Final Staff Report for 

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2020 

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

FINAL STAFF REPORT 

 Proposed Amendments to Rule 2020 (Exemptions) 

August 18, 2011 

Prepared by: Anna Myers, Senior Air Quality Specialist 

 Carlos Garcia, Senior Air Quality Engineer 

Reviewed by: George Heinen, Senior Air Quality Engineer 

 Jessi Fierro, Supervising AQ Specialist, Plan Development 

 Errol Villegas, Strategies and Incentives Program Manager 

 David Warner, Director of Permit Services 

 Samir Sheikh, Director of Strategies and Incentives 

I. SUMMARY 

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s (District) Governing Board 

(Board) adopted amendments to 2020 (Exemptions) on December 20, 2007. The 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made the final determination the amendments 

to District Rule 2020 to be acceptable under applicable NSR Regulations; as such, EPA 

made a final limited approval of amended Rule 2020 effective on June 10, 2010. EPA 

also made the determination that the exemption in Section 6.20 of Rule 2020 to be 

ambiguous; therefore also issued a limited disapproval on amended Rule 2020. EPA 

recommended updating rule language to remove ambiguity by replacing the statutory 

reference to the California Health and Safety Code Section CH&SC with a clear 

description of the sources covered by the exemption. 

District staff is also proposing to exempt wind machines used exclusively in agricultural 

operations from being required to have a Permit-to-Operate. Wind machines used in 

the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (Valley) are used exclusively in agricultural operations 

and only during winter when the temperature drops below 28o

F in order to protect the 

crops from freezing. The district does not currently require an operating permit for wind 

machines; therefore, the proposal to exempt wind machines does not constitute a rule 

relaxation. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 2020 August 18, 2011 

 2 Final Staff Report for 

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2020 

A. Description of Project 

Limited Approval Limited Disapproval 

On May 11, 2010, EPA published in the Federal Register1

 a final limited approval and 

limited disapproval of District Rule 2020 (Exemptions) for inclusion in the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) because of rule deficiency. The final rule is effective June 

10, 2010. The EPA final limited disapproval triggered an 18-month sanction clock 

requiring the District to submit a SIP approval revision of Rule 2010 by December 10, 

2011. Unless the rule deficiency is corrected and EPA approves the SIP submission 

before the sanction deadline expires, EPA will impose federal sanctions which include 

withholding of highway funds and an increased emission offset ratio requirement for 

stationary sources within the San Joaquin Valley. In addition to the 18-month sanction, 

the District could face a Federal Implementation Plan by EPA if the District fails to 

submit a fully approvable SIP revision of Rule 2020 within 24 months by June 10, 2012. 

Wind Machines 

To clarify existing District policy, staff is proposing to explicitly exempt wind machines 

used exclusively in agricultural operations from being required to have a Permit-toOperate. Wind machines are operated only during winter when the temperature drops 

below 280

F in order to protect the crops from freezing. The NOx emissions from wind 

machines are not significant because they only operate for a few hours per year during 

freezing temperature. 

B. Rule Amendment Process 

There was a public workshop for this rule amending project on June 22, 2011. 

These amendments are considered a routine administrative action that do not 

change the rule stringency. Comments received as a result of the public workshop 

would be incorporated into the rule project as appropriate. The notice of the public 

hearing for the proposed amendments would be published in general circulation 

newspapers in each of the eight Valley counties, and made available for review on 

the District website and individual notices would be mailed to affected stakeholders. 

C. Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases 

The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) created a comprehensive, 

multi-year program to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California, with the 

overall goal of restoring emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. In the coming 

years, the Air Resources Board (ARB) and the Legislature will be developing policies 

and programs to implement AB 32. The District believes that the evidence and the 

rationale that climate change is occurring is compelling and convincing. In addition to 

the long-term consequences of climate change, the District is concerned with the 

potential ramifications of more moderate but imminent changes in weather patterns. 

 

1

 Federal Register/Vol.75, No. 90/Tuesday, May 11, 2010/Rules and Regulations 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 2020 August 18, 2011 

 3 Final Staff Report for 

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2020 

The Valley depends heavily on agriculture for its economy and has developed 

agricultural practices based on the last several decades of weather patterns. 

Unanticipated and large fluctuations in these patterns could have a devastating effect 

on the Valley’s economy. 

While there are many win-win strategies that can reduce both GHG and criteria/toxic 

pollutant emissions, when faced with situations that involve tradeoffs between the two, 

District staff believes that the more immediate public health concerns that may arise 

from an increase in criteria or toxic pollutant emissions should take precedence. The 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Governing Board adopted the Climate 

Change Action Plan (CCAP) in August 2008. For California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA) requirements, one of the goals of the CCAP is to establish District processes 

for assessing the significance of greenhouse gas impacts. The District has developed a 

policy and guidance for addressing greenhouse gases under CEQA. 

The purpose of this rule-amending project is to correct the rule deficiency in Section 

6.20 as cited by EPA and to clarify existing District Policy. Draft amendments do not 

change the meaning of current rule language and do not impose new regulatory 

requirements. Therefore, implementation of the proposed amendments would not result 

in foreseeable changes in current operating practices. District finds that there is no 

substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the District, that the project 

could have a cumulatively significant impact on global climate change. 

D. Comments and Responses 

One comment was received for Rule 2020 during the rule amendment process. The 

comment questioned test methods as quoted in the rule language. Because Rule 4702 

(Internal Combustion Engines) and Rule 2020 were presented in a public workshop 

together and are being taken to the Governing Board for Public Hearing together as one 

board package, the one comment and response to that comment is included in the 

Appendix A of the Rule 4702 rule package. Please refer to Appendix A, question 23 for 

this comment and the District response to it. 

II. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

The proposed amendments to Rule 2020 include new definitions for “agricultural 

sources”, “Major Source”, and “wind machine”. These terms are used to clarify 

language added in response to the EPA limited approval limited disapproval, and the 

proposed exemption for wind machines. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 2020 August 18, 2011 

 4 Final Staff Report for 

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2020 

A. Agricultural Sources 

On April 12, 2010, EPA finalized partial approval/partial disapproval of the December 

20, 2007 version of Rule 2020. EPA found that the limited permitting exemption for 

agricultural sources of emissions found in section 6.20 of the rule was inappropriately 

ambiguous due to a reference to state law, which law is not in the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). 

Specifically, current Rule 2020, Section 6.20, says that the following sources are 

exempt from permitting requirements: 

Agricultural sources, but only to the extent provided by California Health and 

Safety Code, Section 42301.16. 

Staff is proposing to remove the ambiguity caused by the reference to state law by 

restating the intended permitting exemption as follows: 

6.20 Agricultural Sources 

6.20.1 Agricultural sources at a stationary source that, in aggregate, produce 

actual emissions less than one-half of the major source thresholds from 

the stationary source. For the purposes of determining permitting 

applicability, fugitive emissions, except fugitive dust emissions, are 

included in determining aggregate emissions. 

6.20.2 In no case shall the exemption in section 6.20.1 apply to a stationary 

source required to obtain Title V permits according to Rule 2520 

(Federally Mandated Operating Permits). 

To support the new language above, staff recommends the addition of a definition for 

“Agricultural Source” to Section 3.0 (Definitions) of Rule 2020 as follows: 

3.1 Agricultural Source: equipment or operations that emit air contaminants and that 

are used in the production of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. 

These changes remove the ambiguity caused by referencing the state law but do not 

change the applicability of the exemption in any way because applying the referenced 

state law would lead to the same result. 

It should be noted that SB 288 prohibits changes to certain permitting requirements 

such that they relax those requirements in place on December 30, 2002. As discussed 

more thoroughly in the District’s September 21, 2006 final staff report on a prior version 

of this same exemption rule revision, this is not a change in requirements at all, but 

merely an incorporation of existing state law requirements. In addition, all agricultural 

operations were exempt from permits by state law in 2002. Therefore, neither this 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 2020 August 18, 2011 

 5 Final Staff Report for 

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2020 

change, nor the one discussed below, could relax any permitting requirements that 

existed at that time, and so SB 288 is not violated. 

B. Wind Machines 

Wind machines are large fans mounted on towers. They are used to mix the warmer air 

aloft into the cooler air at ground level in citrus groves in areas that are susceptible to 

occasional freezing weather, and are intended to keep the citrus crop from freezing. 

They are generally driven by small internal combustion engines which operate between 

10 and 35 hours per year, on average. 

Staff is proposing to add wind machines to rule language in order to explicitly exempt 

them from Air District permitting requirements as follows: 

3.18 Wind Machine: a machine consisting of a large fan mounted on a tower and 

powered by an internal combustion engine, used exclusively to provide frost 

protection to agricultural crops by affecting a heat transfer by moving warmer 

atmospheric air downward and mixing it with the colder air surrounding a crop. 

6.1.6 Wind Machines. 

No wind machines have thus far been required to obtain permits in the San Joaquin 

Valley, as their total emissions have remained below permitting thresholds due to their 

very low emissions and yearly operating hours. Other Air Districts, most notably the 

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), have also exempted wind 

machines from permitting requirements. It should be noted that the SCAQMD limits the 

exemption to machines operating less than 30 hours per year, but staff believe this 

limitation to be impractical and unnecessary. Staff finds the applicability limit of 30 

hours of use in SCAQMD’s wind machine permit exemption to be impractical and would 

not achieve emissions reductions. First, wind machines operate an average of 10-35 

hours per year, so many wind machines’ average usage would be slightly over this limit. 

In addition, if a wind machine operates over 30 hours in some given year, perhaps due 

to an extraordinarily cold winter, and was required to obtain a permit, it would be subject 

to the burdens associated with permitting, but would still not be subject to any emissions 

limitations or rule requirements. 

In addition, the District has previously analyzed the effectiveness and reasonableness 

of requiring emissions reductions from wind machine engines. Based on this analysis, 

Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines – Phase 2) exempts engines used exclusively 

to power wind machines used for crop protection from all provisions of Rule 4702. This 

exemption was in response to industry’s comments and is based on information 

provided by industry that demonstrated the very limited operation of wind machines and 

the limited potential impact at the time of year that wind machines are operated. In 

exempting the engines from the requirements of Rule 4702, the District considered 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 2020 August 18, 2011 

 6 Final Staff Report for 

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2020 

existing emission controls and determined that no cost-effective controls were available 

to effectively reduce emissions from such an extremely low-use function. 

C. Define Major Source 

A definition would be added to rule language for the term Major Source to improve rule 

clarity. Major Source would be defined as follows: 

3.9 Major Source: as defined in Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source 

Review Rule). 

III. ANALYSES 

A. Emission Reduction 

These amendments are intended to improve understanding of the requirements, and to 

relieve a less than significant source from an unnecessary regulatory burden without 

impacting air quality. No emission reductions are anticipated from this rule-amending 

project due to the administrative nature of the draft amendments. 

B. Cost Effectiveness 

Pursuant to CH&SC Section 40920.6(a), the District is required to analyze the cost 

effectiveness of new rules or rule amendments that implement Best Available Retrofit 

Control Technology (BARCT) or all feasible measure. The proposed amendments do 

not implement BARCT or all feasible measures, and no new emission control 

requirements are proposed. As such, this rule-amending project is not subject to the 

cost effectiveness mandate. 

C. Socioeconomic Impact 

Additionally, state law requires the District to analyze the socioeconomic impacts of any 

proposed rule amendment that significantly affects air quality or strengthens an 

emission limitation. The proposed amendments will have neither effect, and are 

therefore not subject to the socioeconomic analysis mandate. 

D. Environmental Assessment 

Pursuant to §15061 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), District staff investigated the likely environmental 

impacts of the proposed amendments to Rule 2020. The purpose of this rule-amending 

project is to update Section 6.20 as cited by EPA, and to clarify existing District policy. 

Proposed amendments are based on federal requirements do not change the meaning 

of current rule language. As such, District staff concludes that it can be seen with 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 2020 August 18, 2011 

 7 Final Staff Report for 

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2020 

certainty that the proposed amendments to the rule will not have any significant adverse 

effect on the environment. Staff recommends filing a Notice of Exemption under the 

provisions of California Code of Regulations §15061(b)(3). 

E. Rule Consistency Analysis 

According to CH&SC § 40727.2 (g), a rule consistency analysis of the draft rule is not 

required because the proposed amendments do not strengthen emission limits or 

impose more stringent monitoring, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements. 

F. RACT Analysis 

CAA §182(b)(2) requires ozone non-attainment areas to implement RACT for sources 

that are subject to Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) documents issued by EPA and 

for “major sources” of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), 

which are ozone precursors. This is not a prohibitory rule, therefore a RACT analysis is 

not required for this rule-amending project. 

VII. REFERENCES 

California Health and Safety Code. Section 42301.16. 

Federal Register/Vol.75, No. 90/Tuesday, May 11, 2010/Rules and Regulations 

Senate Bill 288. Air quality: Protect California Act of 2003. 

SCAQMD. Rule 219 (Equipment Not Requiring a Written Permit Pursuant to Regulation 

II). Adopted January 9, 1976, Last Amended June 1, 2007. 

SJVUAPCD. District Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits). Adopted 

June 15, 1995, Amended June 21, 2001. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 2020 August 18, 2011 

 8 Final Staff Report for 

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2020 

This page intentionally blank.