### Hi Paul,

In reviewing the prior final rule and the reproposa l, I wanted to better understand which of the four Title V factors for an exemption
were not met. The four factors are: 

### 1) Whether title V would result in significant improvements to the complianc e requirements, including monitoring, recordkeepin g, and reporting, that are proposed for an area source ca tegory (70 FR 75323) (2) whether title V permitting would impose signif icant burdens on the area source category and whet her the burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the sources may have in obtaining a ssistance from permitting agencies (70 FR 75324) (3) whether the costs of title V permitting for the area source category would be justified, taking i nto consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 75325) (4) whether there are implementation and enforcemen t programs in place that are sufficient to assure c ompliance with the NESHAP for the area source category, without relying on title V permits (70 FR 75326).

The following paragraph was presented in the final rule (and referred to in the 2012 proposed rule). W hich of the factors above are not met based on the following information (I’ve highlighte d what I think is the factual basis)? And in partic ular, which factor includes public participation? I didn’t include any excerpts from the proposal, as they seem to restate what was in t he rule, but if there’s a key piece of information that I missed in the proposal, please l et me know, and explain which of the four factors i t doesn’t meet: We proposed to exempt the sources in the chemical m anufacturing area source categories subject to this rule from compliance with the requirements of title V. Since proposal, we have reconsidered the proposed exempti on and determined that it is not appropriate to finalize the exemptio n for certain synthetic area sources. Specifically, in proposing the exemption for these categories, we did not consider the large num ber of synthetic
area sources that reduced their HAP emissions to be low the major source thresholds by installing air pollution control devi ces. The oversight occurred because most sources subject to the other area source rules that exempted facilities from title V permitting ha ve very low emissions before control (and most emit metal HAP). Conversely, for the chemical manufacturing area source category, we est imate 75 facilities are synthetic area sources for HAP and at least 10 percent of these
facilities have uncontrolled HAP emissions over 100 tpy. Therefore, in the final rule, title V permits are required for ar ea sources in the nine chemical manufacturing source categories that are synthetic area sources by virtue of the fact that they have reduce d their HAP emissions to below the major source thresholds by i nstalling air pollution control devices. We are, however, finaliz ing the exemption from the requirements of title V for those syntheti c area sources that limited their HAP emissions to below the major sour ce thresholds solely by complying with operational limits (e.g., limitin g the hours the



### RE: Revised CMAS Preamble Higgins, Cortney

to: Paul Versace 10/15/2012 03:38 PM
Cc: Penny Lassiter, JohnB Chamberlin, Nick Parsons Hide Details From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.g ov>

To: Paul Versace/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Penny Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, JohnB Chamberl in/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nick Parsons/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

## Page 1 of 3

10/15/2012 file://C:\Documents and Settings\nparsons\Local Set tings\Temp\notes87944B\~web7472.

...facility can operate) and for natural area sources, which are sources

that neither installed controls nor took operationa l limits to become an area source. The analysis in the proposed rule f inding that compliance with title V is unnecessarily burdensome on these source categories remains accurate for the sources we are exempting.

Based on our additional review of the source catego ries since proposal, we conclude that exemption for the synthe tic area sources that installed controls is not appropriate given th e facts associated with these sources as set forth below, and we do no t believe title V is unnecessarily burdensome on these area sources. Unl ike many other area source categories that we have exempted from title V while implementing the requirements of CAA sections 112(c)(3) and 112( k)(3)(B), the nine chemical manufacturing area source categories inclu de a large number of synthetic area sources that installed air pollution controls to become area sources. We evaluated other area source catego ries and determined that most sources subject to the other area source rules that exempted facilities from title V permitting have very low em issions before control. For the chemical manufacturing area source categories, we
estimate that at least seven of the 47 facilities t hat are synthetic area sources for HAP by virtue of installing contro ls would have uncontrolled HAP emissions over 100 tons per year. Synthetic area sources that installed controls represent more than 10 percent of the total number of sources that will be subject to the final rule. In fact, these sources are much more like the major so urces of HAP subject to the HON and the MON. In addition, many of these sources are located in cities, and often in close proximity to resident ial and commercial centers where large numbers of people live and work . The record also indicates that many of these synthetic area sources have significantly higher emissions potential when uncontrolled than t he other sources in the nine chemical manufacturing area source categor ies. For example, we
have identified seven facilities that have uncontro lled emissions that exceed 100 tpy. For these reasons, we believe that the additional p ublic participation and compliance benefits of additional informational, monitoring, reporting, certification, and enforceme nt requirements that exist in title V should be the same for a major sou rce that installed a
control device after 1990 to become an area source as for a source that is major and installed a control device to comply w ith an applicable major source NESHAP, and thereby reduced emissions below major source levels (10 tpy of a single HAP or 25 tpy of total H AP). Many of the synthetic area sources that became area sources by virtue of installing add-on controls are large facilities with comprehen sive compliance programs in place because their uncontrolled emissi ons would far exceed the major source threshold. We maintain that requir ing additional public involvement and compliance assurance require ments through title V is important to ensure that these sources are mai ntaining their emissions at the area source level and, while there is some burden on the affected facilities, we think that the burden i s not significant because these facilities are generally larger and m ore sophisticated

than the natural area sources and sources that took operational limits

to become area sources. For these reasons above, we have decided not to finalize the title V exemption for these facilities.

Thanks, Cortney

From: Nick Parsons [ mailto:Parsons.Nick@epamail.epa.gov ]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 4:00 PM
To: Higgins, Cortney Cc: Paul Versace; Penny Lassiter; JohnB Chamberlin Subject: Revised CMAS Preamble 

## Page 2 of 3

10/15/2012 file://C:\Documents and Settings\nparsons\Local Set tings\Temp\notes87944B\~web7472.

...Hi Cortney,

Attached are our revisions and responses to the lat est interagency comments. A clean copy of the pream ble is also attached.

Thanks,

Nick 

## Page 3 of 3

10/15/2012 file://C:\Documents and Settings\nparsons\Local Set tings\Temp\notes87944B\~web7472.

...