Prepared by: Matthew Baldwin

Air Quality Engineer

Approved by: David A. Valler, Jr.

Air Pollution Control Officer

FEATHER RIVER AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

STAFF REPORT

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:

REGULATION X RULE 10.1 NEW SOURCE REVIEW
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents.........................................................................................................................i

1.0 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Background........................................................................................................................ 1

3.0 Legal Mandates.................................................................................................................. 1

4.0 Proposed Rule Summary ................................................................................................... 3

5.0 Impacts of the New Rule .................................................................................................... 5

6.0 Environmental Review and Compliance ............................................................................. 6

7.0 Required Findings .............................................................................................................. 6

8.0 Comparison with Other Applicable Regulations and Requirements .................................... 7

9.0 Public Notice ...................................................................................................................... 7

ATTACHEMENT A: Proposed Lineout/Strikeout of Regulation X: Rule 10.1: New Source 

Review....................................................................................................................................... 1
Staff Report Page 1 of 8

Regulation X; Rule 10.1 New Source Review

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Feather River Air Quality Management District’s (District) New Source Review (NSR) 

program was established in February 1993 to ensure that construction and operation of new 

and modified sources does not interfere with progress towards attainment of the National and 

State Ambient Air Quality Standards. Because portions of the District have been designated as 

nonattainment for various pollutants, the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) requires the District to implement measures to reduce sources of these pollutants and 

their precursors. The District makes its commitment to reduce pollution through the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is federally enforceable through USEPA and the Federal 

Clean Air Act (CAA). A New Source Review, or Preconstruction Review, is required as part of 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

The purpose of the proposed amendments to Rule 10.1 are to (1) incorporate federal 

nonattainment requirements for PM2.5 in the Yuba City-Marysville area and for ozone in the 

Sutter Buttes area; and (2) address deficiencies published by the USEPA.

2.0 BACKGROUND

In October 2009, in response to an audit by the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the 

District amended Rule 10.1 – New Source Review. Subsequently, the District submitted the rule 

for inclusion into the SIP. The EPA granted a partial approval / partial disapproval, since the 

overall rule was sufficient, but some specific parts of the rule were deficient.

Additionally, in October 2009, the EPA issued designations for the 24-hour standard for PM2.5. 

A portion of the District was designated as non-attainment for failing to meet this standard. As a 

result, the District is required to implement NSR for major sources and major modifications to 

sources of PM2.5.

The District is also incorporating into the rule, requirements for the portion of Sutter County 

designated as non-attainment for the 1997 ozone standard. This area is the portion of the Sutter 

Buttes above 2000 feet in elevation.

3.0 LEGAL MANDATES

FEDERAL MANDATE

The District has multiple designations regarding attainment of the air quality standards set forth 

by the USEPA. The District currently has three separate nonattainment areas:

1. Sacramento Federal Non-attainment Area (SFNA) for Ozone

The southern portion of Sutter County has been designated as a serious nonattainment 

area for the federal 8-hour ozone standard. This portion of Sutter County, along with 

Sacramento, Yolo, and portions of Placer, El Dorado and Solano Counties are 

incorporated into the SFNA.

2. Sutter Buttes Non-attainment Area (SBNA) for Ozone
Staff Report Page 2 of 8

Regulation X; Rule 10.1 New Source Review

The Sutter Buttes (portions above 2000 feet elevation) in Sutter County is designated as 

a basic nonattainment for the federal ozone standard.

3. Yuba City-Marysville Non-attainment Area (YC-MNA) for PM2.5

Sutter County and part of Yuba County is designated as non-attainment for the federal 

PM2.5 standard. The portion of Yuba County in the YC-MNA is listed in the federal 

register notice as:

“That portion of Yuba County which lies west of the line described as follows: (Mount 

Diablo Base and Meridian) Beginning at the intersection of the Yuba-Nevada county line 

and the range line common to ranges R7E and R8E, north to the southeast corner of 

township T18N R7E, then west along the township line common to T17N and T18N, 

then north along the range line common to ranges R6E and R7E, then west along the 

township line common to T19N and T18N to the Yuba-Butte County boundary.”

Thus, the entire valley portion of Yuba County and the western portion of the foothills are 

included in the non-attainment area.

Section 173 of Title I of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 requires permitting 

authorities to establish a permitting program for reviewing applications for construction of new 

sources or modification of existing sources of air pollutants. A New Source Review, or 

Preconstruction Review, is required as part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) under 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51 Subpart 1 to ensure that the construction or 

modification of a source will not cause violations of the State’s control strategy or interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of ambient air quality standards. 40 CFR Part 51 also requires the 

District to adopt a permitting program that requires the application of BACT for any net increase 

in emissions at a major stationary source, and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) for a 

new stationary source or modification to an existing stationary source that results in a significant 

emission increase.

STATE MANDATES

California Health and Safety (CH&S) Code §§ 40918 and 40919, require that the District’s 

permitting program be designed to achieve no net increase in emissions of nonattainment 

pollutants from stationary sources with emissions exceeding specified thresholds. Furthermore, 

Title 17, § 70600 requires ozone non-attainment Districts in the Broader Sacramento Area to 

adopt more stringent thresholds. The Broader Sacramento Area is Defined in Title 17 CCR § 

70500. This area is equal to the area designated as the SFNA portion of FRAQMD. The 

thresholds applicable to the District are outlined in Table 3.1. CH&S Code §§ 40918 and 40919 

also require the District’s permitting program to require the use of BACT for any new or modified 

stationary source which has a potential to emit greater than or equal to the thresholds listed in 

Table 3.2 for nonattainment pollutants. District rule 10.1 New Source Review as amended on 

June 7, 2004 complies with these requirements.

The District is classified as attainment/unclassified for PM2.5 under the state standards. The no 

net increase thresholds do not apply.
Staff Report Page 3 of 8

Regulation X; Rule 10.1 New Source Review

Table 3.1 – No Net Increase (offset) Threshold

Pollutant SFNA portion of FRAQMD North FRAQMD

Ozone Precursors (NOx & ROG) 10 tons/year 25 tons/year

PM-10 25 tons/year 25 tons/year

Table 3.2 – BACT Thresholds

Pollutant SFNA portion of FRAQMD North FRAQMD

Ozone Precursors (NOx & ROG) 10 pounds/day 25 pounds/day

PM-10 25 pounds/day 25 pounds/day

Chapter 4.5, Protect California Air Act of 2003 Requirements: In an effort to minimize the 

potential impact of federal NSR reform, the state legislature passed the Protect California Air 

Act of 2003 (SB288). The Act (CH&S Code § 42500 through 42507) is intended to minimize the 

impact of the relaxation of the federal new source review program on air quality in California. 

The Act prohibits districts from making revisions to their SIP approved NSR rules in existence 

on December 30, 2002 that would result in weakening their rules. These revisions include but 

are not limited to, revisions to rule applicability, changing the definition of modification so that 

NSR is not triggered or triggered at a higher level of emission increases, or relaxing BACT, air 

quality analysis, and public participation requirements. The Act does permit districts to deviate 

from these requirements under specified conditions.

The proposed amendments to Rule 10.1 meet this mandate. Rule 10.1 does not relax the 

requirements to obtain a permit and undergo NSR analysis; does not relax the requirement to 

apply BACT to a new or modified emission unit; does not relax the requirements or thresholds 

for performing an air quality impact analysis as required by Rule 10.1 G; does not relax the 

requirements for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting; does not relax the requirement for 

regulating any air pollutant; and does not relax any requirement for public participation.

4.0 PROPOSED RULE SUMMARY

Table 4.1 summarizes the proposed rulemaking by section:

Table 4.1 – Summary of Proposed Amendments

SECTION NUMBER PROPOSED LANGUAGE

Technical 

Amendment

Adoption and amended dates have been moved to the Title based on 

an EPA recommendation. Currently, these dates are been listed in 

each section. This change was recommended because the board 

adopts and amends the rule as a whole, not just the sections.

10.1 A Added recommended language in A.1 to incorporate review of 

applicable District rules into the purpose of the rule.
Staff Report Page 4 of 8

Regulation X; Rule 10.1 New Source Review

10.1 B

Added provision, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(ii), which requires

new source review for a source or modification which becomes major 

due to a relaxation in a federally-enforceable limit. Such sources and 

modifications are subject to new source review “as though construction 

had not yet commenced.”

Added language such that if the SBNA or the YC-MNA is re-designated 

as attainment, the provisions requiring offsets or BACT become nonapplicable.

10.1 D Added: “Begin Actual Construction,” “Class I Area,” “Commence,” 

“Construction,” “Federally Enforceable,” and “Necessary 

Preconstruction Approvals or Permits” in response to deficiencies 

identified by EPA in their TSD.

Added: “Sutter Buttes Nonattainment Area for Ozone (SBNA)” and 

“Yuba City-Marysville Nonattainment Area for PM2.5” to incorporate 

NSR requirements for these two non-attainment areas.

Amended: “Major Modification” in order to include requirements for 

Ozone in the SBNA and PM2.5 in the YC-MNA. EPA recommended 

amending definition for clarity by moving the thresholds for significance 

into a new definition for “Significant.” EPA also recommended the 

language for “significant emissions increase” to replace “net increase in 

the potential to emit” to for clarity and consistency with the federal 

definition.

Added: “Significant” and “Significant Emissions Increase,” in response 

to amendment of “Major Modification.”

Added: “PM2.5”

Amended: “Precursor” to identify precursors for PM2.5
Staff Report Page 5 of 8

Regulation X; Rule 10.1 New Source Review

Table 4.1 – Summary of Proposed Amendments

SECTION NUMBER PROPOSED LANGUAGE

10.1 E Amended E.1 – Best Available Control Technology requirements to 

include federal requirements for Ozone in the SBNA and PM2.5 in the 

YC-MNA.

Amended E.2.a – Offsets to include federal requirements for offsetting 

emissions increases of ozone in the SBNA and PM2.5 in the YC-MNA 

for major sources and major modifications.

Amended E.2.e – offset ratios. For Ozone in the SBNA, amended table 

to require same ratios as Ozone in the SFNA. For PM2.5 in the YCMNA, added table for offset ratios. The ratios used are the same as 

PM10. These ratios are also the same as Placer County APCD for 

PM2.5.

Amended E.2.f – Interpollutant Offsets to allow for Interpollutant offsets 

from PM2.5 precursors at rates established by the EPA.

Added E.8 – “Potential Visibility Impacts” based on recommended 

language from EPA.

10.1 F This section has not been modified.

10.1 G This section has not been modified.

10.1 H This section has not been modified.

10.1 I This section has not been modified.

5.0 IMPACTS OF THE NEW RULE

EMISSION IMPACTS

These proposed amendments will require new major sources and major modifications to major 

sources of PM2.5 within the YC-MNA to comply with federal NSR requirements. The District 

currently does not have any major sources of PM2.5 within the YC-MNA. Additionally, the 

proposed amendments will require new major sources and major modifications to major sources 

located in the SBNA comply with federal NSR requirements. There are no sources within the 

SBNA. The District does not anticipate any emission impacts from the proposed rule.

SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT

California Health and Safety Code § 40728.5 requires, in part, that:

“Whenever a district intends to propose the adoption, amendment or repeal of a 

rule or regulation that will significantly affect air quality or emissions limitations, 

that agency shall, to the extent that data are available, perform an assessment of 

the socioeconomic impacts of the adoption, amendment, or repeal of the rule or 

regulation.”

However, districts with a population of less than 500,000 persons are exempt from the 

provisions of CH&S § 40728.5 (a). The District’s population is estimated to be approximately 

155,679, below the 500,000 person threshold. Therefore, a socioeconomic analysis for this 

rulemaking is not required.
Staff Report Page 6 of 8

Regulation X; Rule 10.1 New Source Review

COST IMPACTS

California Health and Safety Code Section 40703 requires that all air quality districts consider 

and make public findings relating to the cost effectiveness of implementing an emission control 

measure.

The proposed rule does not implement an emission control measure and therefore is not subject 

to the cost effectiveness mandate. Also, staff does not anticipate an additional need for staff 

resources upon adoption of the rule.

Proposition 26, Supermajority Vote to Pass New Taxes and Fees (2010)

Section 2 (d) of Article XIII C, California Constitution reads:

“No local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless 

and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds 

vote. A special tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at 

a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved.”

This rule does not impose any new taxes nor increase any existing taxes.

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE

The proposed amendments for Rule 10.1 New Source Review consist of incorporating existing 

District, state and federal requirements. As the District has not exercised discretion by modifying 

federal requirements, it is ministerial in nature and the proposed amendments to Rule 10.1 New 

Source Review are statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15268 of the state CEQA 

Guidelines.

7.0 REQUIRED FINDINGS

California Health and Safety Code Section 40727 (a) requires that prior to adopting or amending 

a rule or regulation, an air district’s board must make findings of necessity, authority, clarity, 

consistency, non-duplication and reference. The findings must be based on the following:

1. Information presented in the District’s written analysis, prepared pursuant to CH&S § 

40727.2;

2. Information contained in the rulemaking records pursuant to CH&S § 40728; and

3. Relevant information presented at the Board’s hearing for the rule.

The table below describes the finding and the basis for making the finding.

Table 7.1

FINDING FINDING DETERMINATION

Necessity: The District must find that the 

rulemaking demonstrates a need exists for 

the rule or for its amendment or repeal. 

(CH&S § 40727 (b)(1))

Rule 10.1

It is necessary for the District to adopt the proposed 

amendments in order to correct deficiencies found by 

the EPA during the SIP approval process from the 

EPA and for submittal into the PM2.5 non-attainment 

SIP.
Staff Report Page 7 of 8

Regulation X; Rule 10.1 New Source Review

FINDING FINDING DETERMINATION

Authority: The District must find that a 

provision of law or of a state or federal 

regulation permits or requires the District to 

adopt, amend, or repeal the rule. (CH&S § 

47027(b)(2))

Rule 10.1

The District is authorized to adopt rules and 

regulations by CH&S § 40001, 40702, 40919, 41010, 

and 42300.

Clarity: The District must find that the rule is 

written or displayed so that its meaning can 

be easily understood by the persons directly 

affected by it. (CH&S § 40727(b)(3))

Rule 10.1

The District has reviewed the proposed amendments

and determined that they can be easily understood by 

the affected industry. In addition, the record contains 

no evidence that the persons directly affected by the 

rule cannot understand the rule.

Consistency: The rule is in harmony with, 

and not in conflict with or contradictory to, 

existing statutes, court decisions, or state or 

federal regulations. (CH&S § 40727(b)(4))

Rule 10.1

The proposed rule does not conflict with and are not 

contradictory to existing statutes, court decisions, or 

state or federal regulations.

Non-Duplication: The District must find that 

either: 1) The rule does not impose the same 

requirements as an existing site or federal 

regulation; or 2) that the duplicative 

requirements are necessary or proper to 

execute the powers and duties granted to, 

and imposed upon the District. (CH&S § 

40727(b)(5)

Rule 10.1

The proposed rule duplicates federal rules or 

regulations for permitting programs. The duplicative 

requirements are necessary in order to execute the

powers and duties imposed upon the District.

Reference: The District must refer to any 

statute, court decision, or other provision of 

law that the District implements, interprets, or 

makes specific by adopting, amending or 

repealing the rule. (CH&S § 40727(b)(6))

Rule 10.1

The proposed amendments are intended to clarify 

existing law. References to statutes are noted where 

applicable.

8.0 COMPARISON WITH OTHER APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

California Health and Safety Code Section 40727.2 requires districts to prepare a written 

analysis (may be in the form of a matrix) that identifies all existing federal air pollution control 

requirements, including, but not limited to, emission control standards constituting BACT, that 

apply to the same equipment or source type as the rule or regulation proposed for adoption or 

modification by the District. In addition, the analysis shall identify any other District rule or 

regulation that applies to the same equipment or source type. 

Under CH&S § 40727.2(g), the District finds that the proposed amendments do not strengthen 

or impose new emission limits or impose more stringent monitoring, reporting, or recordkeeping 

requirements; therefore complies with CH&S Code § 40727.2.

9.0 PUBLIC NOTICE

The notice for this rule adoption was mailed to affected sources and a notice of the hearing was 

published in the Appeal Democrat on January 6, 2012. No comments have been received from 

the notice.

A public workshop to discuss the proposed amendments was conducted on January 10, 2012. 

A notice of the workshop was mailed to all affected sources and interested parties. No sources 

or interested parties attended the workshop.
Staff Report Page 8 of 8

Regulation X; Rule 10.1 New Source Review

The proposed amendments were sent to the Air Resources Board and the Environmental 

Protection Agency on October 10, 2011. Significant Comments were received from EPA. A 

revised version of the rule to address these comments was sent on January 10, 2012. No 

additional significant comments received.
ATTACHEMENT A:

PROPOSED LINEOUT/STRIKEOUT OF REGULATION X: RULE 10.1: NEW SOURCE REVIEW