Hi Paul,

In reviewing the prior final rule and the reproposal, 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 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)

(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).

The following paragraph was presented in the final rule (and referred to in the 2012 proposed rule). Which of the factors above are not met 

based on the following information (I’ve highlighted what I think is the factual basis)? And in particular, which factor includes public 

participation? I didn’t include any excerpts from the proposal, as they seem to restate what was in the rule, but if there’s a key piece of 

information that I missed in the proposal, please let me know, and explain which of the four factors it doesn’t meet:

We proposed to exempt the sources in the chemical manufacturing area source categories subject to 

this rule from compliance with the requirements of title V. Since 

proposal, we have reconsidered the proposed exemption and determined 

that it is not appropriate to finalize the exemption for certain 

synthetic area sources. Specifically, in proposing the exemption for 

these categories, we did not consider the large number of synthetic 

area sources that reduced their HAP emissions to below the major source 

thresholds by installing air pollution control devices. The oversight 

occurred because most sources subject to the other area source rules 

that exempted facilities from title V permitting have very low 

emissions before control (and most emit metal HAP). Conversely, for the 

chemical manufacturing area source category, we estimate 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 area sources in the 

nine chemical manufacturing source categories that are synthetic area 

sources by virtue of the fact that they have reduced their HAP 

emissions to below the major source thresholds by installing air 

pollution control devices. We are, however, finalizing the exemption 

from the requirements of title V for those synthetic area sources that 

limited their HAP emissions to below the major source thresholds solely 

by complying with operational limits (e.g., limiting 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.gov> 

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

Cc: Penny Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, JohnB Chamberlin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nick 

Parsons/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Page 1 of 3

file://C:\Documents and Settings\nparsons\Local Settings\Temp\notes87944B\~web7472.... 10/15/2012
facility can operate) and for natural area sources, which are sources 

that neither installed controls nor took operational limits to become 

an area source. The analysis in the proposed rule finding 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 categories since 

proposal, we conclude that exemption for the synthetic area sources 

that installed controls is not appropriate given the facts associated 

with these sources as set forth below, and we do not believe title V is 

unnecessarily burdensome on these area sources. Unlike 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 include a large number of 

synthetic area sources that installed air pollution controls to become 

area sources. We evaluated other area source categories and determined 

that most sources subject to the other area source rules that exempted 

facilities from title V permitting have very low emissions before 

control. For the chemical manufacturing area source categories, we 

estimate that at least seven of the 47 facilities that are synthetic 

area sources for HAP by virtue of installing controls 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 sources 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 residential 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 the other sources in 

the nine chemical manufacturing area source categories. For example, we 

have identified seven facilities that have uncontrolled emissions that 

exceed 100 tpy. 

For these reasons, we believe that the additional public 

participation and compliance benefits of additional informational, 

monitoring, reporting, certification, and enforcement requirements that 

exist in title V should be the same for a major source 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 with an applicable 

major source NESHAP, and thereby reduced emissions below major source 

levels (10 tpy of a single HAP or 25 tpy of total HAP). Many of the 

synthetic area sources that became area sources by virtue of installing 

add-on controls are large facilities with comprehensive compliance 

programs in place because their uncontrolled emissions would far exceed 

the major source threshold. We maintain that requiring additional 

public involvement and compliance assurance requirements through title 

V is important to ensure that these sources are maintaining their 

emissions at the area source level and, while there is some burden on 

the affected facilities, we think that the burden is not significant 

because these facilities are generally larger and more 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

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

Hi Cortney, 

Attached are our revisions and responses to the latest interagency comments. A clean copy of the preamble is also attached. 

Thanks, 

Nick

Page 3 of 3

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