United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX

Air Division

Technical Support Document

for EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

for the California State Implementation Plan

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

Rule 214 Federal New Source Review Rule 217 Public Notice Requirements for Permits

Prepared by:

L aura Yannayon and Jeanhee Hong

Reviewed by:

Gerardo Rios

Air Division, Permits Office United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX

San Francisco, California

January 23 , 2013Table of Contents

Section Page

Introduction 1

NSR Program SIP Revision Submittals 1

Background 1

Rule Summaries 2

Rule 214

– Federal New Source Review

Rule 217

– Public Notice Requirements for Perm its

Rule Evaluation 3

Rule 214

– Federal New Source Review

Rule 217

– Public Notice Requirements for Permits

Section 110(l) of the Act 8

Rule 214

– Federal New Source Review

Rule 217

– Public Notice Requirements for Permits

Section 193 of the Act 9

Recommendations 1 0

Attachments 101 Introduction

Part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) contains the requirements for areas designated “nonattainment” for any of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Among other things, Part D requires pre

- construction permit programs for certain new or modified stationary sources of nonattainment pollutants in nonattainment areas, referred to as “Nonattainment NSR” (NSR). The NSR program applies to “major” stationary sources and “major modific ations” as those terms are defined in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart I.

NSR Program SIP Revision Submittals

Rule 214

– Federal New Source Review (NSR) was adopted by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD or District) on August 2 3, 2012 and submitted to EPA via the California Air Resources Board (ARB) by a letter dated September 26, 2012. The District adopted Rule 214 to implement the federal nonattainment NSR program requirements in Sacramento County.

Rule 217

– Public Notice R equirements for Permits was adopted by SMAQMD on August 23, 2012 and submitted to EPA via the ARB by a letter dated September 26, 2012. The District adopted Rule 217 to implement the public notice requirements related to issuance of permits in

Sacramento C ounty.

ARB is the governor’s designee for submitting official revisions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) to EPA, and SMAQMD is the local agency responsible for regulating the construction and modification of stationary sources within Sacramento County.

Background

On July 20, 2011, EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of SMAQMD Rule

214

– Federal New Source Review (NSR ). See 76 FR 43183. The effect of this action was to incorporate Rule 214 (as adopted 2010) into the SIP and to trigger sanctions clocks with respect

to certain provisions of the rule that did not satisfy the requirements of section 110 and title I, part D of the CAA. Sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the Act according to 40 CFR

52.31 unl ess EPA approves SIP revisions that correct the identified rule defi ciencies by February

1 9 , 2013. SMAQMD’s submitted rules (Rule 214 and Rule 217) are intended to address these previously identified rule deficiencies.

The CAA defines a “nonattainment” a rea as any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary NAAQS for a pollutant. CAA 107(d)(1)(A)(i). Sacramento County is currently designated and

classified as s evere nonattainment for the 1997 and 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS and moderate

nonattainment for the 24

- hour PM 10 NAAQS. The area is also designated nonattainment for the

2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.305. Therefore, California is required to implement

a SIP

- approved NSR program for the Sacramento area that applies, at minimum, to the following2 NAAQS pollutants and precursor pollutants: volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NO

x ), particulate matter of 10 microns o r less (PM 10 ), particular matter of 2.5 microns or less (PM 2.5 ) and sulfur oxides (SO

x ). VOCs and NO

x are subject to NSR as precursors to ozone,

and NO

x and SO

x are subject to NSR as precursors to PM 2.5 in Sacramento Coun ty. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(C).

Rule 214 applies only to new major sources or modifications which occur at major sources within Sacramento County. Existing District SIP Rule 201

– General Permit Requirements contains the administrative program re quirements for sources to obtain a permit prior to construction and the general evaluation criteria the District must use to grant such permits. New Rule 217 provides the public notice requirements related to permit issuance required for all

minor sources and for major sources of nonattainment pollutants within the county.

Rule Summaries

Rule 214

– Federal New Source Review Rule 214 is comprised of four sections: Section 100

– General, Section 200

– Definitions,

Section 300

– Standards, and Section 400

– Administrative Requirements. Section 100 includes provisions that outline the purpose and applicability of the rule, as well as specific exemptions from all or portions of the rule. Section 200 contains 49 definitions (five of which are new) and

clarifi es which other rules may be used to define a term if it is not defined within this section. Section 300 contains the requirements that apply to projects undergoing new source review, including Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and emission offset re quirements, and contains one new provision addressing impacts to Class I areas. Section 400 contains administrative requirements, including provisions for determining when an application is complete, which air quality models must be used, requirements for a final action, specific requirements solely for power plant applications, and ot her administrative provisions. SMAQMD has revised section 400 by removing the public notice provisions from former subsections 406 and 407 and moving them to Rule 217, and ad ding requirements for sources impacting Class I areas.

Rule 217

– Public Notice Requirements for Permits New Rule 217 provides the public notice requirements related to permit issuance in a single rule. The rule specifies the public notice procedures for both new and modified stationary sources. The rule includes the public notice requirements removed from local Rule 202

– New Source

Review (which is not in the SIP) and SIP

- approved Rule 214

– Federal New Source Review (as adopted 2010), and thus applies t o both major and non

- major sources. Rule 217 is comprised of

three sections: Section 100

– General, Section 200

– Definitions, and Section 400

– Administrative Requirements. Section 100 includes provisions that outline the purpose and applicability of the rule, along with emission thresholds under which a project is exempt from the public notice requirements. Section 200 contains 3 specific definitions, and clarifies which other rules may be used to define a term if it is not defined within this section. Se ction 400 contains administrative requirements, including public notice requirements for projects requiring a Class I visibility analysis, emission calculation procedures for determining whether a project has triggered public notice requirements, and proce dures for the District’s implementation of these3 public notice provisions. This section also includes specific notification procedures relevant to new major sources and major modifications that may affect visibility of any Class I area.

Rule Evaluation

This Technical Support Document (TSD) provides EPA’s evaluation of the District’s revised Rule 214 (including revisions made by the District to address the deficiencies identified in our July 20, 2011 final action on SMAQMD’s NSR program submittals) and n ew Rule 217. We have reviewed both the revisions to Rule 214 and new Rule 217 for compliance with the requirements of section 110 and part D of title I of the Act and EPA’s current implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.165. For a more compre hensive analysis of how Rule 214 satisfies the applicable requirements of the Act and 40 CFR 51.165, please also see the TSD supporting our July 20, 2011 limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 214 (as adopted 2010) at 76 FR 43183. “Technical Sup port Document for EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Rule 214 Federal New Source Review, Rule 203 Prevention of Significant Deterioration,” May 6, 2011. We also considered the following materials in our review: General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992), EPA’s Emission Offset Interpretive Ruling (40 CFR part 51, Appendix S), and EPA’s policy document entitled, “Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,” which was published in January 2001. EPA has condensed the approval criteria contained in these various materials in this TSD, which describes reasons for our pr oposed action on the Rule 214 and Rule 217 SIP submittals for SMAQMD. All references below to “Rule 214” are to the rule as amended August 23, 2012, unless otherwise noted.

Rule 214

– Federal New Source Review In our May 19, 2011 Notice of Proposed Rule making on Rule 214 (as adopted 2010) (see 76 FR 28942), we identified the following deficiencies and suggested corrections:

1. Add definitions for the terms “ begin actual construction, ” “federally enforceable” and “necessary preconstruction approvals or permits.”

2. Submit a rule for SIP approval which contains adequate public notice requirements for

minor sources.

3. Add a 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 shall be subject to new source review “as though construction had not yet commenced.”

4. Add a provision, purs uant to 40 CFR 51.307(b)(2), which identifies additional requirements for NSR for any new major source or major modification, proposing to locate in a nonattainment area, that may have an impact on visibility in any mandatory

Class I Federal Area.

5. Remove cross references to Rule 207

– Title V

– Federal Operating Permit Program, because it is not SIP approved or SIP submitted. The reference can be replaced with a reference to another SIP approved rule that includes the referenced list of source categories, or the list can be added to Rule 214.4 The District revised Rule 214 to address each of the deficiencies listed above except for item 2, which is addressed by new Rule 217. The revisions made to Rule 214, including those which

address the deficiencies ide ntified in EPA’s previous rulemaking, are discussed below.

Item 1 : Definitions have been added for each of the following terms : Begin Actual

Construction

, Class I Area

, Federal Land Manager

, Federally Enforceable and Necessary Preconstruction Approvals or Permits. These new definitions are either identical or equivalent to EPA’s definitions in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1) and therefore correct the identified

deficiencies

.

Item 2 : Please see Rule Evaluation section for Rule 217 later in this TSD

. We note that Rule

214 has been clarified to state that all sources subject to Rule 214 are also subject to Rule 217 (see section 102)

. Additionally

, former s ection 113 of the rule ( as adopted 2010), which had allowed sources with increases in Potential to Emit below speci fic emission thresholds to be exempted from certain public notice requirements, has been moved to Rule 217

. We discuss

our evaluation of these Rule 217 provisions further below.

Item 3 : New language consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.165(a)( 5)(ii) has been

added to Section 102

. This new language correct s the identified deficiency.

Item 4 : Section s 309 and 413 have been added to address this requirement. New Section 117 has also been added to clarify that these new provisions do not appl y to any non

- major

modification

. New Section 413 requires sources that may affect Class I areas to provide a visibility analysis when s ubmitting a permit application consistent with the requirements and procedures pursuant to 40 CFR § 51.307 and 51.166. New S ection 309 requires the APCO to deny a final permit if he finds that the emissions would have an adverse impact on visibility. The District’s staff report for Rule 217 explains how the District intends to determine whether a particular new or modified sou rce “may affect” a Class I area. See SMAQMD, “Staff Report, Rule 202 (New Source Review), Rule 214 (Federal New Source Review), Rule 217 (Public Notice Requirements for Permits,” July 23, 2012, at 9

. These new provisions correct the identified deficiency.

Item 5 : The reference to Rule 207 in the definition of “ Major Stationary Source ” in Rule 214 ( as adopted 2010 ) (see former section 22 4 ) has been removed and replaced with a list of the specific source categories for which fugitive emissions must be inclu ded in the applicability analysis

. See Rule 214, section 228. Other references to Rule 207 have also been replaced

with a cross reference to th e list contained in revised definition of Major Stationary Source

. Th ese revision s correct the identified deficiency.

Other revisions:

A. There are several revisions to the definition for “ Major Modification .” First, the

definition no longer refers to the definition of “Modific ation as defined in Section 225”

. It now specifies the type of change s that are considered modifications. Second, NO

x has

been added to the definition as a PM 2.5 precursor. Finally , l anguage has been added to the

definition to clarify what types of changes are not considered a major modification. All of5 these revisions are consistent with EPA’s definition s of th e term s “major modification” and “regulated NSR pollutant” in 40 CFR 51.16 5

.

B. The definitions for “ PM 10 ” and “ PM 2.5 ” have been revised to clarify that gaseous

emissions which condense to form either PM 10 or PM 2. 5 must be counted as PM 10 or
PM 2.5 , as appropriate

. This clarification is consistent with EPA’s definition of the term “regulated NSR pollutant” in 40 CFR 51.165.

C. Former s ection 117 of Rule 214 (as adopted 2010 )

, has been revised so that th e applicability exemption applies to any NAAQS for which the District has been designated attainment or unclassifiable, or has been re

- designated to attainment. See Rule 214, section 116. This means that upon a final action by EPA to re designate the

Sacrame nto County area from nonattainment to attainment for any NAAQS, Rule 214 will no longer apply for purposes of that NAAQS

.

D. The interpollutant offset ratios for NO

x and SO

x to PM 2 .5 contained in former s ection 305

have been deleted. Under EPA’s “Revised Policy to Address Reconsideration of Interpollutant Trading Provisions for Fine Particles (PM 2.5 ),” dated July 21, 2011, any ratio involving PM 2.5 precursors submitted to EPA for approval for use in a district’s interpollutant offset program for PM 2.5 nona ttainment areas must be accompanied by a technical demonstration that shows the net air quality benefits of such ratio for the

relevant PM 2.5 nonattainment area

. Because such ratios are not allowed in the absence of such a demonstration, it is appropriate for SMAQMD to remove these provisions from

Rule 214.

E. In several places throughout the rule, text has been revised to clarify that “federal” enforceability of certain provisions is required (e.g., Sections 234, 238)

. Th ese provision s

are at least as strin gent as the corresponding EPA definition s in 40 CFR 51.165 (e.g., the definitions of “potential to emit” in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iii)) and “federally enforceable”

in section 51.165 (a) (1) (xiv) )

.

F. Other minor editorial changes have been made throughout the rule, such as updating

cross

- references to various renumbered sections to ensure accuracy of rule citations.

G. Former s ections 406, 407, and 413 and a portion of former section 405, all pertaining to public notice req uirements, have been deleted from Rule 214 and are now included in

new Rule 217. We discuss our evaluation of these Rule 217 provisions below

.

Rule 217

– Public Notice Requirements for Permits SMAQMD adopted and submitted Rule 217 to address the public notice requirements for minor stationary sources in 40 CFR 51.161 , which EPA previously found the District’s SIP

- approved

minor NSR rules did not satisfy. See 76 FR 43183 ( July 20, 2011 ).

Rule 217 provides the administrative mechanism for the District to provide appropriate public

notice and review of the issuance of authorities to construct and permits to operate at new and modified sources. The rule applies to all permit actions subject to Rule 201

– General Permit6 Requirements, meaning that it applies to both minor and major stationary sources in Sacramento County

. 1 We reviewed this new rule for compliance with EPA’s general new source review regulations in 40 CFR 51.161

– Public availability of information

.

(a) The legally enforceable pro cedures in 40 CFR 51.160 must also require the State or local agency to provide opportunity for public comment on information submitted by owners and operators. The public information must include the agency’s analysis of the

effect of construction or modi fication on ambient air quality, including the agency’s proposed approval or disapproval.

Discussion : Rule 217, Section 401 requires the District to provide an opportunity for public comment prior to issuing a permit for the construction of new or modifie d sources,

exce pt as provided in Section 110. Section 110 provides an exemption from these requirements if the emission increase from a project is below specified thresholds. Specifically, under Section 110, the public notice requirements of section 401 do not apply if the application is for any new or modified emissions unit where the “combined potential to emit from the project would have an increase in potential to emit, as defined in Section 403, of less than” the following amounts:

VOCs: 5,000 pounds (lbs) per quarter (10 tons per year (tpy)

NOx: 5,000 lbs per quarter (10 tpy)

SOx: 9,200 lbs per quarter (18.4 tpy)

PM10: 7,300 lbs per quarter ( 14.6 tpy)

PM2.5: 10 tpy

CO: 49,500 lbs per quarter (99 tpy)

These exemptions do not , however, apply to any source requiring offsets, i.e., any new major source or major modification subject to nonattainment NSR

. Thus, any permit issued to a new major source or major modification under Rule 214 is subject to public process under Rule 217. See Rul e 217, Section 110.

EPA regulations in 40 CFR 51.160(e) allow State NSR programs to exclude new minor sources and minor modifications from the NSR program so long as such sources and modifications are not environmentally significant, consistent with the de minimis exemption criteria set forth in Ala. Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 at 360

- 361 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Thus, a State or local agency can choose to exempt some new sources or

modifications from permitting requirements, but it must do so consistent with the de minimis principles and by application of well

- defined objective criteria.

Rule 217 essentially treats all sources below the emission thresholds listed in Section 110

as de minimis. SMAQMD ’s staff report for Rule 217 provide s the basis for the District’s

1 Rule 217 does not , however, apply to permits issued pursuant to SMAQMD Rule 203

– Prevention of Significant

Deterioration , which contains separate public notice requirements for PSD permits

. EPA fully approved Rule 203

into the SIP on July 20, 2011 ( 76 FR 43183).7 conclusion that total emissions from these “de minimis” sources account for less than 5% of the total District emissions inventory for all pollutant s except for SO

x . See SMAQMD, “Staff Repo rt, Rule 202 (New Source Review), Rule 214 (Federal New Source Review), Rule 217 (Public Notice Requirements for Permits,” July 23, 2012, at 11

- 13 and Appendix C. With respect to SO

x , although the exemption threshold in Rule 217 (18.4 tpy) exempts sources accounting for a higher percentage of emissions in Sacramento County as de minimis , the staff report explains that this exemption threshold i s appropriate because Sacrament o has been in attainment for the SO 2 NAAQS since the

lat e 1980s and because the contribution of SO 2 emissions to particulate matter pollution in Sacramento is very small. Id. at 12. Given these explanations, w e believe that the

emissions

- based thresholds in Section 110 of Rule 217 represent well

- defined objec tive criteria, and that they are reasonably calculated to exclude from review only environmentally in significant sources and modifications. This is acceptable.

(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, opportunity for public comment shall include, as a minimum, (1) Availability for public inspection in at least one location in the area affected of the information submitted by the owner or operator an d of the State or local agency’s analysis of the effect on air quality; (2) A 30

- day period for submittal of public comment; and (3) A notice by prominent advertisement in the area affected of the location of the source information and analysis specified i n paragraph (b)(1) of this

section.

Discussion : S ubs ection 401.2 establishes adequate public participation procedures for those new sources or modifications subject to public notice under S ection 401.

S ubsection 401.2 provides for notice to the public vi a publication in at least one newspaper of general circulation, and specifies that all notices of preliminary decisions

shall i nclude the APCO ’s preliminary decision whether the application for a permit should be approved , how pertinent information can be obtained and inviting public comment for a 30 day period

. Finally it specifies that the notice mu st include the time and place of any hearing or a procedure for requesting such a hearing.

Subsection 401.3 specifies that the APCO shall make the administra tive record available

for public inspection at the District office, no later than the public notice date. This subsection also requires a copy of this information to also be transmitted to CARB, EPA and any other interested party that has requested such in formation. These provisions are acceptable to satisfy this requirement.

(c) Where the 30

- day comment period required in paragraph (b) of this section would conflict with existing requirements for acting on requests for permission to construct or modify, t he State may submit for approval a comment period which is consistent with such existing requirements.

Discussion : This is a discretionary component of a permit program that the submitted regulations do not contain. All permits subject to public notice re quirements under Rule

217 are subject to a 30

- day public comment period. This is acceptable.8 (d) A copy of the notice required by paragraph (b) of this section must also be sent to the EPA through the appropriate Regional Office, and to all other State a nd local air pollution control agencies having jurisdiction in the region in which such new or modified installation will be located. The notice also must be sent to any other agency in the region having responsibility for implementing the procedures requi red under this subpart. For lead, a copy of the notice is required for all point sources. The definition of point source for lead is given in 40 CFR 51.100(k)(2).

Discussion : Subsection 401.1 requires the APCO to transmit copies of their preliminary

writt en decision and analysis for sources subject to BACT and offsets to both EPA and CARB. This assures that notice of all environmentally significant construction and modification projects (including all major source and major modification projects) will be

p rovided to the appropriate agencies prior to construction. With respect to lead sources, because Rule 217 contains no threshold for exemption from public notice requirements, all new or modified stationary sources of lead subject to Rule 201 are subject t o the notice requirements of Section 401. These provisions are acceptable.

Additional Requirements: In response to Item 4 of the listed deficiencies from our previous rulemaking, Rule 214 includes provisions in Section 413 which require sources that may affect Class I areas to provide a visibility analysis when submitting a permit application

. Section 402 has been

added to Rule 217 to address the additional public notice requirements for any projects that require such an analysis. In addition to the requirements of Section 401 discussed above, Section 402 requires the APCO to provide an opportunity for a public hearing, to make any analysis provided from the Federal Land Manager and a summary of other materials

considered available for public inspection at the District office

, and to consider all comments received in making a final decision. These provisions are acceptable.

Section 110( l ) of the Act

Section 110(l) states: “Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a Sta te under this chapter shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable f urther progress (as defined in section 7501 of this title), or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.”

With respect to the procedural requirements of CAA section 110(l), based on our review of the public process documentation included in SMAQMD ’s September 26, 2012 rule submittals, we find that the State has provided sufficient evidence of public notice and opportunity for comment and public hearings prior to adoption and submittal of these rules to EPA.

With respect to the substantive require ments of section 110(l), our approval of revised Rule 214 ( to replace current SIP Rule 214, as adopted 2010) and new Rule 217 would strengthen the SIP

approved nonattainment NSR and minor NSR p rograms in Sacramento County compared to t he existing SIP programs as approved July 20, 2011

. As discussed above , the District has added9 several required definitions to Rule 214 and corrected a number of provisions that were inconsistent with the applicable NSR regulations in 40 CFR 51.165

. These rule revisions strengthen the nonattainment NSR program in Sacramento County by clarifying its applicability and compliance provisions and addressing substantive NSR requirements that the current SIP program fails to adequately address

. None of the revisions to Rule 214 relax any control requirement or related compliance provision

. New Rule 217, which the District adopted to replace the corresponding proced ures in local Rule 202 and SIP R ule 214 (as adopted 2010), contains procedural requirements for issuance of both minor and major source permits and thereby corrects a deficiency in the minor NSR program as approved July 20, 2011, which did not contain the required procedures. Rule 217 also contains emissions

- bas ed public notice

thresholds that are identical to the thresholds contained in local Rule 202 and SIP Rule 214 (as adopted 2010)

. Thus, our approval of Rule 217 into the SIP would strengthen the SIP

- approved NSR program and would not relax it in any way

.

In addition, we are unaware of any reliance by SMAQMD on the continuation of any aspect of the permit

- related rules in Sacramento County for the purpose of continued attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. Given all these considerations, we propose to con c lude that our approval of Rule 214 and Rule 217 into the California SIP would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the Act.

Section 193 of the Act

Section 193 of the Act, which was added by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, includes a savings clause which provides, in pertinent part: “ No control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an order, settlement agreement, or plan in e ffect before November 15, 1990, in any area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant may be modified after November 15, 1990, in any manner unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant. ”

EPA does not believe that NSR programs are control requirements for the purposes of section 193. See 70 FR 39413, at 39417 (July 8, 2005). However, we recognize that, on December 22, 2006, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision on South Coast Air Quality Manageme nt District v.

EPA , No. 14

- 1200, that may lead EPA to modify its interpretation of “control requirement” for the purposes of CAA section 193. Nonetheless, even if NSR were considered a “control requirement,” we find that Rule 214 would insure equivalent or greater emission reductions compared to the SIP

- approved NSR program (for the three nonattainment pollutants in Sacramento County: ozone, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 ) for the following reasons: For ozone purposes, Rule 214 requires new or modified major stationary so urces with a potential to emit at least 25 tons per year of VOC s or NO

x to obtain offsets at a minimum ratio of 1.3 to 1

. See Rule 214, sections 302, 303. Both the applicability threshold and the required offset ratio in Rule 214 are significantly more stringent than the corresponding provisions of the pre

- 1990 SIP NSR

program , which required VOCs and NO

x sources at an emissions threshold of approximately 45.63 tons per year (250 pounds/day ) to obtain offsets at a minimum ratio of 1:1 , with various exceptions

. See Rule 202 (as adopted 1984), section s 302, 303

. For PM 10 purposes, the pre

-10 1990 SIP contained no NSR program because Sacramento County was designated

“unclassifiable” for the PM 10 NAAQS prior to 1990 and therefore was not subject to nonattainment NSR for this NAAQS. See 58 FR 67334 (December 21, 1993) (designating Sacramento County as nonattainment for PM 10 NAAQS effective January 20, 1994). For PM 2.5 purposes, the pre

- 1990 SIP c ontained no NSR program because there was no NAAQS for PM2.5 prior to 1990.

In sum, for ozone purposes the offset requirements in Rule 214 require greater emission reductions compared to the pre

- 1990 SIP NSR program, and for PM 10 and PM 2.5 purposes, Rule 214 does not modify any pre

- 1990 control requirements because the pre

- 1990 SIP did not contain NSR requirements for these NAAQS. We therefore conclude that Rule 214 will provide for equivalent or greater emissions reductions compared to the existing SIP NSR program for the three applicable nonattainment pollutants, ozone, PM 10 and PM 2.5 . We are not evaluating Rule 217 in accordance with CAA section 193 because Rule 217 is a procedural rule and does not establish or modify any control requir ement.

Recommendations

Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the Act, we recommend a full approval of the submitted NSR

rule s

. W e recommend approval based on our determination that the rule s compl y with applicable statutory and regulatory provisions requiring regulation of stationary sources in general and requiring permit programs for major stationary sources in particular, including section 110(a)(2)(C) and part D of title I of the Act. In support of this recommendation, we have concluded that our approval of Rule 214 and Rule 2 17 would comply with section 110(l) and 193

of the Act because the new rules do not relax any control or offset requirements and therefore

would not interfere with the strat egy for attainment of the 1997 or 2008 8

- hour o zone NAAQS

, the 24

- hour PM 10 NAAQS, or the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS in Sacramento County or the

continued attainment of any other NAAQS in the county

. If we finalize this action as proposed,

our action would be codified through revisions to 40 CFR 52. 220 (identification of plan)

.

Attachments

1. Submitted SMAQMD Rule 214, Federal New Source Review

, amended Aug. 23 , 201 2

. 2. Submitted SMAQMD Rule 217, Public Notice Requirements for Permits , adopted Aug. 23, 2012

. 3. SMAQMD Staff Report for Rule 2 02

, New Source Review; Rule 214, Federal New
Source Review; Rule 217, Public Notice Requirements for Permits ; dated July 23, 2012.

4. “Technical Support Document for EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the

California State Im plementation Plan, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Rule 214 Federal New Source Review, Rule 203 Prevention of Significant Deterioration,” May 6, 2011.