1

CAA § 110(l) Analysis

– Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2

– September 26, 2012 CAA Section 110(l) Analysis of BAAQMD Permit Exemption Provisions in Regulation 2, Rule 1

Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7410, requires that when a state revises its State Implementation Plan (SIP) , EPA may not approve the revision if it would interfere with any requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement. EPA Region IX Staff have requested that the Air District prepare an analysis of any changes to the exemptions provided in the current EPA

- approved version of Regulation 2, Rule 1 that is part of the California SIP. EPA Region IX Staff have expressed a concern that if additional sources for which permits are required under the current SIP are exempted, that could potentially implicate requirements related to attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements. This analysis responds to EPA Region IX Staff’s request, and will help EPA in reviewing the revised Regulation 2, Rule 1 for SIP approval under Section 110(l).

This analysis compares the exemptions contained in Regulation 2, Rule 1 in the Proposed Amendments with the most recent EPA

- approved regulations in the State Implementation Plan. The analysis includes revisions to the exemptions that will be ma de as part of the Proposed Amendments, and also prior revisions that have been made in earlier amendments adopted by the Boar d of Directors that have not yet been reviewed by EPA. The analysis concludes that the revisions to the District’s permitting exem ptions under the Proposed Amendments (and those made in earlier amendments since the most recent EPA

- approved version) will not interfere with any requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable CAA requirement.

There are several reasons that support this conclusion. First, as a general reason that applies to all amendments, the Air District’s regulatory program as a whole

– including the NSR permitting
program – ensure s that the Bay Area is consistent with all C AA requirements for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS and making reasonable further progress. The Air District, along with its sister agencies that help administer some applicable requirements, have satisfied all CAA requirements concerning attainment a nd reasonable further progress toward attainment of the NAAQS. 1 In doing so, the Air District has taken into account the fact that there will be a certain amount of emissions growth from ne w and modified sources in the Bay Area, including sources that are exempt from permitting requirements under the exemptions provided in Regulation 2, Rule 1. Even with such growth, air qualit y in the Bay Area is in compliance with the NAAQS or on a path to achieving that goal. The Air District’s satisfaction of and com pliance with all CAA requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress has been achieved taking into account that there will be growth in emissions from exempt sources, and nothing in the exemptions provided in Regulation 2, R ule 1 undermi nes or interferes with the District’s satisfaction of or compliance with any such requirement. Thus, as a general matter applicable to all of Regulation 2, Rule 1, there is nothing in any of the revised exemption provisions that would prohibit SIP
approva l under CAA Section 110(l)

. 2

Furthermore, looking at each individual revised exemption provision, there is no evidence on which to conclude that any of th em will authorize any unpermitted source s in a manner that would interfere with any applicable requi rement concerning attainment or reasonable further progress or any other CAA requirement. This exemption

- by

- exemption analysis is set forth in the table below.

1 With respect to PM 2.5 , the Air Distric t will be satisfying its requirements through documentation and analysis being prepared concurrently with the proposed amendm ents, which will be submitted for EPA review and approval.

2 This analysis is discussed further in Section IV.B.3.a. of the Staff R eport for the proposed amendments, drawing on technical analysis in the memorandum by C. Lee entitled “Analysis of Compliance with 40 C.F.R. § 51.169(a)&(b)” (August 2012). Please see that discussion for further information.2

CAA § 110(l) Analysis

– Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2

– September 26, 2012 Exemption Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP? Interfere with

re quirements related to attainment or RFP? Basis for Conclusions

2

- 1

- 103 Sources not subject to any District

rule. Yes No Per the limitations in Section 2

- 1

- 319, this exemption exempts only sources with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important re quirements). Such sources are well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles addressed in Alabama Power v. C ostle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements

. The s ources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more than 50% of e ven the lowest such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions f rom de minimis permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases from new sources expected in the coming years

– including from sources exempt from District permitting requirements

– will jeopardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details.

2

- 1

- 105 CARB

- registered por table

equipment Yes No This equipment is regulated at the state level by the Air Resources Board. ARB regulation establishes effective emissions controls, including requirements such as BACT. ARB regulations (i.e., valid PERP registration) pre

- empts Dist rict permitting of such equipment, and so the District does not have jurisdiction to require permits for this equipment. See HSC §§ 41752

– 41754. Effective ARB regulation will ensure that emissions from such equipment will not interfere with requirement s related to attainment or reasonable further progress.

2

- 1

- 106 Accelerated Permitting Program Yes No This is not a true permitting exemption. It is an exemption from the Authority to Construct requirement only, for situations where a source will be perm itted under the Accelerated Permitting Program. Such sources will still be subject to NSR permitting requirements, it is just that they will obtain a Permit to Operate without first obtaining an Authority to Construct. Accordingly, this is not an exempti on from the substantive NSR requirement to obtain a permit and comply with all applicable NSR elements. As such, it will not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable further progress or any other applicable CAA requirement.3

CAA § 110(l) Analysis

– Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2

– September 26, 2012 Exemption Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP? Interfere with

re quirements related to attainment or RFP? Basis for Conclusions

2

- 1

- 113 .1.1 Single and multiple family

dwellings No N/A * In current SIP, 2

- 1

- 113.1 and

- 113.2

2

- 1

- 113.1.2 Agricultural sources Yes No This exemption is part of a revision to District regulations to start permitting agricultural sources. Under the most recent SI P

- approved version of District regulations, agricultural sources were subject to blanket exclusion/exemption provisi ons under Regulations 1

- 110 .5 ( “agriculture operations” ) and 2

- 1

- 113.7 ( “ farming operations ” ). The District has revised its rules and is no w requiring permits for agricultural operations with emissions over 50 tons per year. This provision continues to exempt agricultural operations below that threshold. This change is therefore a narrowing of the exemption for such sources, not an expansio n of the exemption. As such, it is not a relaxation from the current SIP rules

– it is actually making the permitting requirements more stringent in this regard

– and it will not interfere with requirements related to attainment or RFP.

2

- 1

- 113.1.3 Vehi cles No N/A* Vehicles are not stationary sources and have never been regulated under NSR. They have never been permitted under the District’s SIP

- approved NSR program, and the District has never even had any jurisdicti on to require permitting per HSC 4231 0(a)(1)

. Emissions from vehicle engines are excluded from regulation under the District’s regulations

– including Regulation 2

– under current SIP

- approved Reg. 1

- 110.1 (which incorporates by reference the definition of “vehicle” in the Vehicle Code)

. Sp ecifying that they are exempt from permitting will not change their regulatory treatment under the District’s SIP

- approved regulations

. 2

- 1

- 113.1.4 Tank vehicles No N/A* Tank vehicles (e.g., gasoline delivery trucks) are also mobile sources that the Dis trict does not regulate and has never regulated. See also basis for Section 2

- 1

- 113.1.3 exemption regarding vehicles

. 2

- 1

- 113.2.1 Road construction No N/A* In current SIP, 2

- 1

- 113.4 2

- 1

- 113.2.2 Restaurants No N/A* In current SIP, 2

- 1

- 113.5

2

- 1

- 113.2.3 Structural changes that do not

affect emissions No N/A* In current SIP, 2

- 1

- 113.6

2

- 1

- 113.2.4 Abatement devices used on

equipment that is exempt from permitting No N/A* In current SIP, 2

- 1

- 113.1

2

- 1

- 113.2. 5 Architectural and industrial

maintenance coatin g operations subject to Regulations 8

- 3 and 8

- Yes No These maintenance operations are subject to the District’s coating regulations in Regulations 8

- 3 and 8

- 48, and emissions from them will be controlled without permitting. Compliance with requirements related to attainment and reasonable further progress has been satisfied accounting for emissions from4

CAA § 110(l) Analysis

– Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2

– September 26, 2012 Exemption Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP? Interfere with

re quirements related to attainment or RFP? Basis for Conclusions

48 coating operations in the Bay Area. Such operations will not interfere with any such requirements, even without being subject to NSR permitting.

2

- 1

- 113.2.6 Portable equipment used for tank

degassing or vacuum truck control requirements under Reg. 8

- 5, 8

- 40, or 8

- 53 Yes No This equipment is subject to the District’s degassing requirements in Regulations 8

- 3 and 8

- 48, and emissions from them will be co ntrolled without permitting. Compliance with requirements related to attainment and reasonable further progress has been satisfied account ing for emissions from s uch degassing operation s in the Bay Area. Such operations will not interfere with any suc h requirements, even without being subject to NSR permitting.

2

- 1

- 113.2. 7 PUC

- regulated natural gas

transmission and storage equipment Yes No Natural gas in essentially non

- reactive and does not contribute to ozone formation and will not substantially con tribute to ozone concentrations, and will not substantially contribute to concentrations of any other criteria pollutant. Thus even if there were emissions from such equipment, it would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS.

2

- 1

- 113.2. 11 Classroom teaching laboratories Yes No Classroom teaching laboratories are limited in scope within the Bay Area are not significant contributors to the region’s emissions inventory of criteria air pollutants. Emissions from m iscellaneous processes such as these are included in the analyses and demonstrations that the Air District makes for compliance with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress. Allowing such classroom teaching laboratory activities without requiring an NSR permit will not interfere with any such requirements.

2

- 1

- 113.2. 12 Laboratories <25,000 ft 2 /50 fume

hoods that use Responsible Laboratory Management Practices Yes No Emissions from laboratory activities that are below the size cutoff established in this exemption and which use Responsible Laboratory Management Practices are limited in scope within the Bay Area are not significant contributors to the region’s emissions inventory of criteria air pollutants. Emissions fro m miscellaneous processes such as these are included in the analyses and demonstrations that the Air District makes for compliance with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress. Allowing such laboratory activities with out requiring an NSR permit will not interfere with any such requirements.

2

- 1

- 113.2. 13 Venting residual natural gas for

pipeline maintenance operations Yes No Natural gas in essentially non

- reactive and does not contribute to ozone formation and will not substantially contribute to ozone concentrations, and will not substantially contribute to concentrations of any other criteria pollutant. Venting any residual gas that remains in pipelines when maintenance is performed will therefore not interfere with requirements related to attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS. 2

- 1

- 113.2.15 Asbestos renovation under Reg. Yes No There is no NAAQS for asbestos, so even if asbestos removal that complies with Reg. 11

- 2 did have any5

CAA § 110(l) Analysis

– Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2

– September 26, 2012 Exemption Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP? Interfere with

re quirements related to attainment or RFP? Basis for Conclusions

11

- 2 potential to emit some asbestos f ibers, such emissions would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS.

2

- 1

- 113.2.16 Closed landfills <1M tons Yes No The District exempts such landfills from NSR permitting requirements because they are not signif icant sources of emissions and are no longer active operations receiving waste. EPA has not subjected such landfill sources to its NSPS guidelines requirements, and the District has exempted them from its NSR permitting requirements for the same reason. These landfill sources are not significant emissions sources and have been taken into account in complying with applicable requirements related to attainment and reasonable further progress.

2

- 1

- 113.2.17 Closed landfills 30+ years old Yes No The Distric t exempts such landfills from NSR permitting requirements because they are not significant sources of emissions and are no longer active operations receiving waste. EPA has not subjected such landfill sources to its NSPS guidelines requirements, and the D istrict has exempted them from its NSR permitting requirements for the same reason. These landfill sources are not significant emissions sources and have been taken into account in complying with applicable requirements related to attainment and reasonabl e further progress.

2

- 1

- 113.2.18 Construction of structure that

does not require a permit Yes No The District has never regulated construction activities as a regulated activity in and of itself (as opposed to requiring an authority to construct for per mitted sources, regulating certain types of equipment that may be used in construction, etc.). This exemption simply codifies that practice. Allowing such construction activities without requiring permits will not interfere with any applicable requiremen ts related to attainment and reasonable further progress. The District has satisfied all applicable requirements related to attainment and reasonable further progress taking construction activities into account regardless of whether they will be permitted or unpermitted, and allowing them to take place without requiring an NSR permit will not interfere with such requirements.

2

- 1

- 113.2.19 Vacuum trucks subject to Reg. 8

-

53 Yes No The District has never regulated vacuum truck operations, and historic ally it has not required permits for such operations because there have not been any regulatory requirements applicable to them. The District has recently (as of April 2012) started regulating vacuum truck operations under Regulation 8, Rule 53. This exem ption was added to specify that although such operations are regulated under 8

- 53, they will not be subject to permit requirements. The District’s rules will be more stringent as a result of these changes, as emissions from such operations will now be reg ulated. Emissions from vacuum truck operations will be controlled under Regulation 8

- 53 even without permitting. Compliance with requirements related to attainment and reasonable further progress has been based on accounting for6

CAA § 110(l) Analysis

– Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2

– September 26, 2012 Exemption Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP? Interfere with

re quirements related to attainment or RFP? Basis for Conclusions

emissions from refineries and other industrial facilities tha t u se vacuum trucks. V acuum truck operations eligible for this exemption were also specifically identified in the District’s 2010 Clean Air Plan, in Stationary Source Measure SSM

- 5. Such operations will not interfer e with any such requirements, even without being subject to NSR permitting.

2

- 1

- 114 Combustion equipment Yes No This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been revised in several respects. The new provisions that have been added will not interfer e with requirements related to attainment , reasonable further progress, or other CAA requirements. Per the limitations in Section 2

- 1

- 319, this exemption exempts only sources with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important requirements). Such so urces are well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. The sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest such d e minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis permit ted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases from new sources expected in the coming years

– including fr om sources exempt from District permitting requirements

– will jeopardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details.

2

- 1

- 115 Particulate sources

– quarries

mineral process ing and biomass Yes No This is a new exemption that has been added since the most recent SIP version of Reg. 2

- 1. This new exemption will not interfere with requirements related to attainment , reasonable further progress, or other CAA requirements. Per th e limitations in Section 2

- 1

- 319, this exemption exempts only sources with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important requirements). Such sources are well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintain ing compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute to an7

CAA § 110(l) Analysis

– Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2

– September 26, 2012 Exemption Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP? Interfere with

re quirements related to attainment or RFP? Basis for Conclusions

exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant bei ng subject to NSR permitting requirements. The sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases from al l projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on p ollutant and year evaluated). Even if the total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable further progr ess toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases from new sources expected in the coming years

– including from sources exempt from District permitting requirements

– will jeopardize the District’s attainment effort s. See also Staff Report Section IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details.

2

- 1

- 116 Furnaces ovens and kilns Yes No This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been revised in several respects. The new provisions that have been added will not interfere with requirements related to attainment , reasonable further progress, or other CAA requirements. Per the limitations in Section 2

- 1

- 319, this exemption exempts only sources with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important requir ements). Such sources are well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles addressed in Alabama Power v. Costl e as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. The sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis levels, which showed that the total cont ribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases from new sources expected in the coming yea rs – including from sources exempt from District permitting requirements

– will jeopardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section8

CAA § 110(l) Analysis

– Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2

– September 26, 2012 Exemption Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP? Interfere with

re quirements related to attainment or RFP? Basis for Conclusions

IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details.

2

- 1

- 117 Food and agricultural equipment Y es No This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been revised in several respects. The new provisions that have been added will not interfere with requirements related to attainment , reasonable further progress, or other CAA requirements. Per the l imitations in Section 2

- 1

- 319, this exemption exempts only sources with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important requirements). Such sources are well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. The sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases from all p rojects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on poll utant and year evaluated). Even if the total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases from new sources expected in the coming years

– including from sources exempt from District permitting requirements

– will jeopardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details.

2

- 1

- 118 Surface preparation and cleaning

equipment Yes No This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been revised in several respects. The new provisions that h ave been added will not interfere with requirements related to attainment , reasonable further progress, or other CAA requirements. Per the limitations in Section 2

- 1

- 319, this exemption exempts only sources with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other i mportant requirements). Such sources are well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. The sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more th an 50% of even the lowest such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases9

CAA § 110(l) Analysis

– Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2

– September 26, 2012 Exemption Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP? Interfere with

re quirements related to attainment or RFP? Basis for Conclusions

from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases from new sources expected in the coming years

– including from sources exempt from District permitting requirements

– will jeopardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details.

2

- 1

- 119 Surface coating an d cleaning

equipment Yes No This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been revised in several respects. The new provisions that have been added will not interfere with requirements related to attainment , reasonable further progress, or other CAA re quirements. Per the limitations in Section 2

- 1

- 319, this exemption exempts only sources with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important requirements). Such sources are well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for p urposes of maintaining compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute to an exceedance of any NAAQS suffic ient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. The sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of the annual emission s increases from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% of the Bay Area’s total emissions invent ory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reaso nable further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases from new sources expected in the coming years

– including from sources exempt from District permitting requirements

– will jeopardize the District’ s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details.

2

- 1

- 120 Dry cleaning equipment Yes No This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been revised in several respects. To the extent that it i s any less stringent than the current SIP version, it will not interfere with requirements related to10

CAA § 110(l) Analysis

– Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2

– September 26, 2012 Exemption Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP? Interfere with

re quirements related to attainment or RFP? Basis for Conclusions

attainment , reasonable further progress, or other CAA requirements. Per the limitations in Section 2

- 1

- 319, this exemption exempts only sources with emis sions of less than 5 tpy (among other important requirements). Such sources are well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance w ith the principles addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. The sources eligible for this exemp tion will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below the se de minimis levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases from new sources expected in the coming years

– including from sources exempt from District permitting requirements

– will jeopardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for furth er details.

2

- 1

- 121 Material working and handling

equipment Yes No This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been revised in several respects. The new provisions that have been added will not interfere with requirements related to attainment , reas onable further progress, or other CAA requirements. Per the limitations in Section 2

- 1

- 319, this exemption exempts only sources with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important requirements). Such sources are well below the levels at which EPA co nsiders emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contrib ute to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. The sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff cond ucted an analysis of the annual emissions increases from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34%11

CAA § 110(l) Analysis

– Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2

– September 26, 2012 Exemption Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP? Interfere with

re quirements related to attainment or RFP? Basis for Conclusions

of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis permitted projects, they would not interfere with req uirements related to attainment or reasonable further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases from new sources expected in the coming years

– including from sources exempt from District permitting requ irements

– will jeopardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details.

2

- 1

- 122 Casting and molding equipment No N/A* No substantive change to the current SIP version. The only changes are a clarification that extrusion molding is a type of plastic molding covered by this exemption under subsection 2

- 1

- 122.4, and that certain mold release products are not subject to the exemption unless they involve very low amounts of VOC with annual facility VOC emissions under 150 lb/yr. To the extent that this exclusion for VOC mold release products was not already a part of the exemption, this revision makes the exemption more narrow and is a strengthening of the regulation, not a relaxatio n. Moreover, to the extent any Section 110(l) analysis is required, 150 lb/yr is a very low emissions limit and will not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable further progress for the same reasons provided for other exemptions up to 5 tons per year.

2

- 1

- 123 Liquid storage and loading

equipment Yes No This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been revised in several respects. The new provisions that have been added will not interfere with requirements related to attainme nt , reasonable further progress, or other CAA requirements. Per the limitations in Section 2

- 1

- 319, this exemption exempts only sources with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important requirements). Such sources are well below the levels at whic h EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. The sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest such de minimis level. Moreover, District St aff conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% t o 0.34% of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis12

CAA § 110(l) Analysis

– Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2

– September 26, 2012 Exemption Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP? Interfere with

re quirements related to attainment or RFP? Basis for Conclusions

permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases from new sources expected in the coming years

– including from sources exempt from District permitt ing requirements

– will jeopardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details.

2

- 1

- 124 Semiconductor manufacturing Yes No This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been revised in several respects. The new provisions that have been added will not interfere with requirements related to attainment , reasonable further progress, or other CAA requirements. Per the limitations in Section 2

- 1

- 319, this exemption exempts only s ources with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important requirements); and furthermore the language of the exemption restricts facility VOC emissions to 150 pounds per year. Such sources are well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions t o be de minimis for purposes of maintaining compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute to an exceedanc e of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. The sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis o f the annual emissions increases from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% of the Bay Area’s t otal emissions inventory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related t o attainment or reasonable further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases from new sources expected in the coming years

– including from sources exempt from District permitting requirements

– will jeo pardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details.

2

- 1

- 125 Printed circuit board

manufacturing Yes No This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been revised in several respects. The new provisions that have been added will not interfere with requirements related to attainment , reasonable further progress, or other CAA requirements. Per the limitations in Section 2

- 1

- 319, this exemption exempts only sources with emissio ns of less than 5 tpy (among other important requirements). Such sources are well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining13

CAA § 110(l) Analysis

– Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2

– September 26, 2012 Exemption Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP? Interfere with

re quirements related to attainment or RFP? Basis for Conclusions

compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. The sources eligible for this exemptio n will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the total emissions from all de minimis exe mpt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that in creases from new sources expected in the coming years

– including from sources exempt from District permitting requirements

– will jeopardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details.

2

- 1

- 126 Testing equipment No N/A* No substantive change to the current SIP version. The only changes are a clarification of the specific types of bench

- scale laboratory equipment that are covered under subsection 2

- 1

- 126 .2 . Moreover, to the ext ent any Section 110(l) analysis is required, this exemption is subject to the same 5 tpy limitation addressed in connection with other exemptions. The exemption will not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable further progress for the same reasons provided for other exemptions up to 5 tons per year.

2

- 1

- 127 Chemical processing equipment No N/A* No substantive change to the current SIP version. The only change was to revise the list of the types of metals that are processed in elec trolytic plating operations in order to make it more comprehensive. Moreover, to the extent any Section 110(l) analysis is required, this exemption is subject to the same 5 tpy limitation addressed in connection with other exemptions. The exemption will not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable further progress for the same reasons provided for other exemptions up to 5 tons per year.

2

- 1

- 128 Miscellaneous equipment Yes No This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been r evised in several respects. The new provisions that have been added will not interfere with requirements related to attainment , reasonable further progress, or other CAA requirements. Per the limitations in Section 2

- 1

- 319, this exemption exempts only so urces with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important requirements). Such sources are14

CAA § 110(l) Analysis

– Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2

– September 26, 2012 Exemption Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP? Interfere with

re quirements related to attainment or RFP? Basis for Conclusions

well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. The sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emis sions below these de minimis levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area d o not show that increases from new sources expected in the coming years

– including from sources exempt from District permitting requirements

– will jeopardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memora ndum) for further details.

Notes: *Section 110(l) applies to revisions to the SIP, so for exemptions where there is no revision to the District’s curren t SIP

- approved exemption Section 110(l) is not implicated and no analysis of interference with requirements related to attainm ent or reasonable further progress is required. (Although the District’s c ompliance with all applicable requirements relating to
att ain ment and reasonable further progress even with emissions growth from sources subject to permit exemptions would of course apply to these provisions as well, even if Section 110(l) were implicated. )