2005 - 1

(Adopted October 15, 1993)(Amended December 7, 1995)(Amended May 10, 1996)

(Amended July 12, 1996)(Amended February 14, 1997)(Amended April 9, 1999)

(Amended April 20, 2001)(Amended May 6, 2005)

June 3March 4, 2011

PAR2005

PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 2005. NEW SOURCE REVIEW FOR RECLAIM

(a) Purpose

This rule sets forth pre-construction review requirements for new facilities subject 

to the requirements of the RECLAIM program, for modifications to RECLAIM 

facilities, and for facilities which increase their allocation to a level greater than 

their starting Allocation plus non-tradable credits. The purpose of this rule is to 

ensure that the operation of such facilities does not interfere with progress in 

attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and that future 

economic growth in the South Coast Air Basin is not unnecessarily restricted.

(b) Requirements for New or Relocated RECLAIM Facilities

(1) The Executive Officer shall not approve the application for a Facility 

Permit to authorize construction or installation of a new or relocated

facility unless the applicant demonstrates that:

(A) Best Available Control Technology will be applied to every 

emission source located at the facility; and

(B) the operation of any emission source located at the new or 

relocated facility will not cause a violation nor make significantly 

worse an existing violation of the state or national ambient air 

quality standard at any receptor location in the District for NO2 as 

specified in Appendix A. The applicant shall use the modeling 

procedures specified in Appendix A.

(2) The Executive Officer shall not approve the application for a Facility 

Permit authorizing operation of a new or relocated facility, unless the 

applicant demonstrates that:

(A) the facility holds sufficient RTCs to offset the total facility 

emissions for the first year of operation, at a 1-to-1 ratio; and

(B) the RTCs procured to comply with the requirements of 

subparagraph (b)(2)(A) were obtained pursuant to the requirements 

of subdivision (e), and
Proposed Amended Rule 2005 (Cont.) (Amended JuneMayrch 36, 200511)

2005 - 2

(C) the total facility emissions determined to comply with the 

requirements of subparagraph (b)(2)(A) shall also include ship 

emissions directly associated with activities at stationary sources 

subject to this rule as follows:

(i) all emissions from ships during the loading and unloading 

of cargo and while at berth where the cargo is loaded or 

unloaded; and

(ii) non-propulsion ship emissions within coastal waters under 

District jurisdiction.

(c) Requirements for Existing RECLAIM Facilities, Modification to New RECLAIM 

Facilities, Facilities which Undergo a Change of Operator, or Facilities which 

Increase an Annual Allocation to a Level Greater Than the Facility's Starting 

Allocation Plus Non-tradable Credits.

(1) The Executive Officer shall not approve an application for a Facility 

Permit Amendment to authorize the installation of a new source or 

modification of an existing source which results in an emission increase as 

defined in subdivision (d), unless the applicant demonstrates that:

(A) Best Available Control Technology will be applied to the source; 

and

(B) the operation of the source will not result in a significant increase 

in the air quality concentration for NO2 as specified in Appendix 

A. The applicant shall use the modeling procedures specified in 

Appendix A.

(2) The Executive Officer shall not approve an application for a Facility 

Permit Amendment to authorize operation of the new or modified source 

which results in an emission increase as defined in subdivision (d), unless 

the applicant demonstrates that the facility holds sufficient RTCs to offset 

the annual emission increase for the first year of operation at a 1-to-1 ratio.

(3) The Executive Officer shall not approve an application for Change of 

Operator for a Facility Permit unless the applicant demonstrates that the 

facility holds sufficient RTCs for the compliance year in which the change 

of operator permit is issued. Credits must be held in an amount equal to:
Proposed Amended Rule 2005 (Cont.) (Amended JuneMayrch 36, 200511)

2005 - 3

(A) The annual Allocation initially issued to the original Facility 

Permit holder for existing facility as defined in Rule 2000 for the 

same compliance year, in which the change of operator permit is 

issued, multiplied, where applicable, by the Tradable/Usable RTC 

Adjustment Factor for the same compliance year as listed in Rule 

2002(f)(1)(A); or

(B) The sum of annual RECLAIM pollutants from all the sources 

located at the facility. The amount of annual RECLAIM pollutants 

for each source shall be calculated by the maximum hourly 

potential to emit, over an operating schedule of 24 hours per day 

and 365 days per year, or shall be based on a permit condition 

limiting the source’s emission.

(4) The Executive Officer shall not approve an application to increase an 

annual Allocation to a level greater than the facility's starting Allocation 

plus non-tradable credits, unless the applicant demonstrates that:

(A) each source which creates an emission increase as defined in 

subdivision (d) will:

(i) apply Best Available Control Technology;

(ii) not result in a significant increase in the air quality 

concentration for NO2 as specified in Appendix A; and

(B) the facility holds sufficient RTCs acquired pursuant to subdivision 

(e) to offset the annual increase in the facility's starting Allocation 

plus non-tradable credits at a 1-to-1 ratio for a minimum of one 

year.

(d) Emission Increase

An increase in emissions occurs if a source's maximum hourly potential to emit 

immediately prior to the proposed modification is less than the source's postmodification maximum hourly potential to emit. The amount of emission 

increase will be determined by comparing pre-modification and post-modification 

emissions on an annual basis by using: (1) an operating schedule of 24 hours per 

day, 365 days per year; or (2) a permit condition limiting mass emissions.

(e) Trading Zones Restrictions

Any increase in an annual Allocation to a level greater than the facility's starting 

plus non-tradable Allocations, and all emissions from a new or relocated facility 

must be fully offset by obtaining RTCs originated in one of the two trading zones 
Proposed Amended Rule 2005 (Cont.) (Amended JuneMayrch 36, 200511)

2005 - 4

as illustrated in the RECLAIM Trading Zones Map. A facility in Zone 1 may 

only obtain RTCs from Zone 1. A facility in Zone 2 may obtain RTCs from either 

Zone 1 or 2, or both.

(f) Offsets

The Facility Permit for a new or modified facility shall require compliance with 

this subdivision, if applicable.

(1) Any facility which was required to provide offsets pursuant to paragraphs 

(b)(2), (c)(2), or subparagraph (c)(4)(B) or any new facility required to 

provide offsets pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) shall, at the commencement of 

each compliance year, hold RTCs in an amount equal to the amount of 

such required offsets. The Facility Permit holder may reduce the amount 

of offsets required pursuant to this subdivision by accepting a permit 

condition limiting emissions which shall serve in lieu of the starting 

Allocation plus non-tradable credits for purposes of paragraph (c)(4). 

(2) Unused RTCs acquired to comply with this subdivision or with paragraphs 

(b)(2), (c)(2), or subparagraph (c)(4)(B) may be sold only during the 

reconciliation period for the fourth quarter of the applicable compliance 

year.

(3) In lieu of compliance with paragraph (f)(2), the Facility Permit holder may 

accept a permit condition limiting quarterly emissions from the facility. A 

facility with quarterly emission limits may sell, at any time after the end of 

that quarter and prior to the end of the reconciliation period for that 

compliance year, unused RTCs acquired pursuant to this subdivision at the 

amount not to exceed the difference between the permitted emission limit 

for that quarter and the emissions during that quarter as reported to the 

District in the Quarterly Emission Certification. Any facility with 

quarterly certified emissions exceeding the quarterly emission limit for 

any quarter may sell RTCs only during the reconciliation period for the 

fourth quarter of the applicable compliance year. If there are a total of 

three exceedances in any five consecutive compliance years, the facility 

shall permanently comply with paragraph (f)(2) in lieu of (f)(3).
Proposed Amended Rule 2005 (Cont.) (Amended JuneMayrch 36, 200511)

2005 - 5

(g) Additional Federal Requirements for Major Stationary Sources

The Executive Officer shall not approve the application for a Facility Permit or an 

Amendment to a Facility Permit for a new, relocated or modified major stationary 

source, as defined in the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 7511a(e), unless the 

applicant:

(1) certifies that all other major stationary sources in the state which are 

controlled by the applicant are in compliance or on a schedule for 

compliance with all applicable federal emission limitations or standards 

(42 U.S.C. Section 7503(a)(3)); and

(2) submits an analysis of alternative sites, sizes, production processes and 

environmental control techniques for the proposed source which 

demonstrates that the benefits of the proposed source significantly 

outweigh the environmental and social cost imposed as a result of its 

location, construction, or modification (42 U.S.C. Section 7503(a)(5));

(3) Compliance Through California Environmental Quality Act

The requirements of paragraph (g)(2) may be met through compliance 

with the California Environmental Quality Act in the following manner.

(A) if the proposed project is exempt from California Environmental 

Quality Act analysis pursuant to a statutory or categorical 

exemption pursuant to Title 14, California Code of Regulations, 

Sections 15260 to 15329, paragraph (g)(2) shall not apply to that 

project;

(B) if the proposed project qualifies for a negative declaration pursuant 

to Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15070, or a 

mitigated negative declaration as defined in Public Resources 

Code Section 21064.5, paragraph (g)(2) shall not apply to that 

project; or

(C) if the proposed project has been analyzed by an environmental 

impact report pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21002.1 

and Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15080 et seq., 

paragraph (g)(2) shall be deemed satisfied.
Proposed Amended Rule 2005 (Cont.) (Amended JuneMayrch 36, 200511)

2005 - 6

(4) Protection of Visibility

(A) Conduct a modeling analysis for plume visibility in accordance 

with the procedures specified in Appendix B if the net emission 

increase from the new or modified source exceeds 40 tons/year of 

NOX; and the location of the source, relative to the closest 

boundary of a specified Federal Class I area, is within the distance 

specified in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1

Federal Class I Area Distance 

(km)

Agua Tibia 28

Cucamonga 28

Joshua Tree 29

San Gabriel 29

San Gorgonio 32

San Jacinto 28

(B) In relation to a permit application subject to the modeling analysis 

required by subparagraph (g)(4)(A), the Executive Officer shall:

(i) deem a permit application complete only when the 

applicant has complied with the requisite modeling 

analysis for plume visibility pursuant to subparagraph 

(g)(4)(A);

(ii) notify and provide a copy of the complete permit 

application file to the applicable Federal Land 

Manager(s) within 30 calendar days after the application 

has been deemed complete and at least 60 days prior to 

final action on the permit application;
Proposed Amended Rule 2005 (Cont.) (Amended JuneMayrch 36, 200511)

2005 - 7

(iii) consider written comments, relative to visibility impacts 

from the new or modified source, from the responsible 

Federal Land Manager(s), including any regional haze 

modeling performed by the Federal Land Manager(s), 

received within 30 days of the date of notification when 

determining the terms and conditions of the permit;

(iv) consider the Federal Land Manager(s) findings with 

respect to the geographic extent, intensity, duration, 

frequency and time of any identified visibility 

impairment of an affected Federal Class I area, including 

how these factors correlate with times of visitor use of 

the Federal Class I area, and the frequency and timing of 

natural conditions that reduce visibility; and,

(v) explain its decision or give notice as to where to obtain 

this explanation if the Executive Officer finds that the 

Federal Land Manager(s) analysis does not demonstrate 

that a new or modified source may have an adverse 

impact on visibility in an affected Federal Class I area.

(C) If a project has an adverse impact on visibility in an affected 

Federal Class I area, the Executive Officer may consider the cost 

of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and 

non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, the useful 

life of the source, and all other relevant factors in determining 

whether to issue or deny the Permit to Construct or Permit to 

Operate.

(h) Public Notice

The applicant shall provide public notice, if required, pursuant to Rule 212 -

Standards for Approving Permits.

(i) Rule 1401

All new or modified sources shall comply with the requirements of Rule 1401 -

New Source Review of Carcinogenic Air Contaminants, if applicable.

(j) Compliance with State and Federal New Source Review Requirements

The Executive Officer will report to the District Governing Board regarding the 

effectiveness of Rule 2005 in meeting the state and federal New Source Review 

requirements for the preceding year. The Executive Officer may impose permit 
Proposed Amended Rule 2005 (Cont.) (Amended JuneMayrch 36, 200511)

2005 - 8

conditions to monitor and ensure compliance with such requirements. This 

report shall be incorporated in the Annual Program Audit Report prepared 

pursuant to Rule 2015(b)(1).

(k) Exemptions

(1) Functionally identical source replacements are exempt from the 

requirements of subparagraph (c)(1)(B) of this rule.

(2) Physical modifications that consist of the installation of equipment where 

the modification will not increase the emissions rate of any RECLAIM 

pollutant, and will not cause an increase in emissions above the facility's 

current year Allocation, shall be exempt from the requirements of 

paragraph (c)(2).

(3) Increases in hours of operation or throughput for equipment or processes 

permitted prior to October 15, 1993 that the applicant demonstrates 

would not violate any permit conditions in effect on October 15, 1993 

which were imposed in order to limit emissions to implement New 

Source Review offset requirements, shall be exempt from the 

requirements of this rule.

(4) Increase to RECLAIM emission concentration limits or emission rates 

not associated with Best Available Control Technology permit conditions 

provided that the increase is not a result of any modification to equipment 

shall be exempt from the requirements of this rule.

(5) The requirements under subparagraphs (b)(1)(B) and (c)(1)(B), and 

clause (c)(4)(A)(ii) shall not apply to equipment used exclusively on a 

standby basis for non-utility electrical power generation or any other 

equipment used on a standby basis in case of emergency, provided the 

source does not operate more than 200 hours per year as evidenced by an 

engine-hour meter or equivalent method and is listed as emergency 

equipment in the Facility Permit.
Proposed Amended Rule 2005 (Cont.) (Amended JuneMayrch 36, 200511)

2005 - 9

APPENDIX A

The following sets forth the procedure for complying with the air quality modeling 

requirements. An applicant must either (1) provide an analysis approved by the 

Executive Officer or designee, or (2) show by using the Screening Analysis below, that a 

significant change (increase) in air quality concentration will not occur at any receptor 

location for which the state or national ambient air quality standard for NO2 is exceeded.

Table A-1 of the screening analysis is subject to change by the Executive Officer, based 

on improved modeling data.

SCREENING ANALYSIS

Compare the emissions from the equipment you are applying for to those in Table A-1. If 

the emissions are less than the allowable emissions, no further analysis is required. If the

emissions are greater than the allowable emissions, a more detailed air quality modeling 

analysis is required.

Table A-1

Allowable Emissions

for Noncombustion Sources and for

Combustion Sources less than 40 Million BTUs per hour

Heat Input Capacity NOx

(million BTUs/hr) (lbs/hr)

Noncombustion Source 0.068

2 0.20

5 0.31

10 0.47

20 0.86

30 1.26

40 1.31

Table A-2

Most Stringent Ambient Air Quality Standard and

Allowable Change in Concentration

For Each Air Contaminant/Averaging Time Combination

Most Stringent Significant Change in

Air Averaging Air Quality Air Quality

Contaminant Time Standard Concentration

Nitrogen 1-hour 25 pphm 500 ug/m31 pphm 20 ug/m3

Dioxide Annual 5.3 pphm 100 ug/m30.05 pphm 1 ug/m3
Proposed Amended Rule 2005 (Cont.) (Amended JuneMayrch 36, 200511)

2005 - 10
Proposed Amended Rule 2005 (Cont.) (Amended JuneMayrch 36, 200511)

2005 - 11

APPENDIX B

MODELING ANALYSIS FOR VISIBILITY

(a) The modeling analysis performed by the applicant shall consider:

(1) the net emission increase from the new or modified source; and

(2) the location of the source and its distance to the closest boundary of 

specified Federal Class I area(s).

(b) Level 1 and 2 screening analysis for adverse plume impact pursuant to paragraph 

(g)(4) of this rule for modeling analysis of plume visibility shall consider the 

following applicable screening background visual ranges:

Federal Class I Area Screening Background

Visual Range (km)

Agua Tibia 171

Cucamonga 171

Joshua Tree 180

San Gabriel 175

San Gorgonio 192

San Jacinto 171

For level 1 and 2 screening analysis, no adverse plume impact on visibility 

results when the total color contrast value (Delta-E) is 2.0 or less and the plume 

contrast value (C) is 0.05 or less. If these values are exceeded, the Executive 

Officer shall require additional modeling. For level 3 analysis the appropriate 

background visual range, in consultation with the Executive Officer, shall be 

used. The Executive Officer may determine that there is no adverse visibility 

impact based on substantial evidence provided by the project applicant.

(c) When more detailed modeling is required to determine the project’s visibility 

impact or when an air quality model specified in the Guidelines below is deemed 

inappropriate by the Executive Officer for a specific source-receptor application, 

the model may be modified or another model substituted with prior written 

approval by the Executive Officer, in consultation with the federal 

Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Land Managers.

(d) The modeling analysis for plume visibility required pursuant to paragraph (g)(4) 

of this rule shall comply with the most recent version of:
Proposed Amended Rule 2005 (Cont.) (Amended JuneMayrch 36, 200511)

2005 - 12

(1)

“Guideline on Air Quality Model (Revised)” (1986), supplement A 

(1987), supplement B (1993) and supplement C (1994), EPA-450/2-78-

027R, US EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711; and

(2)

“Workbook for Plume Visual Impact Screening and Analysis (Revised),” 

EPA-454-/R-92-023, US EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;

(3) “User’s Manual for the Plume Visibility Model (PLUVUE II) (Revised),” 

EPA-454/B-92-008, US EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 (for Level-3 Visibility 

Analysis)