r ety ped ver si on of

a pape r phot ocopy

of t he origi nal. Although considerable e ffort has been expended to qualit y ass ure the conversi on, it may con tain typ ogra ph ical erro rs. T o ob tain a legal c opy o f the o rigin al do cum ent, a s it curr ently exis ts , t he re ader

shoul d cont act

the off ice that originate d the cor res pondence or provi ded the respon se."Appendix D

_____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________

D-2 2.0-9/99 United States Environmental Prot ection Agency Offi ce of Air Qual it

y Pl anningand Sta

ndards Research Tr iang le Park, North Carol ina 27711 Sep 18 1992 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Limi tation o f Pot enti al to Emi t wi th Res pect to Ti tl e V Applic abil it y Thr eshol ds
FR OM: John Calcagni, Director

Air Qual it

y Manag ementDivi si on (MD-15) TO: W illiam A . Spra tlin, Directo r

A ir an d T ox ics D ivisi on , R egio n V II This is to acknowledge receipt of your August 6,1992 mem orandum to John S eitz requesting guidance with resp ect to a State 's ability to u tilize a T itle V perm it, or oth er fed erally-en force able me ans , to lim it the potential to emit for various purposes. Before addressing y our specifi c questions, some background review will be helpful . We recognize that sou rces m ay wish to lim it their p oten tial to em it by acc eptin g vo lun tary limits to avo id b eing sub ject to more s tr inge nt r equirement s. The voluntar y l imi t must

be fe dera ll y e nfor ceabl e. Thi s i s i ndicated in t he definit ion of "potenti al to e mit" contai ned in 40 C FR 7 0.2. There are sever al mechanisms that wil l all ow sources t o adopt federal ly- enforceable restri ctions on t heir potenti al to e mit. The preamble discussi on on voluntary limits in the Part 70 rule for operating permits program s is a useful summ ary of these app roache s (see 57 FR 322 50, 3 227 9, Ju ly 21, 19 92). A source that emits crit eria pol lutants may be subject to a federally-e nforceable r estri ction on it s potentia l to em it eithe r un der a n ex isting State prec ons tructio n rev iew o r a no n-T itle V State ope rating perm its pro gram that h as be en a pp rove d in to a S tate im plem enta tion p lan (S IP). T hes e op tions wer e disc usse d in the preamble to t

he final r ule: Requirements for

the Preparati on, Adoption, and Su bmittal of Impl ement ati on Plans; Approva l and Promul gat ion o f I mplement ati on Plans, 54 FR 27274, June 28, 1989. Altho ugh we do no t have extensi ve expe ri ence with impl ement ing t his rul e, we bel iev e the pre amble and rule adequately

describe t

he process Stat es and sources would use to l imit potent ial to emit. A source using this approach t o take fe derally -enforce able conditi ons so as to not be "major" for Title V purposes would not have to obtain a Tit le V permit (ass uming, of course, t hat the Stat e Title V program does not otherwise apply

to the sour ce). It, t

herefore, would not have to meet Titl e V permit requirements. For sour ces emit

ti ng haza rdous ai r pol lut ants li st ed i n sec ti on 112(b) , t he Agency

is al so c onsi dering al lowi ng State s to us e pro gram s app rove d u nd er sec tion 1 12 (1) as a me ans of de velop ing fe dera lly-enfo rceab le li mit s on t

he pot enti al to e mit , i f s uch an a pproa ch i s l egal ly

permi ssible. Impl ement ati on of thi s co ncept wil l r equire the re soluti on of many i ssue s and wi llbe addr ess ed i n for thco ming gui dance is sued pur suant to s ect ion 112. It

is al so pos si ble to l imi t asour ce' s pot enti al to e mitthr ough the Title V permit ti ng process. Indeed, W ayne Leidwan ger and Josh Tapp of your staff indicated that N ebraska wishes to use Tit le V permit s t o cr eat e various , f eder ally- enfo rce able emis si ons l imi tations . Thi s can be done in a num ber of w ays. Som e sources may be issued a general permit und er the Part 70 op erating permits program for the p urpose of avoid ing classification as a major sou rce. If a source a bove a certain em issions level is su bject to m oreCalcagni Memorandum

_____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________



### 9 9 D-3 stringent requirements, in some situati ons a general permit may be developed to contain a principal requirement that

would limit a s ource' s potentia l to emit to below that

level of emissi ons (see 57 FR at 32278 ). This approach can be used for either criteri a or hazardous air pollutants . The primary advantage of a generalpermit is that i t involve s str eamlined procedures for processi ng. If a ge neral permit

is not used, a source could obtain the standard Titl e V permit. However, we believe thi s appr oach wo uld i nvol ve additi onal eff ort for the sour ce and for

the permi tt ing a

uthorit y. Becaus e the sou rce w ould be su bje ct to th e full so urce -spec ified p erm it issua nce proc ess, it w ould be re qu ired to individuall y develop t

he periodic monitoring, reporting, and compliance certifi cation as pects requir ed of all Title V permitted source s. Although more burdensome for the source, t he State may wish t o take advantage o f t

hese proc edura l r equirement s t o as sure tha t t he fe dera ll y- enfo rce able condi ti ons are be ing adhered to. Be cau se T itle V perm itting is lik ely to be mo re pro ced urally rig orou s than the o ther a pp roach es, T itle V is prob ably not th e preferred option for the S tate to use. In oth er word s, we b elieve it wou ld be m ore complicated for

a State or

source to use a Title V permit to avoid being considered a major source for Tit le V purpose s. We beli eve t he ot her o pti ons mentione d above (e. g., cons tr ucti on per

mit s or oper ating perm its program s that hav e been app roved into a SIP ) accom plish th e goal in a m ore straightforw ard ma nn er. W e are, h ow ever, con tinu ally inv estiga ting a pp roach es to d evelo pin g fed erally-en force able limits on poten tial t o emit, and w e will inform you of any additional options. Co nce rnin g the perm it fee issu e you raised , it is imp ortan t to realiz e tha t State s hav e con side rable flexibi lit y in dete rmining which sources must pay permit fees as long as they

maintain fee pr ograms that result in the col lecti on, in the aggre gate, of suffic ient funds to pay for al l permit program costs. It is not necessary

for al l permitt ed sources to be charged a permit fee. Similarly, i t is also not neces sary for Sta tes to ch arg e a p erm it fee ba sed on po ten tial to em it, b ut th ey m ay. If yo u have anyfurther

questions , pl eas e contact Gwen Holfi eld of my

st aff at(919) 541-2343.
cc: J. S eitz L. Wegm an B. Jordan T. W ill iamson M . W iner D ivisi on D irec tor, R egio ns I-VI a nd V III-XAppendix D

_____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________

D-4 2.0-9/99