NSCAPCD: PSD and SIP Amendments 2014 Staff Report page 1 of 9

Northern Sonoma County 

Air Pollution Control District

Amendments to Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program

And

Amendments to State Implementation Plan

Executive Summary

Staff of the Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District (District) is proposing a series 

of actions in response to findings and requests from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). These actions will amend the District’s rules that implement the federal program for 

review of significant new and modified sources of air pollution known as the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Program, or PSD. The proposed changes will incorporate specific 

definitions, requirements, and procedures consistent with EPA’s most recent standards for this 

program, and will allow EPA to approve the program as part of the State Implementation Plan 

(SIP), continuing these rules as federally enforceable. Failure to approve changes to the 

District’s PSD program will result in formal disapproval of the program, the imposition of 

permitting by EPA, and potential sanctions. To make its PSD program consistent with current 

federal requirements, the District is proposing to change the following rules:

a. Regulation 1, Rule 130 – Definitions

b. Regulation 1, Rule 200 – Permitting Requirements

c. Regulation 1, Rule 220 – New Source Review

d. Regulation 1, Rule 230 – Action on Applications.

District Staff is also proposing to amend the SIP by withdrawing certain District rules from the 

SIP (or from submittal for incorporation into the SIP, as applicable to the current status of the 

specific rule). These rules no longer meet EPA’s criteria for inclusion in the SIP and they do not 

need to be federally enforceable to achieve their purpose, but will remain in effect as local rules 

enforceable by the District. The District is proposing to withdraw the following rules from the 

SIP at EPA’s request.

a. Regulation 1, Rule 160 – Ambient Air Quality Standards

b. Regulation 1, Rule 455 – Geothermal Emission Standards

c. Regulation 1, Rule 494 – Rule to Limit Potential to Emit

d. Regulation 1, Rule 500 – Enforcement

In addition to withdrawing Rule 160 (Ambient Air Quality Standards) from the SIP, District Staff 

is proposing to replace the outdated table with references to the federal and state ambient 

standards. A non-regulatory informational table will be provided for informational purposes.
NSCAPCD: PSD and SIP Amendments 2014 Staff Report page 2 of 9

District Staff does not anticipate any environmental or cost impacts associated with these 

changes. The PSD program changes codify existing practice, and the amendments to the SIP 

only change whether the rules are enforceable by EPA. Because the rules will remain in effect 

and enforceable by the District, Staff anticipates no environmental, cost or socio-economic 

impacts will result from the proposed action. 

In preparing this proposal, District staff held a workshop and met with affected sources, and 

staff of the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and EPA Region IX. Notice of the proposed 

actions was published in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat and posted on the District’s website 30 

days in advance of the hearing. 

Background

The State Implementation Plan, or SIP, is a compendium of air pollution regulations that apply 

throughout the state. The SIP contains rules that address basic regulatory infrastructure, 

attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and transport of air pollution across 

state and/or national boundaries. In order to be included in the SIP, rules must meet certain 

legal and regulatory standards, and once incorporated they are federally enforceable.

The District has existing basic regulatory infrastructure rules that are approved in the SIP. Some 

of these rules implement the federal PSD program. Under the PSD program new sources (and

modifications to existing sources) that are “significant” as defined, are evaluated to ensure that 

they employ the best available control technology and will not degrade ambient air quality or 

have adverse impacts on protected natural areas. EPA revises its standards for the PSD 

program periodically and the District is required to incorporate the changes or lose federal 

approval of the program. 

In 2002, EPA approved a series of amendments referred to as “New Source Review (NSR) 

Reform” and these amendments affected the PSD program. The NSR Reform amendments 

relaxed certain requirements with the expectation that they would result in more voluntary 

emission reduction projects on the part of industrial sources that would otherwise have been 

subject to review under the PSD program. In response, the California Legislature enacted the 

“Protect California Act of 2003” through Senate Bill 288, authored by Byron Sher. This Act 

prohibits local air districts from amending any rules in the SIP that implement review of new 

and modified sources in such a way as to make them less stringent. Because of this legislative 

prohibition, the District has not implemented NSR Reform in its PSD program. 

In 2010, the District’s Board approved amendments to certain definitions in Regulation 1, Rule 

130 (Definitions) that incorporated changes in the federal PSD program to address fine particle 

pollution. Since that time EPA has made revisions to its PSD program approval requirements 

that the District is required to address. Earlier this year, EPA notified District Staff that these 

program changes needed to be submitted this year, as well as changes implementing NSR 

Reform. After a series of negotiations, in early October EPA agreed that the District could 

submit a request for equivalency for the NSR Reform provisions (i.e., provide to EPA a 
NSCAPCD: PSD and SIP Amendments 2014 Staff Report page 3 of 9

demonstration that the provisions of the District’s PSD program that would otherwise have 

been changed by NSR Reform are more stringent and will result in equivalent or better 

protection of air quality, public health, and protected natural areas), and District Staff prepared 

the submittal package incorporating all of the other required changes but excluding NSR 

Reform.

EPA will take action on the rules that implement requirements for new and modified sources 

for all of the air districts in single federal rulemaking to approve and/or disapprove each 

district’s program. That rulemaking has proceeded on a parallel track for all districts. On 

October 23, 2014, EPA published a notice of intent to take action. In that notice (Federal 

Register Notice 79 FR 63350) EPA proposed a partial disapproval of the District’s PSD program 

for its failure to incorporate the most recent changes, as well as its failure to implement NSR 

Reform. Once filed in the Federal Register, there is a 30 day public comment period on the 

proposed action, after which time EPA will issue a final disapproval unless the District submits 

rule amendments that address the deficiencies. EPA understands that District Staff is proposing 

the needed changes for Board approval, and if the Board approves the changes before EPA 

publishes a final disapproval, EPA will reflect the Board’s approval in its final action.

EPA’s criteria for approving rules into the SIP have changed over time. Several of the District’s 

rules that were previously submitted for approval no longer meet the criteria for approvability. 

In addition, EPA has a backlog of rules submitted by air districts for inclusion in the SIP; some of 

the submittals have been pending for ten or twenty years. As part of a national effort to reduce 

the backlog and remove rules that no longer meet SIP criteria, EPA approached the District with 

a request that the District withdraw certain submittals. Some of these rules are basic 

regulatory infrastructure, and others were incorporated to support attainment. 

District Staff reviewed EPA’s request with the District’s Counsel and determined that the 

specified rules and/or submittals could be withdrawn without impacting the stringency, 

effectiveness, or underlying authority of the District’s regulatory program. Rules that are 

withdrawn from the SIP, or from submittal to the SIP, will remain in effect as local regulations

enforceable by the District, but they will no longer be enforceable by EPA.

Explanation of Proposed Action

PSD Program Amendments: District Staff is proposing changes to four District rules that 

implement the PSD program. These changes will incorporate in the rules definitions, review

processes and administrative procedures that Staff was already implementing as a matter of 

practice. The changes will not result in new requirements for permit applicants. 

In all four rules that embody the District’s PSD program, District Staff is proposing to remove

and/or update dates associated with references to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and the 

specific federal regulation that sets forth the requirements for PSD programs: Chapter 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations Part 52.21 (40 CFR 52.21). EPA found that referencing the earlier

dates caused the rules to be limited in scope based on the content of earlier versions of the 
NSCAPCD: PSD and SIP Amendments 2014 Staff Report page 4 of 9

CAA and the regulation. In striking these dates, Staff is proposing to implement by reference 

the definitions and general context of the current versions of the CAA and 40 CFR 52.21, except 

where the District’s rules specify other definitions or other provisions. Staff is proposing to 

expressly exclude those definitions, provisions and context related to NSR Reform. District Staff 

will provide to EPA a demonstration that the provisions of its PSD program that would 

otherwise have been changed by NSR Reform are more stringent and will result in equivalent or 

better protection of air quality, public health, and protected natural areas. Other minor 

corrections are proposed in the four rules. 

In addition, the following changes are proposed to each individual rule:

 Changes Proposed to Regulation 1, Rule 130 – Definitions. In addition to updating 

references to the CAA and 40 CFR 52.21, District Staff is proposing to exclude specific 

definitions in 40 CFR 52.21 related to NSR Reform, and add a “General Provisions” 

section, as requested by EPA, which provides direction for the reading of certain phrases 

used in the underlying federal regulation and which are incorporated by reference. 

These include: directions reading for “Administrator” and the phrase “paragraph (q) of 

this section.” Staff proposes to add definitions for “Actual Emissions” (a1), “Allowable 

Emissions” (a6), “Area Classifications” (a6), “Baseline Actual Emissions” (b1), “Major 

Modification” (m1), “Major Stationary Source” (m2) and “Subject to Regulation” (s10)

with language requested by EPA, as well as “Air Pollution Control Officer” (a5) using the 

definition provided in the California Health and Safety Code. Staff is also proposing to 

amend the definitions of “Baseline Concentration” (now b2) and “Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increment” (p7), with language requested by EPA, and to 

revise the term being defined in (n1) from “Net Increase in Emissions” to “Net Emissions 

Increase” as requested by EPA, and in that definition to specify that the calculation 

methods referenced in 40 CFR 52.21 are the methods provided before NSR Reform was 

enacted. Other minor corrections are also proposed.

 Changes proposed to Regulation 1, Rule 200 – Permit Requirements. In addition to 

updating reference dates, District Staff is proposing to clarify certain exemptions and 

add Section (e) Procedures. Clarifications are proposed for 200(d)(5)(a) to more 

explicitly reflect statutory exemptions for agricultural sources of air pollution as 

interpreted by the Attorney General of California. Staff is also proposing language for 

the exemptions in (d)(5)(c) and (d)(8) that limits the scope of discretion afforded the to 

the Air Pollution Control Officer in a manner consistent with federal standards for 

approvability. The new section (e) specifies the information an applicant for a permit 

must provide to the District in order for the District to deem the application complete, 

and it requires the District to notify the applicant, in writing, of any information needed 

to complete the application, within 30 days of receipt of the application. These are 

procedures District Staff has followed for the last 20 years, however EPA is requiring 

them to be explicitly expressed in the District’s rules. Other minor corrections are 

proposed.

 Changes proposed to Regulation 1, Rule 220 – New Source Review. In addition to 

updating reference dates and specifying that the calculation methods referenced in 40 
NSCAPCD: PSD and SIP Amendments 2014 Staff Report page 5 of 9

CFR 52.21 are the methods provided before NSR Reform was enacted, District Staff is 

proposing to:

o Amend Section (b) New Source Review Procedure by replacing terms in (b)(1) 

and (b)(2) with terms preferred by EPA that proscribe the same requirements.

o Amend Subsection (b)(3) separating the two elements required in it into two 

separate subsections, an amended (b)(3) and a new (b)(4). As proposed, the 

amended Subsection (b)(3) would require only the determination that approved 

stack height and good engineering practice is employed. The preparation of an 

air quality analysis is proposed as the new Subsection (b)(4), with five specific 

criteria as required by EPA. These criteria have been part of the District’s PSD 

program implementation for the last twenty years but EPA is now requiring they 

be explicitly expressed in the District’s rule. The criteria are: (i) pre- and postproject air monitoring, which is accomplished for geothermal power plant 

projects by participation in the Geysers Air Monitoring Program (or GAMP); (ii) 

assessment of the project emissions on allowable PSD increments; (iii) analysis of 

the increase above baseline concentration; (iv) analysis of any impacts on Class I 

Areas (for projects in Northern Sonoma, this is Point Reyes National Seashore); 

and assessment of any impacts on visibility, soils, vegetation, and impacts due to 

related commercial, residential, industrial, or other growth (in essence, the 

review done under the California Environmental Quality Act). Staff is also 

proposing to state, as part of the new Section (b)(4), that the APCO will ensure 

that the project will not result in an increase that would exceed any ambient air 

quality standard or allowable PSD Increment. Again, these criteria and 

requirements are not new; they are simply being explicitly included in the 

District’s rule.

o Amend Subsections (b)(7) and (b)(9), as renumbered, to clarify the public 

participation procedures regarding who the District notifies of its intent to take 

action on a PSD permit, how the notice is given, and how comments may be 

provided. These changes codify existing practice.

o Other minor corrections are proposed.

 Changes Proposed to Regulation 1, Rule 230 – Action on Applications. In addition to 

reference dates, with the exception of NSR Reform provisions, and clarifying that the 

assessment of air quality deterioration is cumulative in nature, District Staff is proposing 

to add Section (e) Performance Standards in Effect to specify that issuance of an 

Authority to Construct does not relieve the permit holder from the obligation to comply 

with all applicable requirements, whether explicitly stated in the permit or not. This 

language is already incorporated into permits upon issuance, but EPA now requires it be 

explicitly stated in the District’s rule. Other minor corrections are also proposed.

SIP Amendments: At the request of EPA, the District is proposing to withdraw the following 

rules from the SIP, or from submittal into the SIP, as applicable. The withdrawn rules will 

remain enforceable as District rules but will no longer be enforceable by EPA:
NSCAPCD: PSD and SIP Amendments 2014 Staff Report page 6 of 9

 Regulation 1, Rule 160 – Ambient Air Quality Standards. This rule provides a summary 

of ambient air quality standards as set by EPA and the California Air Resources Board 

(ARB). It is out of date, does not meet current EPA criteria for inclusion in the SIP, and 

EPA has requested it be withdrawn. District Staff is proposing to withdraw the submittal 

of Rule 160 from the SIP. Staff is proposing to retain Rule 160 as a locally enforceable 

rule and to replace the table with references to the standards themselves and maintain 

a separate informational (but non-regulatory) table of ambient air quality standards.

 Regulation 1, Rule 455 – Geothermal Emission Standards. This rule limits emissions

from geothermal power production. It does not meet current EPA criteria for inclusion 

in the SIP and EPA has requested it be withdrawn. District Staff is proposing to 

withdraw the submittal of Rule 455 from the SIP and retain it as a locally enforceable 

rule.

 Regulation 1, Rule 494 – Rule to Limit Potential to Emit. The rule was established to 

allow the District to exclude sources from the federal Operating Permits program under 

Title V of the CAA based on their actual operating emissions rather than their maximum 

potential emissions. EPA has since ruled that actual emissions may be used without an 

underlying rule. Future federal rulings could change the status of actual vs. potential 

emissions in calculating applicability, however. In addition, some of the definitions in 

Rule 494 are referenced in other District rules, and the status of sources under Rule 494 

affects certain fees. For these reasons, District Staff is proposing to withdraw submittal 

of Rule 494 from the SIP and retain it as a locally enforceable rule.

 Regulation 1, Rule 500 – Enforcement. This rule specifies the enforcement authority of 

the District. It does not meet current EPA criteria for inclusion in the SIP and EPA has 

requested it be withdrawn. District Staff is proposing to withdraw submittal of Rule 500 

from the SIP and retain it as a locally enforceable rule. 

Impacts of Proposed Actions

Impacts of Amendments to the PSD Program: For the most part, the proposed changes clarify 

or codify existing practice by providing more explicit reference to, or incorporation of the 

underlying federal requirements. These changes are needed to meet current EPA standards for 

the content of an approvable program. District Staff is explicitly excluding from the proposed 

program amendments all elements of NSR Reform, consistent with the prohibitions of SB 288. 

Because there will be no change in the implementation of the District’s PSD program, staff does 

not anticipate any change in emissions from affected sources, in ambient levels of any 

regulated pollutants, nor in any associated health impacts. There will be no change in the 

compliance obligations of affected sources, therefore no costs are anticipated as a result of 

these amendments, and cost effectiveness was not calculated. Because there will be no change 

compliance obligations or costs, nor in obligations of any source to apply for permits, or their 

ability to obtain such permits, District staff does not anticipate any impacts on jobs, or other 

socio-economic impacts.
NSCAPCD: PSD and SIP Amendments 2014 Staff Report page 7 of 9

These actions are undertaken to comply with federal requirements. As such, they are 

consistent with federal laws and regulations. These actions also specifically consider and 

address the prohibitions of Section 42500 of the California Health and Safety Code, and 

minimize regulatory duplication as required under HSC Section 40727 (a).

Impacts of Amendments to the SIP: With the exception of Rule 160 (Ambient Air Quality 

Standards), all of the rules District Staff is proposing to withdraw will remain enforceable as 

local rules unchanged from their current form. Withdrawing rules from the SIP removes their 

federal enforceability; however, they are being withdrawn because EPA does not believe they 

meet current criteria for federal enforceability, so there is no change in their enforceability as a 

practical matter. 

Rule 160 (Ambient Air Quality Standards) currently contains only an outdated table of federal 

and state ambient standards. In addition to withdrawing the submittal of this rule, District Staff 

is proposing to replace the outdated table with references to the federal and state standards 

themselves, and to provide a non-regulatory informational table of the federal and state 

standards. The federal and state ambient standards remain in effect whether they are properly 

reflected in the District’s rules or not, but replacing the outdated table with regulatory 

references will minimize confusion. There will be no change in the actual ambient air quality 

standards in effect.

Because there will be no change in the implementation of the rules as a result of their 

withdrawal from the SIP, staff does not anticipate any change in emissions from affected 

sources, in ambient levels of any regulated pollutants, nor in any associated health impacts. 

There will be no change in the compliance obligations of affected sources, therefore no costs 

are anticipated as a result of these amendments, and cost effectiveness was not calculated. 

Because there will be no change compliance obligations or costs, nor in obligations of any 

source to apply for permits, or their ability to obtain such permits, District staff does not 

anticipate any impacts on jobs, or other socio-economic impacts.

These actions are undertaken to comply with federal requirements. As such, they are 

consistent with federal laws and regulations. These actions also minimize regulatory 

duplication as required under HSC Section 40727 (a).

Alternatives Analysis

Alternative #1 – Adopting the Federal Program Without Exclusions: The District could adopt the 

entire federal PSD program, either by reference or as a separate, complete rule. This would 

violate the requirements of HSC Section 42500, et seq. In order to submit the adopted program 

into the SIP, the District must first provide it to ARB for review. As required by HSC Section 

42500, ARB would not approve the submittal and would withhold it from EPA. As a result, EPA 

would issue a final disapproval of the District’s PSD program (see Consequences below).
NSCAPCD: PSD and SIP Amendments 2014 Staff Report page 8 of 9

Alternative #2 – No Amendments to the Districts PSD Program: If the District fails to submit the 

amendments to its PSD program that fully implement all federal requirements (or a more 

stringent set of requirements), EPA will issue a final disapproval of the District’s PSD program 

(see Consequences below).

Consequences of PSD Program Disapproval: If a final disapproval is issued, EPA will adopt its 

own Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that will have the effect of requiring permits from EPA 

in addition to permits from the District for affect sources (namely, geothermal power plants 

and any other large industrial operations). Sanctions may also ultimately be applied although 

the District is given additional time to remediate the deficiencies and receive program approval.

Alternative #3 – Rescinding and Withdrawing Rules from the SIP: Instead of retaining the local 

enforceability of rules withdrawn from the SIP, the District could rescind them completely. 

 Rescinding Rule 160 (Ambient Air Quality Standards) would not have a material effect 

on the ambient standards in place, however it would create unnecessary inconsistencies 

between the District’s regulations and the regulations of the other air districts in the 

North Coast Air Basin; HSC 39802 (a) (2) directs districts in an air basin to maintain 

consistent rules to the extent possible. 

 Rescinding Rule 455 (Geothermal Emission Standards) would remove an important 

element of the District’s program regulating emissions from geothermal power 

production and would potentially have a significant adverse impact on the environment.

 Rescinding Rule 494 (Rule to Limit Potential to Emit) would not result in any increase in 

emissions or change applicability of the federal Operating Permits Program. The Rule is 

referenced in other District rules, however, and certain fees are based on classifications 

in the Rule. Rescinding it would negatively impact the District’s overall program.

 Rescinding Rule 500 (Enforcement) would create unnecessary inconsistencies between 

the District’s regulations and regulations of other districts in the North Coast Air Basin.

Alternative #4 – No Withdrawal of Rules from the SIP: The District could leave the rules in the 

SIP, or as active submittals to the SIP as applicable. Because EPA does not believe these rules 

meet the current criteria for incorporation into the SIP, EPA would move to disapprove them. 

Formal disapproval is a more complicated regulatory process that would result in the same 

status for those rules. By acting to withdraw the rules voluntarily, the District is saving 

resources for both itself and EPA and avoiding any confusion or negative implications 

associated with a formal disapproval.

Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act

These are regulatory actions that are largely procedural and have no anticipated impacts on the 

environment. The project incorporates various rulemaking actions by the District to implement 

federal requirements as required by EPA. Therefore, the project is ministerial and exempt from 

CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080 (b)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 

15268 – Ministerial Projects. The project is also a regulatory action that protects the 

environment by ensuring consistency of the District’s permitting program with the 
NSCAPCD: PSD and SIP Amendments 2014 Staff Report page 9 of 9

requirements and standards set forth by EPA, enabling certain District rules that implement 

review of significant new and modified sources of air pollution to be part of the State 

Implementation Plan. In addition, this project sustains the District’s ability to protect the 

environment in that the rules EPA requested to be removed from the State Implementation 

Plan maintain local enforceability; no regulations are to be relaxed through this action. Because 

this project involves the maintenance of consistency and enforceability of various rules put in 

place in order to protect the environment, this project is categorically exempt from CEQA 

pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 as a regulatory action taken to protect the 

environment. A Notice of Exemption will be filed upon approval by the Board of Directors of 

the Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District.

Public Process

Staff held a workshop on the proposed actions on Thursday, October 2, 2014, at 2 p.m. at the 

Healdsburg City Hall. Notice of the intended actions was posted on the District’s website and 

published in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat on Wednesday, October 15, 2014.

Conclusion and Staff Recommendation

The proposed actions are being undertaken at the request of EPA and in order to comply with 

federal requirements. They are necessary to maintain full approval of the District’s program. 

The proposed actions are consistent with state and federal laws and regulations. They will not 

result in any adverse impacts on emissions, air quality, public health, compliance costs or costeffectiveness, or have any other socio-economic impacts.

Staff recommends the District’s Board take the following actions:

(1) Amend the following District rules to meet new requirements of EPA for approval as 

part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP):

a. Regulation 1, Rule 130 – Definitions

b. Regulation 1, Rule 200 – Permitting Requirements

c. Regulation 1, Rule 220 – New Source Review

d. Regulation 1, Rule 230 – Action on Applications;

(2) Direct the Air Pollution Control Officer to submit the amended rules for inclusion in the 

SIP and request that EPA find the rules to be equivalent to, or more stringent than, the 

provisions of New Source Review Reform of 2002;

(3) Direct the Air Pollution Control Officer to withdraw the following rules from the SIP:

a. Regulation 1, Rule 160 – Ambient Air Quality Standards

b. Regulation 1, Rule 455 – Geothermal Emission Standards

c. Regulation 1, Rule 494 – Rule to Limit Potential to Emit

d. Regulation 1, Rule 500 – Enforcement;

(4) Direct the Air Pollution Control Officer to replace the table in Regulation 1, Rule 160 

(Ambient Air Quality Standards) with regulatory references; and
NSCAPCD: PSD and SIP Amendments 2014 Staff Report page 10 of 9

(5) Direct the Air Pollution Control Officer to file a notice of categorical exemption pursuant 

to the California Environmental Quality Act.