Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 810 Project 5-1 June 20, 2013

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY OF THE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED AMENDED 

RULE 810, FEDERAL PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)

Project Overview:

The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (District) Rule 810 implements the 

federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements. Under the federal 

provisions, any new or modified major stationary source must undergo preconstruction review 

and permitting. 

Several years ago the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began to regulate 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As part of those regulations, the agency adjusted the 

requirements as to when PSD permitting would be triggered by GHG emissions. The agency 

accomplished this by establishing GHG emission thresholds for triggering PSD permits (per the 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule). These thresholds are higher than those for “criteria" air 

pollutants.”

a

 

To promulgate federal PSD rules at the local district level, EPA developed a model PSD rule. 

However, EPA has since found that the model PSD rule, which we adopted in 2011, needs minor 

revisions before EPA can incorporate the Rule 810 into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

EPA is working with a number of California air districts on similar rule changes to assure SIP 

approval. The District is proposing to amend Rule 810 to facilitate SIP approval.

Objectives:

Once adopted, the District will submit Rule 810 to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

and EPA for inclusion into:

1. the State Implementation Plan (SIP), and 

2. the federal Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations.

Inclusion in the SIP will allow for the District to process any PSD permits for major stationary 

sources with emissions level above PSD permit triggers.

Background

Congress amended the federal Clean Air Act in 1997. Included in those amendments was a 

requirement that each state (and therefore district) adopt a PSD program. In December 2009, 

EPA 1) promulgated an “endangerment finding” for GHG emissions, and 2) made the finding 

that GHGs from new motor vehicles contribute to the GHG pollution, which threatens public 

health and welfare. As a direct result of these findings, EPA proceeded to control GHG 

emissions from new and modified major stationary sources as well. 

On May 13, 2010, EPA issued a GHG Tailoring Rule that effectively raised the thresholds for 

GHG emissions that trigger PSD and Title V permits for new and existing major stationary 

sources.

 

a

“Criteria” pollutants include oxides of nitrogen, reactive organic compounds, particulate matter, oxides of sulfur, 

and carbon monoxide, but not GHGs.
Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 810 Project 5-2 June 20, 2013

Working with local air districts and the California Air Resources Board through the California 

Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), EPA released a PSD model rule on 

September 21, 2010. Staff modeled Rule 810 on the CAPCOA PSD model rule and the District 

Board adopted the rule on January 20, 2011. However, recently, EPA indicated that they could 

not approve Rule 810 into the SIP as it is currently written. The changes necessary are narrow in 

scope, and EPA has worked with the District on the revised rule text.

Implications to the Regulated Community:

WHO IS AFFECTED?

Federal PSD regulations affect existing major sources or new sources when emissions increases 

of criteria pollutant or GHG emissions are above specified pollutant thresholds. For example, a 

new source with potential to emit GHG over 100,000 tons/year would be subject to a federal 

PSD permit. The amended Rule 810 does not change permit applicability requirements or 

establish any new requirements on existing sources. 

WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED RULE CHANGES?

Attachment 4 of the Board Package shows the proposed Rule 810 changes and Attachment A to 

this Project Description Summary is a table that summarizes the reasons for the rule changes. 

The proposed amendments are administrative in nature (e.g., revise formatting, update the in 

effect date, and improved text for clarity). 

Comparisons to Adjacent Local Air Pollution Control Districts:

The San Luis Obispo County APCD and the Ventura County APCD are in the process of 

amending their PSD rules in a similar fashion.a The San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Rule 

2410 is similar to the District’s Rule 810. EPA approved Rule 2410 into the SIP with the 

understanding that the SJV APCD would revise the rule for clarity in the future.

Emission Reductions, Cost Effectiveness, and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness:

The proposed amended rule changes are administrative in nature and they are relative to 

permitting actions. Rule 810 is not a control measure. Hence, there are no emission reductions 

expected from the proposed rule action. For this reason there are also no cost-effectiveness or 

incremental cost-effectiveness figures relative to this rulemaking task. Thus, the requirements of 

California Health and Safety Code Section 40703 and Section 40920.6 do not apply.

Fiscal Impacts to the Regulated Industry due to the Proposed Amended Rule:

There are no additional fiscal impacts to the regulated sources that stem from the rule 

amendments.

 

a Rules 220 and 26.13, respectively.
Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 810 Project 5-3 June 20, 2013

Implications to the District Work Load and Budget:

There are no known impacts. Based on historical data, future federal PSD permit actions are 

expected to be very low in number.

Public Review:

Before the May 8, 2013 Community Advisory Council (CAC) meeting, the District sent notices 

about the proposed rule amendments to operators of large sources in Santa Barbara County. 

Besides explaining the project, the letter mentioned the upcoming CAC Meeting and invited 

comments on the project. 

On May 19, 2013, the District published a public notice announcing that the District Board of 

Directors will consider adopting the amended Rule 810 at the June 20, 2013 Board Hearing.

Attached:

Attachment A, Summary of Reasons for Proposed Amended Rule 810 Changes 

ATTACHMENT A

Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 810 Project A-1 June 20, 2013

Summary of Reasons for Proposed Amended Rule 810 Changes

Rule 810 Section Changed Proposed Changes in Strikethrough and Underline Formatting Reason for Change

A, Purpose [. . .] Rule 201, (Permits Required), contains application requirements 

and Rule 204, (Applications), Rule 205, (Standards for Granting 

Applications), Rule 206, (Conditional Approval of Authority to 

Construct or Permit to Operate), Rule 207, (Denial of Applications), 

and Rule 208, (Action on Applications - Time Limits), contain [. . .]

Changes make the text consistent with the standard 

format used in other rules.

B, Applicability [. . .] 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 52, Section 52.21 (40 CFR 

52.21) in effect August 2, 2010 [date of amended rule adoption] as 

incorporated into this rule.

This change is consistent with the CAPCOA model rule. 

By changing the rule’s in effect date to refer to the most 

current 40 CFR 52.21 the rule will incorporate by 

reference the most recent changes and revisions made to 

40 CFR 52.21 (and, by extension, 40 CFR 51.166). 

The substantive changes made to these sections include a 

revision to the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant” so 

that 1) condensable particulate matter is included as part 

of the emissions measurements for regulation of PM2.5 

and PM10, and 2) the January 22, 2013 D.C. Circuit 

Court of Appeal Order vacating certain provisions of 40 

CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21.

Additional information on changes to the 40 CFR 52.21 

may be obtained from this web page: 

www.epa.gov/nsr/actions.html. 

C. Incorporation by 

Reference

Except as provided below, the provisions of Title 40 CFR 52.21 in 

effect August 2, 2010 [date of amended rule adoption] are 

incorporated herein by reference [. . .]

Same as above.
ATTACHMENT A

Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 810 Project A-2 June 20, 2013

Summary of Reasons for Proposed Amended Rule 810 Changes

Rule 810 Section Changed Proposed Changes in Strikethrough and Underline Formatting Reason for Change

C.2 2. The following definitions found in 40 CFR 52.21(b) are revised 

as follows:

a. The definition of “potential to emit” contained in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(4) is revised so that the phrase “is federally 

enforceable” shall read “is federally enforceable or 

enforceable as a practical matter.” 

b. The definition of “allowable emissions” contained in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(16) is revised so that:

1) the phrase “unless the source is subject to federally 

enforceable limits which restrict the operating rate, or 

hours of operation, or both” shall read, “unless the 

source is subject to enforceable limits which restrict the 

operating rate, or hours of operation, or both.”

2) paragraph (iii) shall read as follows: “The emissions rate 

specified as an enforceable permit condition, including 

those with a future compliance date.”

EPA determined that revisions to the potential to emit

and allowable emissions terms are not necessary for 

approval.

C.2 (renumbered) The following terms and phrases found in 40 CFR 52.21(b) are 

revised as follows:

The revision is needed to make the statement consistent 

with the sections below it.

C.2.b (renumbered) The phrase “paragraph (q) of this section” in 40 CFR 52.21(l)(2) and 

(p)(1) shall read as follows: “the public notice and comment 

provisions of Rule 810 Section E below.”

40 CFR 52.21(l)(2) also includes the phrase “paragraph 

(q) of this section.”. Including “below” in the phrase 

may have been confusing.

C.3 (new) The phrase “permit to construct” found in 40 CFR 52.21(p)(1) means 

“Authority to Construct” as defined in Rule 102, Definitions.

This change is needed for consistency with phrases 

found in other SBC APCD rules and the D.1 provision 

below.

D.1 (renumbered and new) The Control Officer shall provide written notice of any permit 

application for a proposed major stationary source or major 

modification to the Environmental Protection Agency administrator. 

Such notification shall include a copy of all information relevant to the 

permit application and shall be given within 30 days of receipt and at 

least 60 days prior to any public hearing on the application for an

Authority to Construct

Upon review and approval of other PSD rules using the 

CAPCOA Model Rule, EPA determined these revisions 

are a required element of a PSD program. See 40 CFR 

51.166(p)(1). 40 CFR 52.21 does not contain these 

requirements because the regulation was intended to be 

administered by EPA.
ATTACHMENT A

Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 810 Project A-3 June 20, 2013

Summary of Reasons for Proposed Amended Rule 810 Changes

Rule 810 Section Changed Proposed Changes in Strikethrough and Underline Formatting Reason for Change

D.2 (renumbered and new) The Control Officer shall determine whether an application is 

complete not later than 30 days after receipt of the application or after 

such longer time as both the applicant and the Control Officer may

agree. If the Control Officer determines that the application is not 

complete, the applicant shall be notified in writing of the decision 

specifying the information that is required. Upon receipt of any 

resubmittal of the application, a new 30-day period to determine 

completeness shall begin. If the Control Officer determines that the 

application is still not complete, the applicant may appeal that 

determination to the Board. The Board shall make its written 

determination within 60 days after receiving the applicant's appeal. If 

such determination is not made within that 60-day period, the 

application with the submitted materials shall be deemed complete. 

Appeals will be assessed a fee based on the cost reimbursement 

provisions of Rule 210, Fees. Upon determination that the application 

is complete, the Control Officer shall notify the applicant in writing. 

The date of receipt of the application shall be the date on which the 

reviewing authority received all required information.

Upon review and approval of other PSD rules using the 

CAPCOA Model Rule, EPA determined these revisions 

are a required element of a PSD program. See 40 CFR 

51.166(q)(1). 40 CFR 52.21 does not contain these 

requirements because they are contained in a separate 

portion of the CFR, which is not included in Rule 810. 

The specific language chosen is intended to be consistent 

with how the District already determines application 

completeness.

E, Public Participation Prior to issuing a federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

permit pursuant to this rule and within one year after receipt of a 

complete application, the Control Officer shall:

Upon review and approval of other PSD rules using the 

CAPCOA Model Rule, EPA determined this additional 

phrase was inadvertently left out of the Model Rule. 

This is a required element of a PSD Program [reference 

40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)].

Attachment 8

Additional Materials: Clean Air Act, Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) Demonstration

Amended Rule 810, Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

(Adopted June 20, 2013)

Santa Barbara County APCD

Clean Air Act, Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) Demonstration

Pursuant to Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Clean Air Act, below is a written statement and 

citations to demonstrate that the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (District)

has adequate personnel, funding, and authority under State and/or local law to implement the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program within the District. 

The District has the primary responsibility for regulating air pollution from all stationary sources 

within Santa Barbara County (see California Health & Safety Code (H&SC) sections 39002 and 

40000). The California Air Resources Board oversees the District’s activities and regulates 

mobile sources of air pollution. Under State law, the District is required to adopt rules to achieve 

ambient air quality standards and to enforce the provisions of local, State and federal air quality 

laws (see H&SC section 40001(a)).

The District’s permitting program (which is authorized by H&SC section 42300 and must meet 

the requirements of section 42301), as approved by EPA, currently implements requirements 

from both the California and federal Clean Air Acts. The District is authorized by state law to 

enforce its rules, regulations and orders, including conditions contained on District-issued Title 

V (Part 70 Operating Permits) and PSD permits (see H&SC §§ 40752(b); 41513; 42402-42403).

The District’s personnel is comprised of approximately 46 allocated positions which includes 

experienced and capable engineers, and field inspectors. The District staff has experience 

processing applications for Major facilities and Title V sources, as well as enforcing all 

conditions in these permits. The District currently has approximately 880 permitted stationary 

sources; these include approximately eighteen Title V sources and a wide range of minor source 

types.

There are currently no stationary sources in Santa Barbara County holding a PSD-type Authority 

to Construct permit. However, there is a potential for a few new or modified sources to be 

subject to PSD permitting requirements due to greenhouse gases emission in the future. The 

District has the adequate personnel to accommodate a potential incremental increase on 

workload and will recover costs per Rule 210, Fees. 

Accordingly, the District has adequate legal authority, personnel, and funding to implement and 

enforce the PSD program.