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:

Laura Yannayon and Jeanhee Hong

Reviewed by:

Gerardo Rios

Air Division, Permits Office

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX

San Francisco, California

January 23, 2013
Table 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 Permits

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 10

Attachments 10
1

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 modifications” 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 23, 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 Requirements 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 County. 

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 unless EPA approves SIP revisions that correct the identified rule deficiencies by February 

19, 2013. SMAQMD’s submitted rules (Rule 214 and Rule 217) are intended to address these 

previously identified rule deficiencies. 

The CAA defines a “nonattainment” area 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 severe nonattainment for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and moderate 

nonattainment for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. The area is also designated nonattainment for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 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 following 
2

NAAQS pollutants and precursor pollutants: volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen 

oxides (NOx), particulate matter of 10 microns or less (PM10), particular matter of 2.5 microns or 

less (PM2.5) and sulfur oxides (SOx). VOCs and NOx are subject to NSR as precursors to ozone, 

and NOx and SOx are subject to NSR as precursors to PM2.5 in Sacramento County. 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 requirements 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 

clarifies 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 requirements, 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 other 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 adding 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 to 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. Section 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 procedures for the District’s implementation of these 
3

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 new 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 comprehensive 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 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 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 proposed 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 Rulemaking 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 federallyenforceable limit. Such sources and modifications shall be subject to new source review 

“as though construction had not yet commenced.” 

4. Add a provision, pursuant 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 identified 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 section 113 of the rule (as adopted 2010), which had

allowed sources with increases in Potential to Emit below specific 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 corrects the identified deficiency.

Item 4: Sections 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 apply to any non-major 

modification. New Section 413 requires sources that may affect Class I areas to provide a 

visibility analysis when submitting a permit application consistent with the requirements and

procedures pursuant to 40 CFR § 51.307 and 51.166. New Section 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 source “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 224) has been removed and replaced with a list of the 

specific source categories for which fugitive emissions must be included in the applicability 

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

with a cross reference to the list contained in revised definition of Major Stationary Source. 

These revisions 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 “Modification as defined in Section 225”. 

It now specifies the type of changes that are considered modifications. Second, NOx has 

been added to the definition as a PM2.5 precursor. Finally, language has been added to the 

definition to clarify what types of changes are not considered a major modification. All of 
5

these revisions are consistent with EPA’s definitions of the terms “major modification” 

and “regulated NSR pollutant” in 40 CFR 51.165. 

B. The definitions for “PM10” and “PM2.5” have been revised to clarify that gaseous 

emissions which condense to form either PM10 or PM2.5 must be counted as PM10 or 

PM2.5, as appropriate. This clarification is consistent with EPA’s definition of the term 

“regulated NSR pollutant” in 40 CFR 51.165. 

C. Former section 117 of Rule 214 (as adopted 2010), has been revised so that the

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 redesignate the 

Sacramento 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 NOx and SOx to PM2.5 contained in former section 305 

have been deleted. Under EPA’s “Revised Policy to Address Reconsideration of 

Interpollutant Trading Provisions for Fine Particles (PM2.5),” dated July 21, 2011, any 

ratio involving PM2.5 precursors submitted to EPA for approval for use in a district’s 

interpollutant offset program for PM2.5 nonattainment areas must be accompanied by a 

technical demonstration that shows the net air quality benefits of such ratio for the 

relevant PM2.5 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). These provisions

are at least as stringent as the corresponding EPA definitions 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 sections 406, 407, and 413 and a portion of former section 405, all pertaining to 

public notice requirements, 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 Permit 
6

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 procedures 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 modification 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 modified sources, 

except 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 Rule 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 provides 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 pollutants except for SOx. 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 11-13 and 

Appendix C. With respect to SOx, 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 is

appropriate because Sacramento has been in attainment for the SO2 NAAQS since the 

late 1980s and because the contribution of SO2 emissions to particulate matter pollution 

in Sacramento is very small. Id. at 12. Given these explanations, we believe that the 

emissions-based thresholds in Section 110 of Rule 217 represent well-defined objective 

criteria, and that they are reasonably calculated to exclude from review only 

environmentally insignificant 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 and 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 in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. 

Discussion: Subsection 401.2 establishes adequate public participation procedures for 

those new sources or modifications subject to public notice under Section 401.

Subsection 401.2 provides for notice to the public via publication in at least one 

newspaper of general circulation, and specifies that all notices of preliminary decisions 

shall include 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 must 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 administrative 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 information. 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, the 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 requirements 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 and 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 required 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 

written 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 

provided 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 to 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 State 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 further 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 requirements 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 SIPapproved nonattainment NSR and minor NSR programs in Sacramento County compared to the 

existing SIP programs as approved July 20, 2011. As discussed above, the District has added 
9

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 procedures in local Rule 202 and SIP Rule 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-based 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 conclude 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 effect 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 Management 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, PM10, and PM2.5) for the following reasons: For ozone purposes, 

Rule 214 requires new or modified major stationary sources with a potential to emit at least 25 

tons per year of VOCs or NOx 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 NOx 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), sections 302, 303. For PM10 purposes, the pre-
10

1990 SIP contained no NSR program because Sacramento County was designated 

“unclassifiable” for the PM10 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 PM10 NAAQS effective January 20, 1994). For PM2.5

purposes, the pre-1990 SIP contained 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 PM10 and PM2.5 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, PM10 and PM2.5. 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 requirement.

Recommendations

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

rules. We recommend approval based on our determination that the rules comply 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 217 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 strategy for attainment of the 1997 or 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS,

the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, or the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 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, 2012.

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

23, 2012.

3. SMAQMD Staff Report for Rule 202, 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 Implementation Plan, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District, Rule 214 Federal New Source Review, Rule 203 Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration,” May 6, 2011.