### Santa Barbara County APCD 3-1 September 20, 2010 Public Comments and Responses to Comments - Amended Rule 901 ATTACHMENT 3

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

Environmental Protection Agency, December 3, 2010

[COMMENT 1]

In reviewing Rules 102 and 201, it is not clear to

EPA that either of these rules needs to be revised. In Rule 102, your general definition rule, you propose to expand the definition of major source to include sources with GHG emissions over the tailoring rule thresholds. But the only two places this new definition applies is in your Part 70 rules (370 and 1301) which you are amending separately and the new PSD rule 810, which also contains its own major source definition. It seems unnecessary, and it may have some unintended consequences to change your general definition of major source to include GHGs.

[RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1]

The District agrees that a revised Rule 102 “Major Stationary Source Definition” is not necessary and we have removed its amendment from proposed amended Rule (PAR) 102. However, we believe other new/amended definitions are necessary to Rule

102 as discussed below.

[COMMENT 2]

In Rule 201, it appears that the current applicability criteria, devices that "may cause the issuance of air contaminants" is sufficiently broad to cover GHG, and thus no change is need to this rule. Again, see my comment in the rule about potential unintended

consequences.

[RESPONSE TO COMMENT 2]

We agree and have retracted Rule 201 amendments from the project. [COMMENT 3]

In most of the rules, you choose to reference EPA regulations to cite the new GHG tailoring rule thresholds, but you only provided very broad citation levels (i.e. to the reg, but no section number). In addition, the term "GHG threshold" is not defined in the EPA regulations, like the terms "significance" or "major source" are defined with specific thresholds. Instead, the GHG permitting thresholds are somewhat buried in the new definition EPA added of "subject to regulation.” So the net effect is when a source has PTE emissions that meet the definition of subject to regulation for GHG, they ar e subject to PSD and/or Title V requirements. This definition includes the triggering dates and thresholds. I made a suggested edit to cite the EPA regulations in this manner.

[RESPONSE TO COMMENT 3]

The issue of providing only broad citation levels in the PARs no longer exists with the PAR changes and retraction. The citations in PAR 370 and 1301 refer

to 40 CFR 70.2.

The District replaced the term “greenhouse gas

thresholds” with the EPA-recommended text, “subject to regulation.”

[COMMENT 4]

I will also note that while it is acceptable to cross reference to the CFR language to incorporate the tailoring rule thresholds into your regulations, it is not the preferred method, since a reader must now pull out a copy of the cross-referenced regulations to determine these values. EPA strongly encourages you to reconsider this approach.

[RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4]

The cross-referencing greatly simplifies the rule text, and we have retained it to avoid complexities. In addition, we have defined the GHG threshold levels to potentially impacted sources.Santa Barbara County APCD 3-2 January 20, 2011 Public Comments and Responses to Public Comments – EPA GHG Tailoring Rule Project [COMMENT 5, REFERENCE MARKED-UP PAR 102] 3

I strongly recommend putting actual numerical thresholds in your definition rule. It is always more difficult when a rule cross-references to another rule, especially when the citation is to something in the CFR and not your rulebook. If this is your preferred route, then the language I have provided provides a specific citation to the thresholds, which are only found within the definition of “subject to regulation.” The language you proposed is too vague and not enforceable as a practical matter, since 52.21 does not prov ide a definition of the terms GHG or threshold. I also suggest you use the July 1 date if you are going to send the reader to the CFR. This is the date the CFR is published annually, and it provides an easy way to look up what was in the CFR as of that date, versus the miscellaneous date of your rule adoption.

[RESPONSE TO COMMENT 5]

Please see the responses to items 1 and 4. (The new 40 CFR GHG Tailoring Rule provisions are effective August 2, 2010)

[COMMENT 6, REFERENCE MARKED-UP PAR 201]

It appears that the current la nguage in A.1, “may cause the issuance of air contaminants”, is already sufficiently broad to address GHG emitting sources. As written, A.2 sa ys that this rule only applies to a source emitting GHG emissions above the specified threshold. So if a source is emitting GHG emissions below this threshold, but also other “air contaminants”, is it subject to this rule? At a minimum, and “or” needs to be added between section 1 and 2, but EPA suggest simply deleting A.2 and not making any revisions to this rule.

[RESPONSE TO COMMENT 6]

Please see the response to item 2.

[COMMENT 7, REFERENCE MARKED-UP PAR 370]

3 For brevity, the District has combined many of the subsequent comments into one.Santa Barbara County APCD 3-3 January 20, 2011 Public Comments and Responses to Public Comments – EPA GHG Tailoring Rule Project [RESPONSE TO COMMENT 7]

This is existing text and there are not conflicts between the definitions in Rules 370 and 1301.

[COMMENT 8, REFERENCE MARKED-UP PAR 370]

[RESPONSE TO COMMENT 8]

The District made the suggested addition to Section “a.” On the Section “a.1” edit the “or more” text is removed.

For the Section “a.2” text:

1. Staff verified with the commentor that the 40 CFR reference to 70.2 should be maintained, and 2. The “threshold” language changed to be “subject to regulation.”

Regarding the Section “b” addition, EPA asks, “Where specifically doe s EPA do this defining?” The implementing regulations that defines “major stationary source” are:

1. Clean Air Act, Title III, Section 302(j), and

2. 40 CFR 70.2

It should be noted that this is similar to the text found in the current/existing Rule 1301 “Part 70 Source” definition (Rule 1301.C.2). The District is amending the Rule 370 "Major Source of Regulated Air Pollutants (excluding hazardous air pollutants)" definition to be consistent with the Rule 1301"Part 70 Source" definition. Hence, the District has left the Rule 370 definition of “Major Source of Regulated Pollutants . . .” Section “b” unchanged.

On the “in effect” clause being in the Rule 370 Section C introduction and in the reference to fugitive emissions, our counsel has advised us that it is desirable to include a date of reference whenever citing a 40 CFR part or section.Santa Barbara County APCD 3-4 January 20, 2011 Public Comments and Responses to Public Comments – EPA GHG Tailoring Rule Project [COMMENT 9, REFERENCE MARKED-UP PAR 370]

[RESPONSE TO COMMENT 9]

The District removed the subsequent “and its implemen ting regulation” from PAR 370. The corresponding existing text in the Rule 1301 definition of “Regulated Air Po llutant” is now shown as deleted in PAR 1301 as well.

[COMMENT 10, REFERENCE MARKED-UP RULE 810]

[RESPONSE TO COMMENT 10]

We revised each reference to indicate “August 2, 2010,” the date the new 40 CFR GHG Tailoring Rule provisions

become effective.

[COMMENT 11, REFERENCE MARKED-UP RULE 810]

[RESPONSE TO COMMENT 11]

We’ve made the suggested addition.

[COMMENT 12, REFERENCE MARKED-UP PAR 1301]

[RESPONSE TO COMMENT 12]

We’ve made the suggested revision using “August 2, 2010.”Santa Barbara County APCD 3-5 January 20, 2011 Public Comments and Responses to Public Comments – EPA GHG Tailoring Rule Project [COMMENT 13, REFERENCE DRAFT BACKGROUND PAPER, PAGE 5]

[RESPONSE TO COMMENT 13]

That is true, but none of these sources are in a category listed in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a).

[COMMENT 14, REFERENCE DRAFT BACKGROU ND PAPER, APPENDIX B, PAGE B-2]

[RESPONSE TO COMMENT 14]

The District revised the response to include a refere nce to the November 2010 EPA document, “PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance For Greenhouse Gases.”