### Technical Support Document

for EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

for R evisions to the

California State Implementation Plan

South Coast Air Quality Management District

Rule 1325

Federal PM 2.5 

### New Source Review Program

Prepared by:

La Weeda Ward and Laura Yannayon

Reviewed by:

Gerardo Rios

Air Division, Permits Office United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX

San Francisco, California February 1 3

, 201 5ii Table of Contents

1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 1

2 NNSR Program SIP Revision Submittal

................................ ................................ ............................. 1

3 Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 1

4 Rule Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 4

4.1 Applicability

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 4

4.2 Definitions

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5

4.3 Requirements

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 5

4.4 Emissions Calculations

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 6

4.5 Plantwide Application Limitation

................................ ................................ ................................ 6

4.6 Two Year Limit on Facility Exemption

................................ ................................ ....................... 6

4.7 Recordkeeping Requirements

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 6

4.8 Test Methods

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 7

5 Rule Evaluation

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 7

5.1 CAA Title I, Subpart 4 Requirements

................................ ................................ ........................ 14

5.2 Section 110(l) of the Act

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 17

5.3 Section 193 of the Act

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 18

6 EPA’s Proposed Action

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 181



### 1 Introduction

Portions of the South Coast Air Basin 1 are currently designated as moderate nonattainment

areas for the 1997 and 2006 24

- hour and annual PM 2.5 standards. 79 FR 31566, 31586

– 31601 (June 2, 2014 amending 40 CFR 81.305). The South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SC AQMD or the District) is th e regulatory agency with jurisdiction over a large portion of the

four

- county area that make s up the South Coast Air Basin.

Part D , Sections 172(c)(5) and 189(a)(1)(A) of the Cle an Air Act (CAA or Act)

, require each

state in which a moderate PM 2.5 nonatta inment is located to sub mit an implementation plan that

includes the provisions set forth in Section 173 of the CAA

. Section 189(a)(1)(A) provides: “F or the purpose of meeting the requirements of section 7502(c)(5) of this title, a permit program providing that permits meeting the requirements of section 7503 of this title are required for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sou rces of PM 10 ”

. 2 The requirements in Section 173 of the CAA are referred to as “Nonattainment New Source Review ,” or simply N NSR

. The NNSR program appl ies to “major stationary sources” and “major

modifications” as those terms are defined in CAA Section 302 and 40 CFR Part

51 .165 ( a ) (1) (iv)(A)(1) and (a) (1) (v)(A)

.

T he District currently has a robust N NSR program for other pollutants not in attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

, but its SIP

- approved NNSR program does not yet regulate PM 2. 5

. Rule 1325 contains the NNSR permit requirements for major

sources and major modification of PM 2.5 emissions. The purpose of this Technical Support Document (TSD) is to set forth the basis for t he United States Envir onmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’ s) proposed approval of Rule 1325 for inclusion in th e SIP.



### 2 N NSR Program SIP Revision Submittal

SC AQMD’s Governing Board adopted Rule 1325

– Federal PM 2.5 New Source Review Program on December 5

, 2014 . The California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted the rule

to EPA for inclusion in the California SIP on December 29, 2014

.

C ARB is the G overnor’s designee for submitting official revisions of the California SIP to
EPA, and S C AQMD is the local agency responsible for regulating the construction and

modifi cation of stationary sources within the South Coast Air Basin, Salton Sea Air Basin , and a portion of the Mojave Desert Air Basin

.



### 3 Background

Airborne particulate matter with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less are considered to be “fine particles,” and are also known as PM 2.5 . Fine particles in the

1 See 40 CFR Part 81.305 for a description of the air basin.

2 For a further discussion about why Section 189 applies to PM 2.5 as well as PM 10 , see NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).2

atmosphere are made up of a complex mixture of components, including sulfat e, nitrate, ammonium, elemental carbon, organic compounds, and inorganic material. There are substantial health effects associated with exposure to PM 2.5 emissions . Epidemiological studies have shown a significant correlation between elevated PM 2.5 levels and premature mortality. Other important

health effects associated with PM 2.5 exposure include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, lung disease, decreased lung function, asthma attacks, and certain cardiovascular problems. Individuals pa rticularly sensitive to PM 2.5 exposure include older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and children. 3

In 1997 , EPA established new NAAQS for PM 2.5 ( 62 FR 38652 , July 18 1997)

. The primary annual standard w as set at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ( μ g /m 3 ), as determined by the 3

- year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community

- oriented monitors . The 24

- hour standard w as set at a level of 65 μ g /m 3 , as determined by the 3

- year average of the 98th percentile of 24

- hour concentrations at each population

- oriented monitor within an area

. In this rulemaking, EPA also established secondary

PM 2.5 standards identical to the primary standards (40 CFR 50.13)

.
EPA has revised the NAAQS for PM 2.5 on two occasions since the 1997 promulgation. On October 17, 2006, the 24

- hour PM 2.5 primary standard was strengthened from 65 μ g /m 3 to a level

of 35 μ g /m 3 , based on the 3

- year average of the 98th percentile of 24

- hour concentrations. On December 14, 2012, the annual primary standard for PM 2.5 was lowered from 15 μ g /m 3 to 12

μ g /m 3 . The existing 24

- hour standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 μ g / m 3 , as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μ g /m 3

.
After EPA promulgated the NAAQS for PM 2.5 in 1997, EPA issued a guidance document

entitled “ Interim Implementation for the New Source Review Requirements for PM 2.5 ” (John S. Seitz, EPA ) 4

. Th is guidance stated that sources would be allowed to use implementation of a

PM 10 program as a surrogate for meeting PM 2.5 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements until certain technical difficulties were resolved, primarily the lack of nec essary tools to calculate the emissions of PM 2.5 and related precursors, the lack of adequate modeling techniques to project ambient impacts, and the lack of PM 2.5 monitoring sites.

On January 5, 2005 ( 70 FR 944) , EPA designated portions of the South Coast Bas in as nonattainment for the 1997 24

- hour and annual PM 2.5 standard s ( See 40 CFR 81.305)

. EPA has since made subsequent PM 2.5 nonattainment designation s for SCAQMD

. On November 13, 2009, EPA designated the South Coast Air Basin as moderate nonattainment for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard

. 74 FR 58688 . SCAQMD adopted an attainment plan on December 7, 2012 to provide for attainment of the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard. On January 15, 2015, EPA designated the South Coast Air Basin as moderate no nattainment for the 2012 PM 2.5 standard. 80 FR 2206, 2215

- 16.

3 70 FR 65984 General Preamble, November 1, 2005.

4 United Stated Environmental Protection Agen cy Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, Director to Regional Air Division Directors, “Interim Implementation of New Source Review Requirements for PM 2.5 ,” October 23, 1997.3

On April 5, 2005, (the same date that the 1997 PM 2.5 standard designations took effect)

EPA issued a guidance document entitled “ Implementation of New Source Review Requirements in PM

– 2.5 Nonattainment Areas ” (Stephen D. Page, EPA)

. 5 Th is secon d memo provides guidance on the implementation of the NNSR provisions in PM 2.5 nonattainment areas

in the interim period between the effective date of the designations (April 5, 2005) and the promulga tion date of final N NSR regulations. As reflected in the guidance memo

, s tates were allowed to use their existing PM 10 NNSR program s as a surrogate to address the requirements of

NNSR for PM 2.5

. Therefore, areas such as the South Coast Air Basin were not required to be regulated by a NNSR rule for emissions of PM 2.5 at that time , if there was a SIP approved PM 10 NNSR program

. In 2007, EPA published an Implementation Rule applicable to attainment plans and control

measures for the PM 2.5 NAAQS. 40 C FR 51.1002. The 2007 Implementation Rule contained rebuttable presumptions concerning the four PM 2.5 precursors, providing that states should

address SO 2 and NO x emissions in their attainment plans but that regulation of VOCs and ammonia was presumptively not necessary . Id. at 51.1002(c). On May 16 , 2008

, EPA published its final rule pertaining to PM 2.5 implementation requirements for NNSR entitled

“ Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5) ” (the 2008 NSR PM 2.5 Rule). This rule promulgated N NSR requirements for implementation of PM 2.5 in nonattainment areas a s well as PSD requirements for

attainment/unclassifiable areas. 6 ( 73 FR 28321 , May 16, 2008 )

. With respect to NNSR, th e 2008 NSR PM 2.5 Rule established for PM 2. 5 the major source threshold, significant emissions rate s , offset ratios, interpollutant offset trading provisions , and applicability of N NSR to PM 2 .5 precursors. The 2008 NSR PM 2.5 Rule contained the same rebuttable presumptions for precursors as our 2007 Implementation Rule for PM 2.5 (i.e.

, NOx and SOx are precursors, VOCs and ammonia are not)

. Promulgation of the 2008 NSR PM 2.5 Rule ended application of the PM 10 surrogacy policy under the Page Memo for N NSR permitting. Because it takes time for a local permitting agency to revise its rules to include all of the new NNSR program requirements, EPA ’ s regulations provide in 40 CFR 52.24(k) that the Emission Offset Interpretative Rul in g , contained in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S shall govern permits to construct and ope rate during the period between the date of designation as nonattainment and the date a NNSR permitting program meeting the requirements of part D of the CAA is approved int o the SIP

. The 2008 NSR PM 2.5 Rule therefore also codified revisions to Appendix S for states that lack a major NNSR program covering PM 2.5

. Therefore, new and modified major sources of PM 2.5 emissions locating in SCAQMD are subject to the provisions of Appendix S until our final approval of Rule 1325, which SCAQMD adopted to implement the requirements of EPA ’ s final 2008 NSR PM 2.5 Rule . Once approved into the SIP, Rule 1325 , rather than the Appendix S PM 2.5 N N SR requirements , will apply to new and

modified PM 2.5 major sources located in the South Coast Air Basin

.

5 United Stated Environmental Protec tion Agency Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director to Regional Air Division Directors, “Implementation of New Source Review Requirements in PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas,” April
5, 2005.

6 Codified in 40 CFR Parts 51 & 52, including Appendix S to Part 51.4

Environmental groups challenged the 2007 Implementation Rule and the 2008 NSR PM 2.5 Rule asserting that EPA had erroneously applied only subpart 1, and not also subpart 4, of Title I,

Part D of the CAA to our regulation of PM 2.5 . In 2013, the D.C. Circuit agreed and remanded the

2007 and 2008 rules in their entirety, including the presumptions concerning VOCs and ammonia set forth in 51.1002(c)

. NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). A lthough the court expressly declined to decide the specific challenge to the precursor presumptions ( see 706 F.3d at 437, n.10), the court cited CAA section 189(e) to support its ob servation that “[a]mmonia is a precursor to fine particulate matter, making it a precursor to both PM 2.5 and PM 10 ,” and that “[f]or a PM 2.5 nonattainment area go verned by subpart 4, a precursor is presumptively regulated.” 706 F.3d at 436, n.7 ( citing CAA section 189(e)). Consistent with the NRDC decision, EPA now interprets the Act to require that under subpart 4, a state must subject all

PM 2.5 precursors to major source control requirements unless it provides a demonstration that the

sources do not contribute significantly to [PM 2.5 ] levels which exceed the standard in the area.



### 4 Rule Summar y

Rule 1325

– Federal PM 2.5 New Source Review Program, implements federal NNSR requirements for PM 2.5

. The proposed rule mirrors federal requirements for applicability, emissions calculations, Lowest Achievable Emission Rate ( LAER ) and offsets found in CAA Section 173 and 189(a)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51 .165

.



### 4.1 Applicability

Section (a) specifies that Rule 1325 applies to:

 Any n ew major polluting facility ;

 Any modification to an existing facility that would constitute a major polluting facility in and of itself ; and

 Any m ajor modifications on a pollutant

- specific basis for which : 1) The source is major

, 2) The modification results in a significant increase, and 3) The modification results in a significant net emissions increase.

Rule 1325 defines a major pollut ing facility as any source located in areas federally designated pursuant to 40 CFR 81.305 as nonattainment for PM 2.5 , which has actual emissions of, or the potential to emit, equal to 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of PM 2.5 or its precursors (NOx, or SO 2)

. 7 As it pertains to major modification s , Rule 1325 defines significant as :
“...a net emissions increase or the potential of a source to emit any of the following pollutants, [at] a rate of emissions that would equal or exceed any of the following rates:

7 As discussed above in the Background section, VOCs and ammonia are also precursors of PM 2.5 unless the District

makes an adequate demonstration required by CAA section 189(e) that major stationary sources of ammonia do not contribute significantly to nonat tainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS. We discuss the District’s section 189(e)

demonstration and our evaluation of it in Section 5.1 of this TSD

.5 Nitrogen oxides: 40 tons per year Sulfur dioxide: 40 tons per year

PM 2.5 : 10 tons per year”

Rule 1325 does not require new or additional control equipment for existing facilities,

unless the source or facility makes a major modification . For such sources

, the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate ( LAER ) and offsets are required if the resulting emission increases

from the modification are above specified thresholds

. Table 1 lists the emissions threshold s applicable to new or modified sources subject to Rule 1325.

Table 1

– Rule 1325 Applicability Emissions Threshold s

Emissions Threshold (tons per year)

PM 2.5 NO
x or SO 2 New major facility 100 or more 100 or more Modifications at existing

non

- major facility 100 or more 100 or more

Modifications at existing major facility 10 or more 40 or more



### 4.2 Definitions

Section (b) of Rule 1325 generally incorporate s definitions from 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1), as they exist ed on June 3, 2011, the date of the original rule adoption , unless the same t erm is defined within the rule. Rule 1325 provides slightly modified definitions of the following terms to either maintain consistency with the District’s existing NNSR permit program nomenclature or provide additional clarifications : Baseline Actual Emiss ions

, Building, S tructure, F acility, or

I nstallation (replaced with a definition for Facility )

, Major Modification

, Major Source (replaced

with a definition for Major Polluting Facility )

, Plantwide Applicability Limitation

, Precursors (as a separate defined term, rather than part of the definition of Regulated NSR Pollutant)

, Projected Actual Emissions

, Regulated NSR Pollutant

, Reviewing Authority

, Significant , and Stationary Source (replaced with a defin ition for Source )

.



### 4.3 Requirements

Section (c) of Rule 1325 states that t he Executive Officer shall deny a Permit for new major polluting facilities; or major modifications to major polluting facilities of PM 2.5 ; or any facility with an emissions increase of a potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of PM 2.5 or its precursors (which are defined as NO
x and SO 2 ) , unless the following requirements are met:

(1) New or modified sources must employ LAER ;6

(2) Emission increases are offset 8 at a ratio of 1.1:1 for PM 2.5 . The offset ratio for NO
x and

SO 2 shall be the ratio required under the applicable NNSR rule (Regulation XIII or Rule 2005);

(3) Owner or operators of a ll major sources (as defined in the jurisdiction where t he f acilities are located) in the State of California must certify for those sources subject to emission

limitations that they are in compliance or on a schedule for compliance with all applicable emission limitations and standards under the Cl ean Air Act ; and

(4) Owner or operators must conduct an analysis of alternative sites, sizes, production processes, and environmental control techniques for a proposed source and demonstrate that the benefits of the proposed source outweigh the environmental and social costs associated with that project.



### 4.4 Emissions Calculations

Section (d) of Rule 1325 specifies the emission calculations to be used to determine if a project will result in a major source or major modification , as defined within Rule 1325.



### 4.5 Plantwide Applica tion Limitation

Section (e) of Rule 1325 incorporates the provisions of 40 CFR 51.165 (f) for Plantwide Applicability Limitations (PALs). PALs are a voluntary option that allows a major stationary source to manage emissions without triggering major new sour ce review. PALs can be utilized

for PM 2.5 and SO 2 emissions but not for NO
x as PALs are not allowed for ozone precursors in

extreme ozone nonattainment areas , such as the South Coast Air Basin . Public notice pursuant to Rule 212(g) is required prior to the issuance of a PAL.



### 4.6 Two Year Limit on Facility Exemption

Section (f) of Rule 1325 states that any facility with accumulated emission increases in excess of 100 tons per year of PM 2.5 due to p ermit actions within any two

- year period after June

3 , 2011, shall offset the total emission increases during such period to zero. This is an “ anti

piecemealing ” provision designed to prevent sources which currently emit less than 100 tons per year of PM 2. 5 from increasing their PM 2.5 emissions by more than 100 tons per year without providing offsets by phasing or piece mealing the project.



### 4.7 Recordkeeping Requirements

Section (g) of Rule 1325 specifies that records are required when either of the following

si tuations occur :

(1) The projected actual emission increase is 50 percent or more of a significan ce level

, as defined in section (b)( 1 2 ) of the rule;

8 Offsets must be either Emissions Reduction Credits (ERCs) for non

- RECLAIM pollutants or RECLAIM Trading Credits (RTCs ) for sources in the RECLAIM program for either NO

x or SO

x . The SCAQMD RECLAIM program is a market incentive program designed to allow facilities flexibility in achieving emission reduction requirements

for NO

x and SO

x under a set of rules in its Regulatio n XX.7

(2) The projected actual emissions increase , when added to the amount of emissions excluded under paragraph (b)( 9 )(C), sums to 50 percent or more of a significan ce level as defined in section (b)( 1 2 ) of the rule

. Recordkeeping is also required if the baseline actual to projected future actual or the hybrid emissions calculation methodology is used to determine that t he modification at issue does not result in a major modification and hence does not trigger the requirements of Rule 1325

.



### 4.8 Test Methods

Section (h) of the rule states that t esting for point sources shall be in accordance with U.S.

EPA Test Methods 201A and 202. The referenced test methods are specific for Rule 1325 and are not applicable to any other SC AQMD rules, including any other Regulation XIII rules.



### 5 Rule Evaluation

EPA reviewed Rule 1325

– Federal PM 2.5 New Source Review Program for compliance

with : 1) the CAA requirements for SIPs in general as set forth in CAA section 110(a)(2) ; 2) the requirements for stationary source preconstruction permitting programs in CAA section s 173(a) through (c) and 189 ; 3) requirements related to the review and modificat ion of new sources in 40 CFR part 51 .165 ; and 4) the requirement s related to SIP revisions in CAA section s 110(l) and

193. The paragraphs and sections that follow contain EPA’s evaluation and discussion of Rule

1325 as it pertains to the se regulatory requirement s

.

1. Provisions to assure that calculation of emissions offsets, as required by section 173(a)(1)(A), are based on the same emissions baseline used in the demonstration of reasonable further progress.

Discussion : Section (c) of Rule 1325 states that t he Executive Officer shall deny the Permit for new major polluting facilities; or major modifications to major polluting

facilities of PM 2.5 ; or any facility with an emissions increase of a potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of PM 2.5 or its precursors (which are defined as NO
x and SO 2 )

, unless the emission increases are offset at a ratio of 1.1:1 for PM 2.5

. Rule 1325 Section (c)(1)(B) specifies that the offset ratio for NO
x and SO 2 shall be the ratio required under the applicable NSR r ule (Regulation XIII or Rule 2005)

. The SCAQMD base d the offset

ratio of 1.1:1 for PM 2.5 on its “ Summary of Reasonable Further Progress Calculations ” from the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan

. 9 These calculations show that a 1% annual percent reduction is needed to show linear progress toward PM 2.5 attainment. As Rule

1325 uses an offset ratio of 1.1:1 (or a 10% discount in offsets applied), this offset ratio provides consistency with the South Coast’s demonstration of reasonable further progress

and is therefore sufficient to meet this requirement

.

9 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District, June 7, 2007.8

2. Provisions, pursuant to section 173(a)(2), which require LAER, for a major source or major modification.

Discussion : Section (c)(1)(A) states that the Executive Officer shall d e n y a P e rmit for a major source or major modification , unless LAER is employed for the n e w or modified

sou r c e

. By requiring the use of LAER as a condition of permit issuance

, t his provision satisfies the regulatory requirement.

3. Provisions, pursuant to section 173(a)(3), to assure that owners or operators of each proposed new or modified major stationary source demonstrate that all other major stationary sources under the same ownership in the State are in compliance with the Act.

Discussion : Rule 1325 Section (c)(1)(C) requires c ertification by the owner or operator that “all major sources, as defined in the jurisdiction where the facilities are located that are owned or operated by such person (or by any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such person) in the State of California are subject to emission limitations and are in compliance or on a schedule for compliance with all applicable emission limitations and standards under the Clean Air Act.” This provision is consistent with the language in section 173(a)(3) and therefore satisfies the regulatory requirement.

4. Provisions, pursuant to section 173(a)(5), that, as a prerequisite to issuing any part D permit, the rule must require an analysis of alternative sites, sizes, production processes,

and enviro nmental control techniques for the proposed source that demonstrates that the benefits of the proposed source significantly outweigh the environmental and social costs imposed as a result of its location, construction, or modification.

Discussion : Rule 1 325 Section (c)(1)(D) requires that an “analysis is conducted of alternative sites, sizes, production processes, and environmental control techniques for such proposed source and demonstration made that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the env ironmental and social costs associated with that project.” This provision is consistent with the language in section 173 (a)(5) and therefore satisfies the regulatory requirement.

5. Provisions to assure, pursuant to section 173(c)(1), that any emissions offsets obtained in conjunction with the issuance of a permit to a new or modified source must be enforceable by the time of issuance of the permit, and in effect by the time the new o r modified source commences operation.

Discussion : Rule 1325 Section (c)(1)(B) requires that all emission increases be offset

. SCAQMD Rule 1309 (Emission Reduction Credits) and Rule 1303 (Requirements), which are part of SCAQMD ’s SIP

- approved NNSR program, satisfy this CAA requirement. Specifically, Rule 1309 Section (d) 10 ensures that offsets

, in the form of

10 SCAQMD Rule 1309

– Emission Reduction Credits, 61 FR 64291 December 4, 1996

.9

Emission Reduction Credits ( ERCs)

, are in effect and enforceable when used to offset

emission increases from a new or modifi ed source subject to Rule 1303. Rule 1303 Subsection (b)(2) 11 states that offsets are required before a permit is issued. Th ese provision s are consistent with the language in section 173 ( c )( 1 ) and therefore satisf y the regulatory requirement.

6. Provisions t o assure that emissions increases from new or modified major stationary sources are offset by real reductions in actual emissions as required by section 173(c)(1).

Discussion : SCAQMD Rules 1306 (Emissions Calculations) and 1309 (Emission

Reduction Credits)

, which are part of SCAQMD ’s SIP

- approved NNSR program, satisfy this CAA requirement

. Specifically, Rule 1309 (b)(4) requires that the emissions reductions calculated pursuant to Rule 1306 must be real, quantifiable, permanent and federally enforce able. Rule 1306 includes a process for banking ERCs and ensures all

ERCs issued are based on real reductions in actual emissions. Th ese provision s are consistent with the language in section 173 ( c )( 1 ) and therefore satisfies the regulatory requirement.

7. P rovisions, pursuant to section 173(c)(2), to prevent emissions reductions otherwise required by the Act from being credited for purposes of satisfying the part D offset requirements.

Discussion : SCAQMD Rule 1309 (Emission Reduction Credits), which is part of SCAQMD ’s SIP

- approved NNSR program, contains language which s atisf ies this CAA requirement

. Specifically, Rule 1309 includes procedures for creating ERC s and prohibit s the creation of ERCs if the emission reductions are not surplus. Specifically, Rule 1309(b)(5) requires that:

“ the same emission reductions from the same equipment type as those proposed by the applicant are not (A) required by a Control Measure in the A QMP which has been assigned a target implementation date; or (B) required by a proposed District rule for which the first public workshop to consider such a rule has been conducted. This exclusion shall remain in effect for 12 months from the date of

such workshop, or until the Executive Officer or designee determines that the proposed rule is abandoned or the provisions of subparagraph (5)(C) become effective; or (C) required by an adopted federal, State, or District rule, regulation, or statute; or (D) fr om a category or class of equipment included in a demonstration program required by a District rule or regulation. ”

In addition, Rule 1309(b)(4)(E) requires that the amount of emission reduction credits to be granted in the non

- Southeast Desert Air Basin area “

... are not greater than the equipment would have achieved if operating with [LAER]

. ” This requirement to reduce

11 SCAQMD Rule 1306

– Emission Calculations, 61 FR 64291 December 4, 1996

.10

the quantity of ERCs granted down to what the LAER would be at the time of granting the ERCs is a requirement that is more stringent than the surplus requirement in the CAA. EPA has previously approved the use of this provision in lieu of the requirement for

ERC s to be adjusted at the time of use to reflect current emission limits required by the

CAA. For a further discussion of our approval of the surplus adjustment in Rule 1309, please see ou r 1996 TSD for the approval of Regulation XIII

, which is included in the docket for this proposed action.

Taken together these provisions prohibit the creation and use of ERCs if the emission

reductions are otherwise required by the Act and therefore satis f y the regulatory requirement con tained in CAA section 173(c)(2)

.

8. Definition of “stationary source” that includes certain internal combustion engines subject to control under State programs (i.e., those not used for transportation purposes), but excluding the category of “nonroad engines.” [See section 302(z) of the Act.]

Discussion : Rule 1325 does not directly define the term “stationary source” but in section ( b) incorporates by reference the following definition at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(i) :

“ Stationary source means any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit a regulated NSR pollutant

. ”

Although this definition does not explicitly include internal combustion engines not used for transportation purposes or specifically exclude “nonroad engines,” SCAQMD’s Regulations I (General Provisions) and II (Permits) include provisions that exempt
int ernal combustion engines used for transportation purposes from the requirement of obtaining permit . Specifically, EPA finds that the following requirements in SIP

approved SCAQMD R ules 102, 203 and 219 satisfy the CAA 302(z) definition of stationary source because it requires a permit for all engines except no n

- road engines:

a) Rule 102 (Definition of Terms) 12 defines “ Equipment ” as “ any article, machine

, or other contrivance .” b) Rule 203 (Permits) 13 requires a permit for any equipment that “

... may cause the issuance of air contaminants

... ” c) Rule 219 (Equipment Not Requiring a Written Permit Pursuant to Regulation II)

, 14

contains Section (a)(1) which exempts from permit requirements : “ Equipment mounted upon vehicles used exclusively to transport materials on stree ts or highways but not to include any equipment mounted on such vehicles that would otherwise require a permit under the provisions of these rules. ”

12 SCAQMD Rule 102

– Definition of Terms, 72 FR 656, January 8, 2007

. 13 SCAQMD Rule 203

– Permit to Operate, 64 FR 25828, May 13, 1999

. 14 SCAQMD Rule 219

– Equipment Not Requiring a Written Permit Pursuant to Regulation II, 47 FR 29231, July 6,

1982.11

9. Definitions which contain language which is either identical or equivalent to that found in

CAA Sections 169, 169A(g) and 171, and in 40 CFR 51.100 and 51.165(a)(1).

Discussion : Rule 1325 Section (b) incorporates by reference the definitions contained in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1), but also defines some terms separately or additionally in order to

maintain consistency with existing terms in the SCAQMD Regulation XIII NNSR

program. We reviewed all such definitions and find the definitions are either consistent with, substantially equivalent to, or more stringent than those required by 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1) and therefore sufficient to meet the requirements of a NNSR program.

We note one definition in Section (b) of Rule 1325 that is substantially different than

those contained in 51.165(a)(1) yet sufficient to satisfy this requirement

.

 In Section (b)( 5 ) of Rule 1326 , the District defines Major Source as :

“

... as used in a n y d e

finit i on [ of Major Source ] found in 40 C F R 51.165 ( a ) ( 1 )

,

me a ns the same a s Major P ol l ut i ng Fac i l i t y , a s de f ined in th i s rul e

. ”

Major Polluting Facility is subsequently defined as “on a pol l utant spe c ific

b a si s
, a n y e m i ss i ons sour c e lo c a t e d in a re a s f e d e r a l l y d e s i g n a t e d pursu a nt to
40 C F R 81.305 a s nonattainment for the S outh Co a st Air B a sin (SOC A B ) whi c h

h a s ac tual e m i ss i ons o

f

, o r t he potential to e m i t

, 1 0 0 tons or more p e r y e a r of

P M 2

. 5 , or i ts p rec u r

sor s . A f ac i l i t y is c onsid e r e d to be a major pol l u t ing f a c i l i t y on l y for the sp e c i

fic pol l utant ( s) with a potential to e m i t of 100 tons or

more p e r y e a r .”

The effect of the these two definitions is to replace the term “Major Source” with the term “Major Polluting Facility” wherever the term is used in 40 CFR 51.165(a ) (1), and provide a new definition for the term Major Polluting Facility.

The SCAQMD definition provided for Major Polluting Facility differ s from the

definition found in 51.165(a)(1) for Major Source , mostly because it is missing a provision regarding the treatment of fugitive emissions when determining if a source’s emissions exceed the major source threshold . The definition of Major Source provided in subparagraph 51.165 (a)(1)(iv)(C) states that fugitive emissions are only to be counted if the source belongs to one of the 28 listed source categories. EPA interprets the definition of Major Polluting Facility to require all sources to include fugitive emissions when determi ning if emissions

exceed the thresholds provided in the M ajor P olluting Facility definition , since there is no language specifying when fugitive emission do not need to be included

in emission calculations. However, because th e SCAQMD definition of Major Polluting Facility

, in requiring inclusion of fugitive emission for all sou r ces
, is more stringent than the federal definition, it is acceptable and sufficient to satisfy

this requirement

.12

10. Provisions, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.161, that require oppo rtunity for public comment, as well as the consideration of any comments received during the comment period. These provisions must also ensure the availability of all information relevant to the proposed permit during the comment period.

Discussion : The public notice requirements for all new or modified sources are found in the District’s general permitting rules, specifically the SIP

- approved version of SCAQMD Rule 212

– Standards for Approving Permits

, 15 rather than Rule 1325 . Section (c) of Rule 212 spe cif

ies the public notice criteria for significant projects (i.e. located within 1,000 feet of school; exceeds daily maximum emissions levels [per section (g) of Rule 212] ; exceeds health

- based levels for cancer or public nuisance) prior to granting a

Permi t to Construct. Rule 212 specifies that public notice is required for a project if the

PM 10 emissions exceed 30 pounds per day . EPA notes that the daily maximum emissions levels specified in Rule 212 pertain to PM 10 and not PM 2.5

. In a letter dated, December 20, 2013

, 16 the District explains their position that since all PM 2.5 emissions are also

PM 10 emissions, the PM 10 public notice thresholds are sufficient to satisfy the required major source PM 2.5 public notice requirements

. As Rul e 212, which is contained in the SCAQMD SIP, satisfies the requirement pursuant to 40 CFR 51.161 that require s opportunity for public comment (per Section (g)(4) of Rule 212) , we find this requirement is satisfied

.

11. Provisions, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv), that provide a definition of major stationary source that identifies all nonattainment pollutants, including any precursors, at their proper thresholds based on an area’s classification.

Discussion : The definition of Major Polluting Fac ility in Section (b) ( 4 ) satisfies this requirement by defining this term as any emission source located in any nonattainment

area (as specified in 40 CFR 81.305) within the South Coast Air Basin, which has actual or potential emissions of 100 tpy of PM 2.5 or it s precursors, which is the proper emission

threshold. Thus we find that Rule 1325 satisfies this CAA provision. Rule 1325(b)(8)

defines Precursors as NOx and SOx. However, as discussed in more detail below, Section 189(e) allows EPA to approve this d efinition if we determine that the other PM 2.5 precursors (VOCs and ammonia) “do not contribute significantly to [ PM 2.5 ] levels which

exceed the standard in the area.” (See CAA section 189(e))

12. Provision s , pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(f), to ensure program ad equacy of Plantwide Applicability Limitations.

15 SCAQMD Rule 212

– Standards for Approving Permits

, 61 FR 64291, December 4, 1996

. 16 Letter from Barbara Baird, Chief Deputy Counsel, South Coast Air Quality Management District to Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, Region IX, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 20, 2013.13

Discussion : Rule 1325 Section (e) specifies the federal NNSR requirements for Plantwide Applicability Limitations (PAL). We find Section (e) is nearly identical in every aspect to 40 CFR 51.165(f) and is therefore adequate to satisfy this requirement.

13. Provisions, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(C), which specifies how fugitive

emissions should be treated when de termining if a source constitutes a major source,

state s the fugitive emissions of a stationary source must be included in the major source applicability determination if it belongs to one the source categories listed.

Discussion : Please see the discussi on for item No. 9 above regarding how this requirement has been met.

14. Provisions to implement the applicability procedures of 40 CFR 51.165(a)( 2).

Discussion : Rule 1325 Sections (d)(2) through (d)(5) are substantially equivalent with the language of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2)(A) through (F) and therefore satisfy this requirement

.

15. Provisions to implement the enforcement procedures of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(i) to provide that issuance of an approval to construct shall not relieve any owner or operator of the respo nsibility to comply fully with applicable provision s of the plan and any other requirements under local, State or Federal law.

Discussion : Rule 1325 Section (c)(3) contains language that is identical to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(i) and thus is sufficient to sat isfy this requirement.

16. Provisions, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(ii), which require a source or modification which becomes major due solely to a relaxation in a federally

- enforceable limit to comply with all NNSR requirements “ as though construction had not yet commenced. ”

Discussion : Rule 1325 Section (c)(2) states, “ At such time that a particular source or a source undergoing modification becomes a major polluting facility or major modification solely by virtue of a relaxation in any enforcement l imitation which was established after (June 3, 2011) on the capacity of the polluting facility or modification otherwise to emit

PM 2.5 or its precursors to avoid applicability of this rule, such as a restriction on hours of operation, then the requirements of this rule shall apply to the source or modification as though construction had not yet commenced on the source or modification .” T his language is consistent with 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(ii), therefore this provision satisfies this requi re ment.

17. Provisions , pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) & (7), which require certain records to be maintained if there is a reasonable possibility that a project that used the “actual

- to

projected actual” test may result in a major modification.14

Discussion : Rule 1325 Section (g) states, “ If an owner or operator uses the calculation methods specified in paragraphs (d)(2) or (d)(4) of this rule to calculate projected actual emissions, and where there is a reasonable possibility, within the meaning of paragraph (g)(6) of this rul e, that a project that is not a part of a major modification may result in a significant emissions increase of such pollutant, then before beginning actual construction of the project, the owner or operator shall document and maintain a record

of the follo wing information... ” T his language is consistent with 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) & (7)

, therefore this provision satisfies th is requirement.



### 5.1 CAA Title I, Subpart 4 Requirements

As noted above in our Background discussion, o n January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of App eals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA 17

, issued a decision that remanded the EPA’s 2007 and 2008 rules implementing the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. The court found that EPA erred in implementing the PM 2.5 NAAQS in thes e rules solely pursuant to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of P art D of T itle I of the CAA, rather than pursuant to the additional implementation provisions specific to particulate matter nonattainment areas in subpart 4. The court order ed the EPA to “repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.” 18 Although the court declined to establish a deadline for EPA’s response to the remand, o n June 2

, 2 014 , EPA finalized a rule that provides a

response , in part, to the NRDC v. EPA remand . The June 2014 final rule set a deadline of December 31, 2014, for states to submit “remaining required SIP submissions for [nonattainment] areas, pursuant to and considerin g the application of subpart 4 ” as to the 1997

and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS

. 19

CAA Title I subpart 4 includes section 189(e), which requires the control of major stationary sources of PM 10 precursors (and hence under the court decision, PM 2.5 precursors) “except where the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to

PM 10 levels which exceed the standard in the area.” The provisions of s ubpart 4, do not define the term “precursor” for purposes of PM 2.5 , nor does s ubpart 4 explicitly require the control of any specifically identified particulate matter precursor. The statutory definition of “air pollutant,” however, provides that the term “includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant, to

the exten t the Administrator has identified such precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term “air pollutant” is used.” CAA Section 302(g). The EPA has identified t he main precursor gases associated with PM 2.5 formation as SO 2 , NOx, VOC s
, and ammonia. Accordingly, the NNSR permit program for PM 2.5 presumptively applies to emissions of all four

precursors listed above

, and direct PM 2.5 from major sources in the South Coast Air Basin.

Rule 1325 (b)(8) provides a definition of the term Precurs ors that only includes SO 2 and

NOx emissions as precursors for PM 2.5

. As noted above, Section 189(e) p rovides an exemption “where the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to [ PM 2.5 ]

17 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

18 Id. at 437

19 EPA’s final rule classifies all PM 2.5 nonattainment areas as moderate (see 79 FR 31566, June 2, 2014).15

levels which exceed the standard in the area.” In reviewing any determination of the state to

exclude a PM 2.5 precursor from the required evaluation of potential NNSR applicability, the EPA considers both the magnitude of the precursor’s contribution to a mbient PM 2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area and the sensitivity of ambient PM 2.5 concentrations in the area to reductions in emissions of that precursor

. (See 80 FR 1816, January 13, 2015)

. 20

With respect to VOCs

, b oth new and modified sources of VOC emissions are already subject to SCAQMD ’ s Best Available Control Technology ( BACT ) (equivalent to federal LAER) requirements at a zero emission rate threshold for new and modified sources under its existing NNSR program for an extreme ozone nonattainment area

. 21 The existing NNSR

program for ozone also requires VOC emissions to be offset at a 1:1.2 ratio when a new or modified source has the potential to emit four tons per year or more of VOC, which is well

below the 100 tpy threshold for new sources and the 40 tpy threshold for major modifications that would be required as a PM 2.5 precursor

. 22 Because the District’s SIP

- approved N N SR

program for an extreme ozone nonattainment area already contains control and offset requirements for VOC as an ozone precursor, which are consistent with federal N NSR requirements that would apply to VOC as a PM 2.5 precursor
, we are proposing to find that the requirements of CAA section 189(e) have been satisfied for VOC

. 23

To determine if the District appropriately excluded ammonia emissions from Rule

1325 (b)(8) , EPA is relying primarily on two sources of information: 1) SCAQMD Staff Report

, Proposed Amended Rule 1325

- Federal PM 2.5 New Source Review Program

, December 2014 (Staff Report); and 2) SCAQMD Draft Supplement to the 24

- Hour PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan for the South Coast Air Basin, January 2015 (Draft Supplement).

First, the District provided information showing that the magnitude of actual ammonia

emissions from major sources in the South Coast Air Basin is small. There are only four major

sources of ammonia em is s ions ( i.e. 100 tpy or greater of actual ammonia emissions ). These four major sources contribute 1.7 tons per day ( tpd ) of ammonia emissions while all sources of

ammonia in the South Coast Air Basin emit 99 tpd. 24 The relative contribution of the existing major sources to the overal l ammonia emissions in the area, therefore, is 1.7%

.

Attachment E to the Draft Supplement provided further evalua tion of the magnitude of

the contribution of major sources of ammonia, reiterating that those existing sources accounted for less than 2 percent of the Basin ’s inventory of ammonia emissions. The District noted that

20 80 FR 1616, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation o f Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; San Joaquin Valley Moderate Area Plan and Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; (Proposed Rule), January 13, 2015, page 1822.

21 SCAQMD Rule 1303

– Requirements, 61 FR 6429 1

, December 4, 1996.

22 SCAQMD Rule 1304

– Exemptions, 61 FR 64291

, December 4, 1996.

23 57 FR at 13542, April 16, 1992

. 24 SCAQMD Rule 1325 Staff Report, pages 2

- 3.16

there were only four major source emitte rs in the inventory “with the single highest major source accounting for less t han 0.50 TPD direct [ammonia] emissions.” The major sources of ammonia in the South Coast Air Basin are natural gas fired power plants that are required to operate Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) systems to comply with NNSR emission limits for NOx and

refineries

. 25 The operation of SCR relies on using ammonia.

Second, t he Staff Report and Draft Supplement point to another factor limiting the magnitude of future emissions of ammonia. B oth new and modified sources of ammonia

emissions are already subject to SCAQMD ’ s BACT (equivalent to federal LAER) requirements

for new and modified sources under its existing NNSR program at a zero emission rate threshold

. These ammonia control requirements in the existing NNSR rule ensure that growth in ammonia

emissions will be minimized going forward and support a finding that new or modified major stationary sources of ammonia emissions will not contribute significantly to PM 2.5 levels that

exceed the standard in the area

.

Third , the District considered the sensitivity of ambient PM 2.5 concentrations in the area to

reductions of ammonia emissions. The District included Attachment E to the Draft Supplement to demonstrate for attainment planning purposes tha t emissions of ammonia do not significantly

contribute to nonattainment of the PM 2. 5 NAAQS in the South Coast Air Basin.

The District notes that before it developed its 2003 AQ MP, it was trying to develop inter

pollutant trading ratio s for NSR . The District conducted an evaluation of the effect of using SCR as a NOx control mechanism for mobile sources and the impact on future PM 2.5 emissions. The results of this analysis showed that a 10 tpd increase in ammonia would result in a net 0.22

μ g /m 3 increase in regional PM 2.5 concentrations

. From this, the District determined that “the

minimal PM 2.5 simulated increase from a 10 percent increase in the Basin inventory reflected the degree of saturation of ammonia in the Basin and minimal sensitivity o f changes in ammonia

emissions to PM 2.5 production.” The District also conducted a sensitivity analysis to test the impact of reducing bovine ammonia emissions in the Mira Loma area where the majority of the South Coast Air Basin’s dairy emissions occur. T he District found that a 2.9 tpd reduction of

ammonia emissions would result in a reduction in PM 2.5 emissions of approximately 0.16 μg/m3 at the Mira Loma monitoring station. The District’s conclusion from this study was that “the reduction in regional ammonia emissions resulted in a minimal PM 2.5 impact per ton emissions

reduced.” In evaluating all of the available inf ormation, the District stated: “Thus, ammonia

controls also have a much less significant impact on 24

- hour PM 2.5 exceedances tha n other precursors.”

Finally , EPA is taking into consideration the District’s air quality monitoring data. EPA recently proposed to find that the South Coast Air Basin has attained the 1997 24

- hour and

annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. 79 FR 72999 (Dec. 9, 2014). According to the District, p reliminary air

25 SCAQMD Draft 2015 Supplement, Attachment E17

quality monitoring data for 2014 indicates that the South Coast Air Basin is meeting the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS at all monitors except at the Mira Loma monitor. 26 Additionally, we note
that PM 2.5 air quality monitoring data collected during the 2002

- 2012 monitoring period show

that both annual an d 24

- hour PM 2.5 concentrations have declined significantly at all monitors in the South Coast area during this 10

- year period. See 78 FR 37741 at 37749

- 50 (June 24, 2013) (proposed rule to approve South Coast PM 2.5 contingency measures), finalized at 78 FR 64402 (October 29, 2013).

As noted above, section 189(e) requires NNSR to apply to major stationary sources of

PM 2.5 precursors “except where the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to [ PM 2.5 ] levels which exceed the standard in the area.” Given the PM 2.5 impacts from ammonia emissions reductions in the sensitivity modeling, and the relatively small amount of ammonia emissions from major point sources, and the level of controls that are required on new major ammoni a sources, we can conclude that the PM 2.5 impacts from major stationary

source ammonia emissions are insignificant

. Based on all of these considerations

, we are proposing to determine that major stationary sources of ammonia emissions do not contribute sig nificantly to PM 2.5 levels that exceed the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard in the South Coast nonattainment area and, therefore, are not subject to the NNSR precursor requirements for the

PM 2.5 permitting program.

Conclusion . For the reasons set forth above, EPA is proposing to approve the submitted NNSR program under section subpart 4 of the Act.



### 5.2 Section 110(l) of the Act

CAA s ection 110(l) states: “Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this chapter shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in

section 7501 of this title), or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.”

With respect to the procedural requirements of CAA section 110(l), based on our review of the public process documentation included in the December 29, 2014 submittal, we find that SCAQMD has provided sufficient evidence of public notice and opportunity for comment and public hearings prior to adoption and submittal of Rule 1325 . With respect to the substantive requirements of section 110(l), the SIP currently contains no provisions to reg ulate PM 2.5 emissions from new and modified stationary sources, therefore the inclusion of SCAQMD Rule

1325 would only strengthen the applicable SIP.

Conclusion

. For the reasons set forth above, we are proposing to approve the submitted NNSR program under section 110(l) of the Act.

26 Mira Loma ha d a 2011

- 2013 design value of 36 μg/m3 . 79 FR 72999, 73004, December 9, 2014.18



### 5.3 Section 193 of the Act

Section 193 of the Act, which was added by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, includes a savings clause which provides, in pertinent part: “No control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an order, settlement agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990, in any area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant may be modified after November 15, 1990, in any manner unless the modification insures equivalent or greater

emissi on reductions of such air pollutant.”

Since PM 2.5 is a new NAAQS, there are no existing PM 2.5 control requirements that would be subject to the provisions of Section 193 of the CAA. Therefore, for the purposes of our analysis of Rule 1325, we find that Section 193 of the CAA does not apply to this action.



### 6 EPA’s Proposed Action

For the reasons stated above in Section 5 and p ursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the Act, we are proposing to approv e Rule 1325 into the SCAQMD portion of the California SIP

.

ATTACHMENTS

1. SCAQMD Amended Rule 1325

– Federal PM 2.5 New Source Review Program, December 5, 2014

2. SCAQMD Proposed Amended Rule 1325

– Federal PM 2.5 New Source Review Program Staff Report, dated December 2014

3. Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, Director to Regional Air Division Directors, “Interim Implementation of New Source Review Requirements for PM 2.5 ,” October 23, 1997.

4. Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director to Regional Air Division Directors, “Implementation of New Source Review Requirements in PM 2.5 Nonattainment Areas,” April 5, 2005.

5. 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management Distric t, June 7, 2007.

6. SCAQMD Rule 1309

– Emission Reduction Credits, 61 FR 64291 December 4, 1996.

7. SCAQMD Rule 1306

– Emission Calculations, 61 FR 64291 December 4, 1996.

8. SCAQMD Rule 102

– Definition of Terms, 72 FR 656, January 8, 2007.

9. SCAQMD Rule 203

– Permi t to Operate, 64 FR 25828, May 13, 1999.

10. SCAQMD Rule 219

– Equipment Not Requiring a Written Permit Pursuant to Regulation II, 47 FR 29231, July 6, 1982.

11. SCAQMD Rule 212

– Standards for Approving Permits, 61 FR 64291, December 4,

1996.

12. Letter from Barbara Baird, Chief Deputy Counsel, South Coast Air Quality Management District to Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, Region IX, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 20, 2013.