### SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

Final Staff Report

Proposed Rule 223 – Emission Reduction Permits for Large Confined Animal Facilities

April 2006

Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources Elaine Chang, DrPH

Assistant Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources Laki T. Tisopulos, Ph.D., P.E.

Senior Manager Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources Larry Bowen, P.E.

Author: Shams Hasan - Air Quality Specialist

Reviewed by: Robert R. Pease, P.E. - Program Supervisor

John Olvera, Senior Deputy District CounselSOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOARD

Chair: WILLIAM A. BURKE, Ed.D.

Speaker of the Assembly Appointee

Vice Chair: S. ROY WILSON, Ed.D.

Supervisor, Fourth District Riverside County Representative

MEMBERS:

MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH Supervisor, Fifth District Los Angeles County Representative

JANE W. CARNEY Senate Rules Committee Appointee

BEATRICE J. S. LAPISTO-KIRTLEY Mayor, City of Bradbury Cities Representative, Los Angeles County/Eastern R egion

RONALD O. LOVERIDGE Mayor, City of Riverside Cities Representative, Riverside County

GARY OVITT Supervisor, Fourth District San Bernardino County Representative

JAN PERRY Councilmember, 9 th District Cities Representative, Los Angeles County, Western Region

MIGUEL PULIDO Mayor, City of Santa Ana Cities Representative, Orange County

JAMES SILVA Supervisor, Second District Orange County Representative

CYNTHIA VERDUGO–PERALTA Governor’s Appointee

DENNIS YATES Mayor, City of Chino Cities Representative, San Bernardino County

EXECUTIVE OFFICER

BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, D.Env.TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT............. ........................................ 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................

................................................... ............. 5 5

BACKGROUND .........................................

................................................... ....................... 5 5

SENATE BILL 700: AGRICULTURE & AIR QUALITY ........

..................................... 9 9

PROPOSED RULE 223..................................

................................................... ............... 10 10

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS...............................

................................................... ....... 15 15

SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS .............................

................................................... ... 15 15

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ...............

................................. 15 15

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY ..............................

................................................... ...... 16 16

DRAFT FINDINGS .....................................

................................................... .................. 17 17

CONCLUSION .........................................

................................................... ..................... 18 18

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES .............................

................................................... .. 19 19



### Attachments: Attachment A: Emission Mitigation Plan Template 

### Attachment B: Comparison Table: SB 700 and Propos ed Rule 223 Attachment C: SB 700 – TextFinal Staff Report

-1-



### ACRONYMS AND TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT

AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS: Any operation occurring on a ranch or farm directly related to the growing of crops, or r aising of fowl or animals for the primary purpose of making a profit or for a livelih ood.
AGRICULTURAL SOURCE OF AIR POLLUTION: A source or a group of sources of air pollution created by or used in the production of crops, or raising of fowl or animals located on contiguous property unde r common ownership or control. Under SB 700, there are four categories o f sources: confined animal facilities; internal combustion engines (including portable and off-road engines); sources subject to Federal Title V requirements; an d sources subject to local district regulations as allowed by the Health & Saf ety Code. AQMD – South Coast Air Quality Management District: The air pollution control agency for all of Orange County and the urb an portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. AQMD is res ponsible for controlling emissions primarily from non-vehicular sources of a ir pollution. These can include anything from large power plants and refine ries to gasoline stations and internal combustion engine generators. AQMP – Air Quality Management Plan: AQMD’s comprehensive, multiyear strategy of reducing air pollution from all sources under its jurisdiction, designed to bring the region into attainment with state and federal standards. It uses up-todate science and analytical tools and incorporates a comprehensive strategy aimed at controlling pollution from all sources, includin g stationary sources, on-road and off-road mobile sources and area sources. The Cali fornia Clean Air Act requires a non-attainment area to update its AQMP every three years to incorporate the most recent available technical information. The 2003 A QMP updates the demonstration of attainment with the federal standa rds for ozone and PM10; replaces the 1997 attainment demonstration for the federal carbon monoxide (CO) standard and provides a basis for a maintenance pla n for CO for the future. It also updates the maintenance plan for the federal nitrog en dioxide (NO 2 

### ) standard that the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) has met since 199 2.
AREA SOURCES: A combination of similar emission sources within a geographic area. Area sources include emissions fr om operations involving solvent usage on surfaces (surface coating), materi al storage or distribution, construction activities or such agricultural activi ties as discing, tilling, and travel on unpaved roads. Area sources are generally consi dered fugitive emissions.
BACM – Best Available Control Measures: A term used to refer to the most effective measures (according to EPA guidance) for controlling small or dispersed particulates and other emissions from sources such as roadway dust, soot and ash from woodstoves and open burning of rush, timber, g rasslands, or trash. ExamplesFinal Staff Report

-2-



### of activities to which BACM apply include generatio n of fugitive dust, agricultural burning, dairy ammonia, and manure handling. BACT – Best Available Control Technology: The most stringent emission limitation or control technique which:

(1) has been achieved in practice for such category or class of
source; or (2) is contained in any SIP approved by the U.S. EP A for such category or class of source. A specific limitation or control technique shall not apply if the owner or operator of the proposed source demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Executive Officer or designee that such limitation or control technique is not presently achievable; or (3) is any other emission limitation or control tec hnique, found by the Executive Officer or designee to be technolo gically feasible for such class or category of sources or f or a specific source, and cost-effective as compared to measures as listed in the AQMP or rules adopted by the District Govern ing Board.

BARCT – 

### Best Available Retrofit Control Technology : 

### An emission limitation that is based on the maximum degree of reduction ac hievable, taking into account environmental, energy, and economic impacts by each class or category of source.

CAF – Confined Animal Facilities: Any structure, building, installation, barn, corral, or coop for animals or fowl that restricts them to a certain area. See California Health & Safety Code Section 39011.5.
CAPCOA – California Air Pollution Control Officers Association: It is an association of thirty-five local air quality agenci es throughout California. CAPCOA has been in existence since 1975, and is ded icated to protecting the public health and providing clean air.
CARB – California Air Resources Board: The state agency charged with coordinating efforts to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards and to conduct research into the causes of and solution to air pollution in California, among other duties. CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was put into effect in 1970 to r egulate activities subject to state environmental regulations so that major consi deration is given to preventing environmental damage.Final Staff Report

-3-



### FUGITIVE DUST: Any solid particulate matter that becomes airborne, other than that emitted from an exhaust stack, directly o r indirectly as a result of the activities of man.
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS: Those emissions that cannot reasonably pass throu gh a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equiv alent opening. These include leaks from equipment such as piping. Examples incl ude discing and harvesting; dust from traveling on unpaved roads; or ammonia fr om dairy manure piles. LCAF – Large Confined Animal Facility: Any facility as defined in California Health & Safety Code Section 86500, Title 17, Divis ion 1, Chapter 1, Subchapter 2.7. NAAQS – National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Standards established by U.S. EPA that specify concentrations and durations of air pollutants which reflect the relationship between the intensity and composit ion of air pollution to undesirable effects established by the federal gove rnment. The standard signifies the threshold above which the pollutant is known to cause adverse health effects and allows for an adequate margin of safety. See C alifornia Health & Safety Code Section 39014. NOx – Nitrogen Oxides: Means the sum of nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxid e in the flue gas, collectively expressed as nitrogen di oxide. It is an air pollutant that is a by-product of combustion from transportation and stationary sources, such as gasoline engines, diesel engines, water heaters and boilers. Nitrogen oxides are also a major contributor to the formation of ozone and fine particulate matter.
PARTICULATE MATTER: Any material, except uncombined water, which exists in a finely divided form as a liquid or soli d at standard conditions. Particulate matter may be directly emitted from a s ource or form through chemical reaction of air contaminants in the atmosphere.
PHOTOCHEMICAL REACTIONS: Chemical reactions of various pollutants emitted from different sources. For example, the p hotochemical reaction to form ambient ozone involves the combination of nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons in the presence of sunlight.

PM 10: Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter sma ller than or equal to 10 microns as measured by the applicable state and federal reference test methods.
SANCTIONS: Punitive actions taken by the federal government for failure to submit or implement a SIP. Such action may include withholding of federal highway funds or grants, and restrictions on the co nstruction of new or modification of existing major stationary sources.
SB 700 – Senate Bill 700: On September 22, 2003, Governor Davis signed into law Senate Bill 700, authored by Senator Florez. T he bill amended air pollutionFinal Staff Report

-4-



### control requirements in the California Health and S afety Code to include requirements for agricultural sources of air pollut ion.
SCAB – South Coast Air Basin: It is the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties and all of O range County as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Section 6 0104. The area is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the north and eas t by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains, and on the s outh by the San Diego county line. SIP – State Implementation Plan: Documents prepared by states, and subject to EPA approval, that identify the actions and program s to be implemented to control emissions within their boundaries, in order to achi eve and maintain NAAQS.
U.S. EPA – United States Environmental Protection A gency: The federal agency responsible for the development and monitori ng of programs to improve the environment. It establishes NAAQS and has over sight authority over state and local programs, develops and enforces regulations, and implements the Federal Clean Air Act, among other environmental laws. VOC – Volatile Organic Compounds: Any volatile compound of carbon excluding methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, ammonium carbonate, and exe mpt compounds.Final Staff Report

-5-



### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Proposed Rule 223 is designed to ensure that all LC AFs, as defined by CARB, reduce emissions of air contaminants from their fac ilities to the extent feasible. The proposed rule will implement requirements of SB 700 codified in California Health & Safety Code Section 40724.6. Specifically , the proposed rule requires an owner or operator of a LCAF to:

• 

### Obtain an AQMD permit to build, erect, install, alt er, replace, or operate a LCAF;

• 

### Provide the AQMD with an inventory of all emission sources at the facility, and an emissions mitigation plan that demonstrates that the facility will use BARCT to reduce emissions of pollutants that contri bute to non-attainment of any ambient air quality standard; as well as ann ual updates of this information;

• 

### Keep records that specify the number of animals at the facility; and The AQMD shall make the draft permit available for public review for 30 days prior to issuing any the permit

. Those LCAF permits already issued will be reissued with a 30 day comment period prior to reis suance

.
Proposed Rule 223 requires that all LCAFs apply for and obtain a permit that includes a mitigation plan that the LCAF will imple ment to reduce its emissions. Further, the mitigation plan is to be updated annua lly. Staff believes that the above requirements in Proposed Rule 223, including the emissions mitigation plan, will significantly reduce emissions from LCAF s.



### BACKGROUND

AQMD is the air pollution control agency for all of Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardi no counties. This area of 10,000 square miles is home to nearly 16 million pe ople - about half the population of the state of California. It is the s econd most populated urban area in the United States and one of the smoggiest. AQMD is responsible for controlling emissions prima rily from stationary sources of air pollution. These can include anything from large power plants and refineries to the corner gas station. There are ab out 28,000 such businesses operating under AQMD permits. Many consumer produc ts are also considered stationary sources and include house paint, furnitu re varnish, and thousands of products containing solvents that evaporate into th e air. About 23% of this area's ozone-forming air pollution comes from stationary s ources, both businesses and residences. The other 77% comes from mobile source s--mainly cars, trucks andFinal Staff Report

-6-



### buses, but also construction equipment, ships, trai ns and airplanes. Emission standards for mobile sources are generally establis hed by state or federal agencies, such as CARB and the U.S. EPA, rather than by local agencies such as the AQMD, although AQMD may establish operational limit ations for these sources, and may establish emission standards for non-road e ngines and fleets, with approval from U.S. EPA.
Agricultural operations represent a significant sou rce of air pollution throughout the state. SB 700, which was enacted into law as o f January 1, 2004, eliminated the exemption from the permit system of local air p ollution control districts for agricultural operations in the farming of crops or raising of fowl or animals. The bill amended air pollution control requirements in the California Health & Safety Code to include requirements for agricultural sourc es of air pollution.

It is important to note that sources may still need to comply with applicable District Rules, even if permits are not required. As shown in Table 1, the federal eight-hour ozone s tandard has been exceeded in the SCAB at an average of 97 days over the past thr ee years. This makes the impact of emissions from CAFs a critical considerat ion in the development of Proposed Rule 223.

Table – 1

Year Number of Days over the Federal Eight-Hour Ozone Standard 2004 90 2003 120 2002 99 Source: AQMD Webpage - Historic Ozone Air Quality Trends



### VOCs are the most important class of pollutants emi tted from CAFs. There is significant ongoing research associated with emissi ons factors of VOC from livestock operations, particularly with dairies and certain poultry ranching operations. CARB’s current VOC emission factor of 12.8 lbs/year/head for dairies is within the range indicated by the research to da te. When the evaluation of recent research results is completed, the State wil l determine whether adjustment to the emission factors is warranted.

According to data compiled by CARB, in 2004 the ove rall livestock VOC emissions are most significant in the San Joaquin V alley. This data is shown in Table - 2 and indicates that the San Joaquin Valley accounts for about 63% of the State’s livestock VOC emissions, while the South Co ast accounts for 12%.Final Staff Report

-7-



### Collectively, these two regions account for about 7 5% of the total livestock VOC emissions in the State.

Table – 2

Livestock VOC Emissions (tons/day) % of Total Statewide VOC Emissions from Livestock Region

Dairies Other Livestock Total Livestock South Coast 4.6 0.7 5.3 12 San Joaquin Valley 23.5 5.5 29.0 63

Statewide 35.7 10.1 45.8 100 Source: CARB Staff Report: “Initial Statement of R easons for Rulemaking Public Hearing to

Consider the Large Confined Animal Facility Definit ion” May 6, 2005


### However, it should be pointed out that due to imple mentation of Rule 1127 – Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste, and the r ecently accelerated migration of the dairies out of the Basin, their re lative contribution to the emissions inventory in the near future is expected to be significantly lower than what the current figures in Table 2 indicate.
SB 700 required CARB to develop a definition for th e source category of a LCAF by July 1, 2005. In developing the proposed defini tion, CARB was required to review all available scientific information, includ ing emission factors for CAFs and the effect of these facilities on air quality i n the State’s various air basins. CARB was also directed to consider the impact of em issions from these facilities on attainment and maintenance of ambient air qualit y standards.

In developing the proposed definition for large CAF s, CARB staff considered the following key factors:  severity and nature of the air quality problem in v arious local air districts;  number of animals and their associated emissions pe r district;  status of research on emission factors;  efficiency in definition structure (number of anima ls relative to facility number); and,  ability of local air districts to expand the defini tion if warranted.

The bill further provides that local air pollution control and air management districts shall, not later than July 1, 2006, adopt , implement, and submit for inclusion in the state implementation plan, a rule or regulation that requires the owner or operator of a LCAF, as defined by CARB, to obtain a permit from the district to reduce, to the extent feasible, emissio ns of air contaminants from the facility. Staff has developed Proposed Rule 223 to satisfy SB 700 and California Health & Safety Code Section 40724.6 requirements.Final Staff Report

-8-



### After considering the above factors, CARB staff has proposed the thresholds shown in Table 3.

Table – 3 Facilities at or Exceeding Thresholds are Considere d Large Livestock Category Non-Attainment Areas Attainment Areas Dairy 1,000 milk producing cows 2,000 milk producin g cows Beef Feedlots 3,500 beef cattle 7,000 beef cattle Other Cattle Operations 7,500 calves, heifers or ot her cattle 7,500 calves, heifers or other cattle Chickens – Broilers 650,000 1,300,000 Chickens – Egg Layers 650,000 1,300,000 Turkeys 100,000 200,000 Swine’s 3,000 6,000 Sheep and Goats 15,000 30,000 Horses 2,500 5,000 Ducks 650,000 1,300,000 Rabbits, Pheasants, Llamas, Others 30,000 60,000 Source: CARB Staff Report: “Initial Statement of R easons for Rulemaking Public Hearing to Consider the Large Confined Animal Facility Definit ion”, May 6, 2005, modified September 7, 2005.



### The definition is designed to address the combined, aggregate air quality impacts of the livestock industry in California. According to the CARB Staff Report, “Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking Public Hearing to Consider the Large Confined Animal Facility Definition” the CARB staff did not take an individual facility emissions approach in defining a large CAF because it is impractical and uncertain, in part due to the devel oping state of livestock emissions estimation research. At this time, facil ity emissions are calculated on a per animal basis pending completion and peer review of research on specific emission rates for various processes at a facility. The AQMD is designated a non-attainment area, there fore, for dairies, the definition of LCAF is 1,000 milking cows in the ten federal non-attainment areas as defined in SB 700. There are an estimated 55 da iries in the area under AQMD jurisdiction of 1,000 or more milking cows. Poultr y farms or egg ranches with at least 650,000 birds qualify as LCAF. It is estimat ed that there are 4 egg ranches that meet this criteria in the Basin.

Emission Factors
Emission factors are a critical part of emission ca lculations. Due to ongoing research, these numbers may change as more detailed research data is made available. The interim emission factors currently used by AQMD staff forFinal Staff Report

-9-



### calculating emissions from milking cows and layer h ens are shown in Table 4 below

.
Table 4 Ammonia (lb/hd/year) PM 10



### (lb/hd/year) VOC

(lb/hd/year) Milking Cows 34.6 2.46 12.8 Layer Hens .096 .0308 .02565

To improve the current emission factors, further st udies are currently being conducted at different locations. It is anticipate d that improved emission rate data will be available soon. New data will be incorpora ted as it becomes available. For emission fees, operators of LCAFs can use an em ission factor that is different from the District suggested factors, provided that the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Executive Officer that the sugg ested factors are more representative of their emissions.

Senate Bill 700: Agriculture & Air Quality



### SB 700 was adopted to harmonize state and federal p ermitting requirements and to recognize the contribution to the State’s air pollu tion from agricultural operations.

The main elements of SB 700 are that it:

 Defines “agricultural source” in state law;

 Removes the restriction from state law that prevent ed air districts from requiring permits for agricultural sources;

 Establishes specific permitting and exemption requi rements for agricultural
sources;

 Requires emission control regulations in areas that do not attain NAAQS for PM10;

 Requires permits and emissions mitigation for CAFs that are defined by CARB as “large”; and

 Requires CAPCOA to compile a clearinghouse of infor mation about available emissions control and mitigation for agri cultural activities.Final Staff Report

-10-



### AQMD has complied with SB 700 requirements by adopt ing or amending the following rules: Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust; Rule 403.1 – Supplemental Fugitive Dust Control Req uirements for Coachella Valley Sources; Rule 461 – Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing; Rule 1110.2 – Emissions from Gaseous-and Liquid-Fue led Engines; Rule 1127 – Emission Reductions from Livestock Wast e; Rule 1186 – PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved R oads, and Livestock Operations.

In December 2004, the AQMD Governing Board adopted Rule 312 – Special Permitting Fees for Agricultural Sources, and appro ved amendments to Rules 102, 201, 201.1, 202, 203, and 219, in order to facilita te the permitting of equipment at agricultural facilities (including confined animal facilities) by streamlining requirements, incorporating reduced fee provisions, and identifying equipment that is exempt from written permits. This was done to c omply with SB 700 that states: The purpose of the act adding this section is to es tablish a new set of programs at the state and regional levels to reduce air emissio ns from agricultural sources in order to protect public health and the environment. It is therefore the intent of the Legislature to re quire the State Air Resources Board and air quality management districts and air pollution control districts in the state to regulate stationary, mobile, and area sources of agricultural air pollution.
Proposed Rule 223 was developed to satisfy the requ irement that all LCAFs are permitted. The pertinent section of SB 700 relatin g to the permitting of LCAFs, (California Health & Safety Code 40724.6(b)) reads as follows: Not later than July 1, 2006, each district that is designated as a federal nonattainment area for ozone as of January 1, 2004, sh all adopt, implement, and submit for inclusion in the state implementation pl an, a rule or regulation that requires the owner or operator of a large confined animal facility, as defined by the state board pursuant to subdivision (a), to obt ain a permit from the district to reduce, to the extent feasible, emissions of air co ntaminants from the facility.



### PROPOSED RULE 223

Proposed Rule 223 was developed to satisfy the requ irement that all LCAFs have permits that seek to minimize their emissions. In accordance with SB 700 and California Health & Safety Code Section 40724.6, Pr oposed Rule 223 requiresFinal Staff Report

-11-



### that the owner or operator of LCAFs submit an appli cation for a permit that includes: (i) The information that the Executive Officer determin es is necessary to prepare an emissions inventory of all regulated air pollutants emitted from the operation, including, but not limited to, precu rsor and fugitive emissions, using emission factors approved by CARB in a public hearing; and (ii) List of all equipment and the regulating District r ules; and (iii) List of all other sources of air pollution, includi ng but not limited to animals, birds, and lagoons; and (iv) Total capacity of the facility in terms of animal a nd bird population; and (v) An emissions mitigation plan that demonstrates that the facility will use BARCT to reduce emissions of pollutants that contri bute to the nonattainment of any ambient air quality standard, and that are within the District’s regulatory authority. Proposed Rule 223 requires that all LCAFs apply for and obtain a permit that includes a mitigation plan that the LCAF will imple ment to reduce its emissions. Staff believes that the above requirements in Propo sed Rule 223, including the emissions mitigation plan, will significantly reduc e emissions from LCAFs. No new permit applications will be required for any LCAF that has already filed an application or received a permit to operate a LC AF. Proposed Rule 223 requires that each LCAF submit an emissions mitigat ion plan as part of the permit process and comply with all applicable rules and re gulations. LCAF permits and permit conditions may be updated as required pursua nt to District Rule 204.

In order to comply with California Health & Safety Code Section 40724.6(d)(4) noticing requirements, prior to approval of any new or modified permit, the District shall provide for 30 days public notice an d comment on any draft permit. LCAF permits already issued will be reissued with a 30 day comment period prior to reissuance. District staff will post a notice and the propose d permit on the District website and District headquarters for publ ic review. Staff will review the proposed permit with the applicant prior to the 30 day public notice period. Based on the comments received, AQMD may modify the propo sed permit if it is determined that the necessary modifications are war ranted.

BARCT is defined as an emission limitation that is based on the maximum degree of reduction achievable, taking into account enviro nmental, energy, and economic impacts by each class or category of source. Propo sed Rule 223 requires compliance with BARCT but does not mandate any spec ific measure. AQMD staff believes the dust and emission control mitiga tion requirements in DistrictFinal Staff Report

-12-



### Rules 403 – Fugitive Dust; 403.1 – Supplemental Fug itive Dust Control Requirements for Coachella Valley Sources; 1127 – E mission Reductions from Livestock Waste; and 1186 – PM10 Emissions from Pav ed and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations, satisfy most of the BARCT particulate emission mitigation requirements for dairy and some portions of poultry operations.

Attachment Appendix A of Proposed Rule 223 contains a list of the Propo sed Emission Mitigation Measures. This list was develo ped in consultation with and general agreement of stakeholders, including Wester n United Dairymen, Milk Producers Council, Inland Empire Poultrymen, Inc. a nd Pacific Egg and Poultry Association. In addition, most of the measures pro posed are based on extensive study conducted by the Dairy Permitting Advisory Gr oup (DPAG) that identified and recommended emission mitigation measures for Sa n Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) as they develo ped BACT for dairies. DPAG is composed of SJVAPCD staff, dairy industry r epresentatives, academics, environmentalists, and other parties interested in dairy air emissions, and was set up to provide recommendations to the SJVAPCD’s Exec utive Officer in three

areas:
1. VOC emission factors for dairies. 2. “Modifications” at existing dairies. 3. BACT for dairies. DPAG attempted to identify every potential air poll ution reduction technique currently available to dairies. As stated in their final report, in identifying potential controls, DPAG did not limit the scope to “engineer ed” mechanical equipment, but attempted to look at all possible mechanisms fo r reducing emissions from dairies. For example, they reviewed the potential of altering the diets of lactating cows and examined the potential impacts of increasi ng the frequency of common manure management techniques, like feed lane flushi ng, in addition to looking at mechanical systems like biogas digesters and enclos ed housing vented to air pollution control devices. After identifying the potential controls, DPAG then gathered the available information to determine whether, and to what exten t, the technique could be expected to control dairy emissions. Finally, base d on the information gathered, DPAG identified the issues and factors that were re commended for SJVAPCD to consider in making BACT determinations relative to the listed potential control technique.

Operators of dairy and poultry LCAFs will be requir ed to choose the mitigation measures from that list, or alternatively any other measures not specifically listed but approved by the Executive Officer. District st aff will jointly continue to work with stakeholders to further develop and update BAR CT and other control measures for both dairy and poultry operations.Final Staff Report

-13-



### Under Proposed Rule 223, applications to obtain a p ermit shall include an emissions mitigation plan to implement BARCT. Attachment Appendix A of Proposed Rule 223 contains a list of the Proposed E mission Mitigation Measures. Operators of dairy and poultry LCAFs will be requir ed to select and implement the mitigation measures from that list based on the opt ions available in each table and category, or alternatively, implement any other mea sures not specifically listed but approved by the Executive Officer. Owners of LCAFs shall also be required to submit an annual emissions mitigation plan to the D istrict in order to demonstrate that they are implementing BARCT, as defined at the time of the annual renewal submittal. In addition to the above, operators of LCAFs would be required to complete and attach to each application submittals and annual renewals the Emission Mitigation Plan Template shown as Attachme nt A of this Staff Report. The template basically summarizes the latest status of the LCAF. In addition to the list of measures in Attachment Appendix A, LCAF operators must also comply with Rule 1127 or any other applicable District rul es.
Under SB 700, CAFs under AQMD jurisdiction with ann ual emissions of half the major source threshold (5 tons/year), or more, are already required to have applied or received an operating permit from the AQMD. Bas ed on the current emission factors, CAFs with 782 or more cows or 52,000 or mo re birds trigger the permit threshold. Operators of CAFs that have already app lied for or have received an operating CAF permit on or before June 02, 2006, fr om the AQMD satisfy the information requirements of the Proposed Rule. The y meet the permitting requirements of Proposed Rule 223 because LCAFs, by definition, have at least 1000 cows or 650,000 egg layers, and so are by defa ult a sub-set of those that already require an operating permit.
Operators of CAFs that have already applied for or have received an operating CAF permit on or before June 02, 2006, from the AQM D satisfy the information requirements of the Proposed Rule. They meet the p ermitting requirements of Proposed Rule 223 because LCAFs, by definition, hav e at least 1000 cows, and so are by default a sub-set of those that already requ ire an operating permit.
Facilities that have already been issued a permit t o operate would have their permits updated through annual renewal, in accordan ce with District Rule 204, to add conditions reflecting BARCT. Plans submitted p ursuant to paragraph (c)(4) of Proposed Rule 223 shall not be subject to Rule 306 plan annual review/renewal fees unless the plan is modified or a new plan is s ubmitted. For new and modified plans, owners shall remit the annual review/renewal fees pursuant to Rule 306. Operators of LCAFs shall implement new or modified emission mitigation measures on a schedule approved by the Executive Of ficer. The Emissions Mitigation Template identified as Attachment A in t he staff report will be required to be submitted with the initial application and re newals thereafter.Final Staff Report

-14-



### District Rule 312, adopted by the AQMD Governing Bo ard in December 2004, was designed to be a fee rule that transitions agri cultural sources into the written permit system. To provide relief to agricultural f acilities, a special reduced fee schedule was established under this rule. Agricult ural facilities that applied for permits during the period paid reduced fee. At the expiration of this rule on June 30, 2005, the permit processing and associated fees for agricultural sources are now governed by Rule 301.Final Staff Report

-15-



### COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

As required by H & S Code 40727.2(a), staff has rev iewed federal air pollution control requirements and other AQMD rules and regul ations and has not found any federal regulation that applies to the same equ ipment or source type as that regulated under Proposed Rule 223. AQMD staff has found other District rules and regulations that apply to the same type of sour ce or equipment. A comparison of these regulations with Proposed Rule 223 is list ed as Attachment B.



### SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS

PR 223 requires large confined animal facilities (L CAF) to obtain permits from the AQMD, provide emission inventory and emission m itigation plans along with their annual updates to the AQMD, and keep records of animal counts at facilities. There are 55 dairies (NAICS 112120—dairy cattle and milk production) and four egg ranches (NAICS 112310—chicken egg production) a ffected by the proposed rule. The 55 dairies are also subject to Rule 1127 —Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste—which has requirements for dairies similar to those in PR 223. Therefore, there is no additional cost for the 55 d airies under PR 223.
Three of the four egg ranches are located in Rivers ide County and the remaining one is in San Bernardino County. The four ranches have already filed permits under Rule 1127. Based on field visits, these ranc hes have been implementing control measures to mitigate potential emissions. As such, there would be no additional cost associated with control measures th at would be identified in their initial emission mitigation plans.

In conclusion, PAR 223 would not result in cost imp act at this time.



### CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Ac t (CEQA), the SCAQMD is the Lead Agency and has reviewed the proposed proje ct pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15002 (k)(1). Because the proposed pro ject will not require major modifications at existing facilities to comply and no daily operational emission increases are anticipated, it can been seen with ce rtainty that there is no possibility that the proposed project in question has the poten tial to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Thus, the proposed proj ect is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3) - Review f or Exemption. A Notice of Exemption has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidel ines §15062 - Notice of Exemption. The Notice of Exemption will be filed w ith the county clerks of LosFinal Staff Report

-16-



### Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino count ies immediately following the adoption of the proposed project.



### LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY

The California Legislature created the AQMD in 1977 (The Lewis-Presley Air Quality Management Act, Health and Safety Code Sect ion 40400 et seq.) as the agency responsible for developing and enforcing air pollution control rules and regulations in the AQMD. By statute, the AQMD is r equired to adopt an AQMP demonstrating compliance with all state and federal ambient air quality standards for the AQMD [California Health and Safety Code Sec tion 40460(a)]. Furthermore, the AQMD must adopt rules and regulati ons that carry out the AQMP [California Health and Safety Code Section 404 40(a)].Final Staff Report

-17-



### Legal Mandates SB 700 already enacted into law, requires each dist rict that is designated as a federal non-attainment area for ozone as of January 1, 2004, to adopt, implement, and submit for inclusion in the state implementatio n plan, a rule or regulation that requires the owner or operator of a large confined animal facility, to obtain a permit from the district to reduce to the extent fe asible, emissions of air contaminants from the facility.



### DRAFT FINDINGS

Before adopting, amending or repealing a rule, the AQMD shall make findings of necessity, authority, clarity, consistency, non-dup lication and reference, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 40727. The draft findings are as follows:

Necessity - The AQMD Governing Board finds and determines th at Proposed Rule 223 – Permitting Requirements for Large Confin ed Animal Facilities, is necessary in order to implement the requirements of SB 700 and Health and Safety Code § 40724.6 and improve air quality in an effort to meet federal and state air quality standards for ozone and particulate matters

.. Authority - The AQMD Governing Board obtains its authority t o adopt, amend or repeal rules and regulations from Health and Safety Code §§40000, 40001, and 40440.

Clarity - The AQMD Governing Board finds and determines th at Proposed Rule 223 is written and displayed so that the meaning ca n be easily understood by persons directly affected by it.

Consistency – The AQMD Governing Board finds and determines th at Proposed Rule 223 is in harmony with, and not in conflict wi th or contradictory to, existing statutes, court decisions, or federal or state regu lations.

Non-Duplication – The AQMD Governing Board has determined that Pro posed Rule 223 does not impose the same requirements as a ny existing state or federal regulation.

Reference - In adopting these proposed amendments, the AQMD Governing Board references the following statutes which AQMD hereby implements, interprets or makes specific: Health and Safety Cod e Sections 40001, 40440 and 40724.6.Final Staff Report

-18-



### CONCLUSION

The adoption of Proposed Rule 223 will satisfy stat e requirements for permitting of large confined animal facilities. The rule is c rafted in such a way to promote feasible, cost-effective emissions reductions at th ese facilities. Control of emissions from agricultural operations in the AQMD will further the efforts to meet clean air standards in the region.Final Staff Report

-19- COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

1. Comment: Do LCAFs that comply with Regulations II, XI, 403, 1127, 1186,

etc., meet the BARCT requirements of SB 700? Response: Dairies that comply with the requirements of the ab ove rules, meet

most of the BARCT requirements. However, in order to better cover all emissions from both dairy and poultry ope rations, District staff has jointly worked with stakeholders to develop a list of more comprehensive BARCT measures for both dairy and poultry operations.

2. Comment: What constitutes alteration at a dairy/poultry f arm? Response: An alteration is a change that would require a modi fication of the permit description or require a change of permit co nditions. Increases in the number of animals to a level that is below the design capacity as stated in permit description wou ld not be a modification. Similarly, moving a fence or changin g the configuration of a milking barn would not be a modi fication. Alternatively, adding a new milking barn or increas ing the number of animals above the design threshold would be a mo dification.

3. Comment: Add “or submitted application” to PR 223(i) to rea d “Operators

that have obtained or submitted application to obta in a LCAF permit on or before [date of adoption], satisfy the information requirements .....”
Response: 

### Under other provisions of SB 700, CAFs under AQMD

jurisdiction with annual emissions of half the majo r source threshold (5 tons/year) are required to have an ope rating permit from the AQMD. Based on the current emissio n factors, CAFs with 782 or more cows or 52,000 or mo re birds trigger the permit threshold. LCAFs, by definition , have at least 1000 cows or 650,000 egg layers, and so are b y default a sub-set of those that already require an operatin g permit. AQMD staff believes that operators of all LCAFs hav e already submitted complete applications but may not yet have received an operating permit from the AQMD; and, th ese applications contain most, if not all, the informat ion required for the initial submittal required by Rule 223. Ap plications that contained all the information necessary to dem onstrate compliance with Rule 223 and pending applications w here the applicant submits supplemental information suff icient to demonstrate compliance with Rule 223 may be issued theFinal Staff Report

-20- 

### initial LCAF Permit to Operate without the need to submit a new permit application. Based on that understandin g, the proposed rule language has been changed to reflect that operators that have submitted a CAF application wit h complete information to obtain a LCAF permit satisf y the requirements for initial permitting under Rule 223.

4. Comment: Why does the Proposed Rule require 30 days comment period?

Response: The 30-day notice period is part of SB 700 and codi fied in Health and Safety Code Section 40724.6(d)(4). Staff will post a notice on the AQMD website and have the draft permit availabl e for public review. AQMD staff will review proposed permits wi th the applicant prior to the 30-day public notice period.

5. Comment: Why does the Proposed Rule allow up to 6 months fo r permits to

be processed?

Response: This is a provision from SB 700. Permits may be an d are

frequently issued in a much shorter timeframe.

6. Comment: Recordkeeping should be based on monthly average p opulation

instead of daily, as currently proposed.

Response: Monthly average recordkeeping will be acceptable fo r the

recordkeeping requirements of the rule. This chang e is reflected in the rule language.

7. Comment: Permits should be discussed with applicant first b efore it is made

open to public for comments.

Response: See response to Comment 4.

8. Comment: Emission factors are still a contentious issue and industry does not

agree with those numbers, and would like to work wi th the District on the factors. The concern is not on the permitti ng side, but we are concerned about using those numbers to calculat e emission fees.

Response: Health and Safety Code Section 40724.6(d)(1)(A) req uires the use

of emission factors that are approved by ARB. Staf f will continue to work with CARB, industry and other stakeholders to develop accurate emission factors. For emission fees, the applicant can use an emission factor that is different from the A QMD suggested factor provided that the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Executive Officer their factor is more repre sentative of their specific emissions.Final Staff Report

-21-

9. Comment: Emission factors should be included in the staff r eport.

Response: Emission factors currently used by staff are includ ed in the staff

report.
10. Comment: In the feed section of Table 1 (A) the stated requ irement is to

incorporate five mitigation measures, and the assum ption is that silage is being fed. However, if a producer does n ot feed silage the current draft still requires four other measures be chosen. The problem is that many of the silage-related choices are no longer available – since there is no silage. Response: Staff will continue to work with industry and other stakeholders to develop and further refine the control measures and the technology involved. There is a provision for alternative con trol measures that operators could implement in order to not limi t themselves to the options outlined in the Table.

11. Comment: Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook is no t the proper

document to use to determine a reference point for a mitigation measure. The correct document is the California Fi eld Office Technical Guide.

Response: Staff replaced the references to Agricultural Waste Management

Field Handbook with specific Natural Resource Conse rvation Standards.

12. Comment: Proposed Rule 223 does not include control measures for

emissions of contaminants such as hydrogen sulfide and methane.

Response: District staff believes that source speci fic rules address other pollutants. Proposed Rule 223 primarily addresses specific emissions from LCAFS that lead to non-attainment of criteria pollutants.

13. Comment: Proposed Rule 223 does not take into account the em issions from

enteric processes and feed storage.

Response The proposed rule has been revised after t he Set Hearing to

include control measures for emissions from feed an d silage operations. Staff believes that the control measur es identified in the tables in Appendix A of the proposed rule would reduce the emissions from enteric processes and feed and silag e operations.

14. Comment: Center on Race, Poverty and Environment requests th at the District

place the Center on the mailing list for poultry LCAF permits

. Response: Proposed Rule 223 provides for 30 days public notic e and

comment on any draft LCAF permit. District staff w ill post aFinal Staff Report

-22- notice and the proposed permit on the District webs ite and District headquarters for public review. In addition, the Center will be added to the public notice mailing list for poultry LCAF proposed permits.-

ATTACHMENT A

Rule 223 Emission Mitigation Plan TemplateAttachment A



### Large Confined Animal Facility (LCAF)
Rule 223 – Emission Mitigation Plan (EMP) For LCAFs (see Thresholds below) subject to Rule 223

.

Farm Information:

Name of Business: AQMD ID No.:

Mailing Address: City: State: Zip:

Farm Address: City: Zip:

Contact Name: Title: Phone No.:

LCAF Compliance Information:

LCAF Type:
(1) Dairy (2) Poultry (Layer) (3) Poultry (Broiler) (4) Other LCAF

Farm Currently Under AQMD Permit or Permit Application?

Yes No AQMD

Application No.: Rule 223 EMP Elements (check all applicable) :

Regulation IV including Rule 403 (non-dairy LCAFs)

Regulation XI including Rule 1127 (dairies)

Rule 1186 (dairies)

Additional Mitigation Measures (attach measures here)

Rule 223 Attachment A

Comments:Attachment AFrequently Asked Questions

1. What is an LCAF? A Large Confined Animal Facility (LCAF) is a livest ock operation with animal totals exceeding the following thresholds established by t he California Air Resources Board (CARB):

Livestock Category Threshold (number of animals)

Dairy 1,000 milking cows
Chicken – Egg Layers 650,000

Chicken – Broilers 650,000

Turkeys 100,000
Others Contact AQMD (see below)

2. Where can I get assistance regarding this form? Contact XXX at 909.396.XXXX or XXX@aqmd.gov

Submit the completed application to XXX by January 1, 2007 (or January 15, 2008 and subsequent year fo r annual compliance plan updates) via one of the following m ethods:

Mail to: SCAQMD, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA 91765 FAX: 909.396.xxxx Email:ATTACHMENT B



### Comparison of Proposed Rule 223 to Other District R ulesAttachment BCOMPARISON OF PROPOSED RULE 223 TO OTHER DISTRICT RULESCurrent District RulesPR 223Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust:The purpose of this Rule is to reducethe amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as aresult of anthropogenic (man-made) fugitive dust sources byrequiring actions to prevent, reduce or mitigate fugitive dustemissions.PR 223 requires compliance with BACM and BARCT but doesnot mandate any specific measure, such as those specified in Rule403. Compliance with Rule 403 meets the BACM and BARCTrequirements of PR 223 without duplication of requiredmeasures.Rule 403.1 –Supplemental Fugitive Dust ControlRequirements for Coachella Valley Sources:The purpose ofthis rule is to reduce or prevent the amount of fine particulatematter (PM10) entrained in the ambient air from anthropogenicfugitive dust sources.PR 223 requires compliance with BACM and BARCT but doesnot mandate any specific measure, as does Rule 403.1.Compliance with Rule 403.1 meets the BACM and BARCTrequirements of PR 223 without duplication of requiredmeasures.Rule 1127 – Emission Reduction from Livestock Waste:Thepurpose of this rule is to reduce ammonia, VOC, andPM10emissions from livestock waste.Best Management Practices:Dairy operators are required to apply Best Management Practices.Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements(1)No later than January 1, 2005, the operator of anexisting dairy farm shall submit a Rule 1127notification to the Executive Officer in writing.The Rule 1127 notification shall include:(A)Dairy farm operator’s name;(B)Name of contact person, if different fromoperator’s name;(C)Farm name, if applicable;(D)Farm street address;PR 223 would require owner/operator of LCAFs to submitto theExecutive Officer on or before January 15 of each year, anannual compliance report that shall include:An emissions inventory of all regulated air pollutantsemitted from the facility, including precursor andfugitiveemissions, using emission factors approved by CARB; andList of all equipment and the regulating District rules; andList of all non-permitted, non-animal sources of airpollution, such as lagoons; andTotal capacity of the facility in terms of animal and birdpopulation; andAn emissions mitigation plan that demonstrates thatthefacility is using best available retrofit technology(BARCT) to reduce emissions of pollutants.Attachment B(E)Farm mailing address, if different from thestreet address;(F)Telephone number for the contact person.(2)No later than 30 days after operations begin at anew dairy farm or at an existing farm under a newoperator, the operator shall submit to the ExecutiveOfficer the information required in paragraph (1)above.(3)An operator shall submit an annual report to theExecutive Officer in writing by January 15thofeach year after January 1, 2007. The report shallinclude:(A)Information required in paragraph (1)above; and(B)Animal population for the previouscalendar year, broken out by number ofadult cows, heifers, and calves;(C)Amount of manure removed from the dairyin the preceding calendar year, broken outby the following destinations:(i)agricultural lands within thejurisdiction of the AQMD;(ii)manure processing operation(s)within the jurisdiction of theAQMD, reporting amount to eachmanure processing operation;(iii)a location out of the jurisdiction ofthe AQMD.No new permit applications will be required for anylarge CAFthat has already filed an application or received apermit.Proposed Rule 223 requires that each large CAF submit anemissions mitigation plan as part of the permit process andcomply with all applicable rules and regulations.Large CAFpermits may be updated as required pursuant to District Rule204.Information submitted pursuant to Rule 1127 that satisfies therequirements of PR 223 does not need to be re-submitted andsatisfies the requirements of PR 223.Attachment A to the rule lists the measures for the emissionmitigation plan for the operator to select. Each measure categoryallows the operator to demonstrate use of an equally effectivemeasure to the Executive Officer.Proposed Rule 223 C-1 ATTACHMENT C



### Senate Bill 700 – Florez - Air Quality: Emissions: Stationary Sources:

Agricultural Operations.Attachment C

Proposed Rule 223 C-2 Senate Bill No. 700

CHAPTER 479

An act to amend Section 42310 of, and to add Sectio ns 39011.5, 39023.3, 40724, 40724.5, 40724.6, 40724.7, 40731, 42301.16, 42301.17, 42301.18, and 4 4559.9 to, the Health and Safety Code, relating to air quality.

[Approved by Governor September 22, 2003. Filed wit h Secretary of State September 22, 2003.] LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
SB 700, Florez. Air quality: emissions: stationary sources: agricultural operations.

(1) Existing law authorizes the board of every air quality management district and air pollution control district to establish a permit system that requires any person that uses certain types of equipment that may cause the emission of air contam inants to obtain a permit. Existing law exempts vehicles and certain types of equipment from those permit requirements.

This bill would eliminate that exemption for any eq uipment used in agricultural operations in the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. To the extent that the bill would increase the number of permits that a district board, electing t o establish a permit system prior to January 1, 200 4, would be required to issue, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2) Existing law defines various terms governing th e construction of air pollution control laws in the state, and authorizes the state board to revise tho se definitions to conform to federal law. This bill would define the terms ‘‘agricultural source of air pollution’’ and ‘‘fugitive emissions,’’ and would prohibit, notwithstanding the existing authority, t he state board from revising those definitions.

(3) The existing federal Clean Air Act requires dis tricts to adopt local programs for issuing operatin g permits to major stationary sources of air pollutan ts. The existing act defines a stationary source as any building, structure, facility, or installation that emits or may emit any air pollutant.

This bill would require each district that is desig nated a serious federal non-attainment area for an applicable ambient air quality standard for particu late matter as of January 1, 2004, to adopt, implement, and submit for inclusion in the state im plementation plan, a rule or regulation requiring best available control measures (BACM) and best ava ilable retrofit control technology (BARCT) for agricultural practices at agricultural sources of a ir pollution to reduce air pollutants from those sources for which that technology is applicable for agricultural practices by the earliest feasible da te, but not later than January 1, 2006, and would requi re each district subject to those requirements to comply with a schedule for public hearing, adoption , and implementation of the final rule.

The bill would require each district that is design ated a moderate federal non-attainment area or an applicable ambient air quality standard for particu late matter as of January 1, 2004, to adopt and implement control measures necessary to reduce emis sions from agricultural practices by the earliest feasible date, but no later than January 1, 2007, u nless the district determines that those sources do not significantly cause or contribute to a violatio n of state or federal standards.

The bill would require, by January 1, 2005, the sta te board to review all available scientific information and develop a definition of a ‘‘large c onfined animal facility.’’

The bill would require, by July 1, 2006, each distr ict that is designated as a federal non-attainment area for ozone as of January 1, 2004, to adopt, imp lement, and submit for inclusion in the stateAttachment C

Proposed Rule 223 C-3 implementation plan, a rule or regulation that requ ires the owner or operator of a large confined animal facility as that term is defined by the stat e board to obtain a permit to reduce, to the extent feasible, emissions of air contaminants from the fa cility. The bill would require the district to perform an assessment of the impacts of the rule or regulation prior to its adoption. The bill would authorize a permit holder to appeal any district de termination or decision related to that permit.

The bill would require a district that is designate d as being in attainment for the federal ambient ai r quality standard for ozone as of January 1, 2004, t o adopt the same rule or regulation required of non

attainment districts, by July 1, 2006, unless the d istrict board makes a determination that large confined animal facilities will not contribute to a violation of any state or federal ambient air qual ity standard. The bill would provide the rule or regula tion is not required to be submitted for inclusion into the state implementation plan.

The bill would require the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, in consultation with the state board and other interested parties, by Ja nuary 1, 2005, to develop a clearinghouse of available control measures and strategies for agric ultural sources of air pollution and emissions of a ir contaminants from agriculture operations. The addi tional duties for districts under the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(4) Existing law establishes the Capital Access Loa n Program for Small Businesses, administered by the California Pollution Control Financing Authorit y, which provides loans through participating financial institutions to entities authorized to co nduct business in the state and whose primary business location is in the state.

This bill would require the authority to expand the program to include outreach to financial institutions that service agricultural interests in the state for the purposes of funding air pollutio n control measures.

(5) Under existing law, any person who violates a r ule, regulation, permit, or order of a district is guilty of a misdemeanor. Because this bill would in crease the number of people who are subject to that provision, it would expand the scope of a crim e, thereby imposing a state-mandated local
program.
(6) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts fo r certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory pro visions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no rei mbursement is required by this act for specified

reasons.

The people of the State of California do enact as f ollows:

SECTION 1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares a ll of the following:

(1) Agricultural operations necessary for growing c rops or raising animals are a significant source of directly emitted particulates, and precursors of oz one and fine particulate matter. These emissions have a significant adverse effect on the ability of areas of the state, including, but not limited to, the San Joaquin Valley, to achieve health-based state a nd federal ambient air quality standards.

(2) Since 1999, the agriculture industry has reduce d emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO x ) by more than 2000 tons per year, emissions of particulate m atter of 10 microns in diameter (PM 10) by more than 500 tons per year, and emissions of volatile o rganic compounds (VOCs) from agriculturalAttachment C

Proposed Rule 223 C-4 chemicals by more than 20 percent. According to the state board, however, agricultural sources of air pollution still contribute twenty-six percent of th e smog-forming emissions in the San Joaquin Valley.

(3) In the San Joaquin Valley, a large portion of t he sources of particulate emissions are area-wide sources whose emissions are directly related to gro wth in population and the resulting vehicle miles traveled. According to the State Air Resources Boa rd, however, agricultural sources of air pollution account for over fifty percent of the directly emit ted particulate air pollution generated in the vall ey during the fall, amounting to over 170 tons per day of emissions.

(4) All parties living or operating a business in a n area that has been classified as being a nonattainment area with respect to the attainment of f ederal or state ambient air quality standards share the responsibility of reducing emissions from air p ollutants.

(5) The federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.) prohibits the state from adopting emission standards or limitations less stringent than those established under the federal act, including limitations on emissions from agricultural sources.

(6) Division 26 (commencing with Section 39000) of the Health and Safety Code establishes numerous policies and programs to reduce air pollut ants for the protection of public health.

(7) The purpose of the act adding this section is t o establish a new set of programs at the state and regional levels to reduce air emissions from agricu ltural sources in order to protect public health an d the environment.

(b) It is therefore the intent of the Legislature t o require the State Air Resources Board and air qua lity management districts and air pollution control dist ricts in the state to regulate stationary, mobile, and area sources of agricultural air pollution.

SEC. 2. Section 39011.5 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:

39011.5. (a) ‘‘Agricultural source of air pollution ’’ or ‘‘agricultural source’’ means a source of air pollution or a group of sources used in the product ion of crops, or the raising of fowl or animals located on contiguous property under common ownersh ip or control that meets any of the following criteria:

(1) Is a confined animal facility, including, but n ot limited to, any structure, building, installatio n, barn, corral, coop, feed storage area, milking parl or, or system for the collection, storage, treatmen t, and distribution of liquid and solid manure, if dom esticated animals, including, but not limited to, cattle, calves, horses, sheep, goats, swine, rabbit s, chickens, turkeys, or ducks are corralled, penne d, or otherwise caused to remain in restricted areas f or commercial agricultural purposes and feeding is by means other than grazing.

(2) Is an internal combustion engine used in the pr oduction of crops or the raising of fowl or animals

, including, but not limited to, an engine subject to Article 1.5 (commencing with Section 41750) of Chapter 3 of Part 4 except an engine that is used t o propel implements of husbandry, as that term is defined in Section 36000 of the Vehicle Code, as th at section existed on January 1, 2003. Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 39601, t he state board may not revise this definition for the purposes of this section.

(3) Is a Title V source, as that term is defined in Section 39053.5, or is a source that is otherwise subject to regulation by a district pursuant to thi s division or the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.).Attachment C

Proposed Rule 223 C-5 (b) Any district rule or regulation affecting stati onary sources on agricultural operations adopted on or before January 1, 2004, is applicable to an agricul ture source.

(c) Nothing in this section limits the authority of a district to regulate a source, including, but no t limited to, a stationary source that is an agricult ural source, over which it otherwise has jurisdicti on pursuant to this division, or pursuant to the feder al Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec.

7401 et seq.) or any rules or regulations adopted p ursuant to that act that were in effect on or befor e January 1, 2003, or to exempt an agricultural sourc e from any requirement otherwise applicable under Sections 40724 or 42301.16, based upon a finding by the district in a public hearing that the aggregat e emissions from that source do not exceed a de minim us level of more than one ton of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides or volatile organic compoun ds per year.

SEC. 3. Section 39023.3 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:

39023.3. ‘‘Fugitive emissions’’ mean those emission s that cannot reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent ope ning. Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 39601, the state board may not revise this definiti on for the purposes of this section.

SEC. 4. Section 40724 is added to the Health and Sa fety Code, to read:

40724. (a) Each district that is designated as a se rious federal non-attainment area for an applicable ambient air quality standard for particulate matter as of January 1, 2004, shall adopt, implement, and submit for inclusion in the state implementation pl an, a rule or regulation requiring best available control measures (BACM) for sources for which those measures are applicable and best available retrofit control technology (BARCT) to reduce air p ollutants from sources for which that technology is applicable for agricultural practices, including , but not limited to, tilling, discing, cultivation , and raising of animals, and for fugitive emissions from those agricultural practices a manner similar to other source categories by the earliest feasible da te, but not later than January 1, 2006. The rule or regulation shall also include BACM and BARCT to red uce precursor emissions in a manner commensurate to other source categories that the di strict show cause or contribute to a violation of a n ambient air quality standard. Each district that is subject to this subdivision shall comply with the following schedule with respect to the rule or regu lation imposing BACM and BARCT:

(1) On or before September 1, 2004, notice and hold at least one public workshop for the purpose of accepting public testimony on the proposed rule or regulation.

(2) On or before July 1, 2005, adopt the final rule or regulation at a noticed public hearing.

(3) On or before January 1, 2006, commence implemen tation of the rule or regulation.

(b) Nothing in this section shall delay or otherwis e affect any action taken by a district to reduce emissions of air contaminants from agricultural sou rces, or any other requirements imposed on a district or a source of air pollution pursuant to t he federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et se q.).

(c) In adopting a rule or regulation pursuant to th is section, a district shall do all of the followin g:

(1) Ensure the size and duration of use of an inter nal combustion engine subject to BARCT pursuant to this section is commensurate to the size and dur ation of use of internal combustion engines subject to regulation by a district or the state board regu lated at other stationary sources.Attachment C

Proposed Rule 223 C-6 (2) Ensure that BARCT established pursuant to this section for an internal combustion engine is similar to BARCT for other stationary source engine s subject to regulation by a district or the state board.

(3) Ensure that the cost-effectiveness of BARCT for an internal combustion engine subject to this section is similar to the cost-effectiveness of BAR CT for other internal combustion engines subject to regulation by a district or the state board.

(4) Compare the cost-effectiveness of BARCT for an internal combustion engine subject to this section to the list of available and proposed contr ol measures prepared pursuant to Section 40922.

(5) Adopt control measures pursuant to this section in order of their cost-effectiveness, unless a district determines that a different order of adopt ion is necessary due to the enforceability, public acceptability, or technological feasibility of a gi ven control measure, or to expeditiously attain or maintain a national or state ambient air quality st andard.

(6) Except as otherwise provided under this section , ensure that any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to this section complies with all applicab le requirements of this division, including, but no t limited to, any applicable requirements established pursuant to Sections 40703, 40727, 40728.5, and 40920.6.

(7) Hold at least one public meeting that is conduc ted at a time and location that the district determines is convenient to the public at which the district reviews the comparison prepared pursuant to paragraph (4).

(d) Nothing in this section limits the authority of a district to regulate a source including, but not limited to, a stationary source that is an agricult ural source over which it otherwise has jurisdictio n pursuant to this division or the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.) or any rules or regulations adopted pursuant to that act. Nothing i n this section shall delay or otherwise affect any action taken by a district to reduce emissions of a ir contaminants from agricultural sources, or any other requirements imposed upon a district or a sou rce of air pollution pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act. This section may not be interpreted to del ay or otherwise affect the adoption, implementation, or enforcement of any measure that was adopted, or included in a rulemaking calendar or air quality implementation plan that wa s adopted, by the district prior to January 1, 2004

.

SEC. 5. Section 40724.5 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:

40724.5. (a) By the earliest feasible date, but no later than January 1, 2007, each district that is designated a moderate federal non-attainment area f or an applicable ambient air quality standard for particulate matter as of January 1, 2004, and that is not subject to the requirements of Section 40724

, shall adopt and implement control measures necessar y to reduce emissions from agricultural practices, including, but not limited to, tilling, discing, cultivation, and raising of animals, and f rom fugitive emissions in a manner similar to other sou rce categories from those activities by the earlies t feasible date. Control measures adopted and impleme nted pursuant to this section shall also be implemented by the district to reduce precursor emi ssions in a manner commensurate to other source categories that the district show cause or contribu te to a violation of an ambient air quality standar d.

(b) A district is not required to adopt and impleme nt control measures pursuant to this section if it determines in a public hearing that agricultural pr actices do not significantly cause or contribute to a violation of state or federal standards.

(c) In adopting a rule or regulation pursuant to th is section, a district shall do all of the followin g:Attachment C

Proposed Rule 223 C-7 (1) Ensure the size and duration of use of an inter nal combustion engine subject to BARCT pursuant to this section is commensurate to the size and dur ation of use of internal combustion engines subject to regulation by a district or the state board regu lated at other stationary sources.

(2) Ensure that BARCT established pursuant to this section for an internal combustion engine is similar to BARCT for other stationary source engine s subject to regulation by a district or the state board.

(3) Ensure that the cost-effectiveness of BARCT for an internal combustion engine subject to this section is similar to the cost-effectiveness of BAR CT for other internal combustion engines subject to regulation by a district or the state board.

(4) Compare the cost-effectiveness of BARCT for an internal combustion engine subject to this section to the list of available and proposed contr ol measures prepared pursuant to Section 40922.

(5) Adopt control measures pursuant to this section in order of their cost-effectiveness, unless a district determines that a different order of adopt ion is necessary due to the enforceability, public acceptability, or technological feasibility of a gi ven control measure, or to expeditiously attain or maintain a national or state ambient air quality st andard.

(6) Except as otherwise provided under this section , ensure that any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to this section complies with all applicab le requirements of this division, including, but no t limited to, any applicable requirements established pursuant to Sections 40703, 40727, 40728.5, and 40920.6.

(7) Hold at least one public meeting that is conduc ted at a time and location that the district determines is convenient to the public at which the district reviews the comparison prepared pursuant to paragraph (4).

(d) Nothing in this section limits the authority or a district to regulate a source including, but not limited to, a stationary source that is an agricult ural source over which it otherwise has jurisdictio n pursuant to this division or the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.) or any rules or regulations adopted pursuant to that act. Nothing i n this section shall delay or otherwise affect any action taken by a district to reduce emissions of a ir contaminants from agricultural sources, or any other requirements imposed upon a district or a sou rce of air pollution pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act. This section may not be interpreted to del ay or otherwise affect the adoption, implementation, or enforcement of any measure that was adopted, or included in a rulemaking calendar or air quality implementation plan that wa s adopted, by the district prior to January 1, 2004

. (e) Nothing in this section shall delay or otherwis e affect any action taken by a district to reduce emissions of air contaminants from agricultural sou rces, or any requirements imposed on a district or a source of air pollution pursuant to the federal C lean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.).

SEC. 6. Section 40724.6 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:

40724.6. (a) On or before July 1, 2005, the state b oard shall review all available scientific information, including, but not limited to, emissio ns factors for confined animal facilities, and the effect of those facilities on air quality in the ba sin and other relevant scientific information, and develop a definition for the source category of a ‘ ‘large confined animal facility’’ for the purposes of this section. In developing that definition, the st ate board shall consider the emissions of air contaminants from those sources as they may affect the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards.Attachment C

Proposed Rule 223 C-8 (b) Not later than July 1, 2006, each district that is designated as a federal non-attainment area for ozone as of January 1, 2004, shall adopt, implement , and submit for inclusion in the state implementation plan, a rule or regulation that requ ires the owner or operator of a large confined animal facility, as defined by the state board purs uant to subdivision (a), to obtain a permit from th e district to reduce, to the extent feasible, emissio ns of air contaminants from the facility.

(c) A district may require a permit for a large con fined animal facility with actual emissions that ar e less than one-half of any applicable emissions thre shold for a major source in the district for any ai r contaminant, including, but not limited to, fugitiv e emissions in a manner similar to other source categories, if prior to imposing that requirement t he district makes both of the following determinations in a public hearing:

(1) A permit is necessary to impose or enforce redu ctions in emissions of air pollutants that the district show cause or contribute to a violation of a state or federal ambient air quality standard.

(2) The requirement for a source or category of sou rces to obtain a permit would not impose a burden on those sources that is significantly more burdens ome than permits required for other similar sources of air pollution.

(d) The rule or regulation adopted pursuant to subd ivision (b) shall do all of the following:

(1) Require the owner or operator of each large con fined animal facility to submit an application for a permit within six months from the date the rule or regulation is adopted by the district that includes both of the following:

(A) The information that the district determines is necessary to prepare an emissions inventory of all regulated air pollutants emitted from the operation , including, but not limited to, precursor and fugitive emissions, using emission factors approved by the state board in a public hearing.

(B) An emissions mitigation plan that demonstrates that the facility will use reasonably available control technology in moderate and serious non-atta inment areas, and best available retrofit control technology in severe and extreme nonattainment area s, to reduce emissions of pollutants that contribute to the nonattainment of any ambient air quality standard, and that are within the district’ s regulatory authority.

(2) Require the district to act upon an application for permit submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) within six months of a completed application, as de termined by the district.

(3) Require the owner or operator to implement the plan contained in the permit approved by the district, and shall establish a reasonable period, of not more than three years, after which each perm it shall be reviewed by the district and updated to re flect changes in the operation or the feasibility o f mitigation measures. The updates required by this p aragraph are not required to be submitted for inclusion into the state implementation plan.

(4) Establish a reasonable compliance schedule for facilities to implement control measures within one year of the date on which the permit is approve d by the district, and shall provide for 30 days public notice and comment on any draft permit.

(d) Prior to adopting a rule or regulation pursuant to subdivision (b), a district shall, to the exten t data are available, perform an assessment of the impacts of the rule or regulation. The district shall consider the impacts of the rule or regulation in a public hearing, and make a good faith effort to minimize any adverse impacts. The assessment shall include all of the following:Attachment C

Proposed Rule 223 C-9 (1) The category of sources affected, including, bu t not limited to, the approximate number of affected sources, and the size of those sources.

(2) The nature and quantity of emissions from the c ategory, and the significance of those emissions in adversely affecting public health and the environme nt and in causing or contributing to the violation of a state or federal ambient air quality standard.

(3) The emission reduction potential.

(4) The impact on employment in, and the economy of , the region affected.

(5) The range of probable costs to affected sources and businesses.

(6) The availability and cost-effectiveness of alte rnatives.

(7) The technical and practical feasibility.

(8) Any additional information on impacts that is s ubmitted to the district board for consideration.

(e) Nothing in this section shall delay or otherwis e affect any action taken by a district to reduce emissions of air contaminants from agricultural sou rces, or any other requirements imposed on a district or a source of air pollution pursuant to t he federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et se q.).

(f) In adopting a rule or regulation pursuant to th is section, a district shall comply with all applic able requirements of this division, including, but not l imited to, the requirements established pursuant to Section 40703, 40727, and 40728.5.

(g) A permit holder may appeal any district determi nation or decision required by this section pursuant to Section 42302.1, in addition to any oth er applicable remedy provided by law.

(h) Nothing in this section authorizes a district t o adopt a rule or regulation that is duplicative of a rule or regulation adopted pursuant to Sections 40724 an d 40724.5.

(i) Nothing in this section limits the authority of a district to regulate a source including, but not limited to, a stationary source that is an agricult ural source over which it otherwise has jurisdictio n pursuant to this division or the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.) or any rules or regulations adopted pursuant to that act. Nothing i n this section shall delay or otherwise affect any action taken by a district to reduce emissions of a ir contaminants from agricultural sources, or any other requirements imposed upon a district or a sou rce of air pollution pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act. This section may not be interpreted to del ay or otherwise affect adoption, implementation, or enforcement of any measure that was adopted, or inc luded in a rulemaking calendar or air quality implementation plan that was adopted, by the distri ct prior to January 1, 2004.

SEC. 7. Section 40724.7 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:

40724.7. (a) A district that is designated as being in attainment for the federal ambient air standard for ozone shall adopt a rule or regulation as described in Section 40724.6 shall fulfill both of the following conditions:

(1) The regulation shall be adopted not later than July 1, 2006, unless a district board makes a determination in a public hearing, based on substan tial scientific evidence in the record, that largeAttachment C

Proposed Rule 223 C-10 confined animal facilities will not contribute to a violation of any state or federal ambient air qual ity standard.

(2) The regulation may not be submitted for inclusi on in the state implementation plan.

(b) Nothing in this section shall delay or otherwis e affect any action taken by a district to reduce emissions of air contaminants from agricultural sou rces, or any other requirements imposed on a district or a source of air pollution pursuant to t he federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et se q.).

(c) In adopting a rule or regulation pursuant to th is section, a district shall comply with all applic able requirements of this division, including, but not l imited to, the requirements established pursuant to Section 40703, 40727, and 40728.5.

(d) Nothing in this section authorizes a district t o adopt a rule or regulation that is duplicative of a rule or regulation adopted pursuant to Section 40724.

(e) The rule or regulation adopted by a district pu rsuant to this section is not required to be submit ted for inclusion into the state implementation plan.

SEC. 8. Section 40731 is added to the Health and Sa fety Code, to read:

40731. In order to assist in the development of the BACM, RACM, and BARCT measures specified in Sections 40724, 40724.5, and 40724.6, and to red uce or eliminate emissions of regulated air pollutants and their precursors, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, in consultation with the state board and other interes ted parties, shall, not later than January 1, 2005, develop a clearinghouse of available control measur es and strategies for agricultural sources of air pollution and emissions from agricultural operation s, including, but not limited to, the following

sources:
(a) Operations that create fugitive dust emissions, including, but not limited to, discing, tilling, material handling and storage, and travel on unpave d roads.

(b) Confined animal facilities, including, but not limited to, any structure, building, installation, barn, corral, coop, feed storage area, or milking parlor, including, but not limited to, a system for the collection, storage, treatment, and distribution of liquid or solid manure from domestic animals, including, but not limited to, cattle, calves, hors es, sheep, goats, swine, rabbits, chickens, turkeys , or ducks, if those animals are corralled, penned, or o therwise caused to remain in restricted areas for commercial agricultural purposes, and feeding is by means other than grazing.

(c) Internal combustion engines used in the product ion of crops or the raising of animals or fowl, except an engine that is used to propel an implemen t of husbandry, as that term is defined in Section 36000 of the Vehicle Code, as that section existed on January 1, 2003.

(d) Other equipment, operations, or activities asso ciated with the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals, that emit, or cause to be emitted, any regulated air pollutant, or any precursor to a ny regulated air pollutant.

SEC. 9. Section 42301.16 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:

42301.16. (a) In addition to complying with the req uirements of this chapter, a permit system established by a district pursuant to Section 42300 shall ensure that any agricultural source that is required to obtain a permit pursuant to Title I (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.) or Title V (42 U.S.C. Se c.Attachment C

Proposed Rule 223 C-11 7661 et seq.) of the federal Clean Air Act is requi red by district regulation to obtain a permit in a manner that is consistent with the federal requirem ents.

(b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), a distri ct shall require an agricultural source of air poll ution to obtain a permit unless it makes all of the follo wing findings in a public hearing:

(1) The source is subject to a permit requirement p ursuant to Section 40724.6.

(2) A permit is not necessary to impose or enforce reductions of commissions of air pollutants that th e district show cause or contribute to the violation of state or federal ambient air quality standard.

(3) The requirement for the source or category of s ources to obtain a permit would impose a burden on those sources that is significantly more burdens ome than permits required for other similar sources of air pollution.

(c) Prior to requiring a permit for an agricultural source of air pollution with actual emissions that are less than one-half of any applicable emissions thre shold for a major source in the district, for any a ir contaminant, but excluding fugitive dust, a distric t shall, in a public hearing, make all of the follo wing findings:

(1) The source is not subject to a permit requireme nt pursuant to Section 40724.6.

(2) A permit is necessary to impose or enforce redu ctions of emission of air pollutants that the distr ict show cause or contribute to a violation of a state or federal ambient air quality standard.

(3) The requirement for a source or category of sou rces to obtain a permit would not impose a burden on those sources that is significantly more burdens ome than permits required for other similar sources of air pollution.

SEC. 10. Section 42301.17 is added to the Health an d Safety Code, to read:

42301.17. (a) A district may adopt by regulation a program under which the district does not require a permit to be obtained by an agricultural source of air pollution that the district may otherwise requi re to obtain a permit if the owner or operator of the source has taken the following actions to reduce emissions from the source:

(1) Removed all internal combustion engines used in the production of crops or the raising of fowl or animals, except an engine that is used to propel im plements of husbandry, at the source and replaced them with engines that meet or exceed the most stri ngent standards adopted by the state board and the United States Environmental Protection Agency for n ew internal combustion engines.

(2) Reduced or mitigated emissions from all agricul tural activities, including, but not limited to, tilling, discing, cultivation, the raising of lives tock and fowl, and similar activities, to a level t hat the district determines does not cause, or contribute t o, a violation of a state or federal ambient air standard, toxic air contaminant, or other air emiss ion limitation.

(3) Reduced or mitigated all emissions from any far m equipment, underground petroleum fuel tanks, or other similar equipment used in agricultural act ivities to a level that the district determines doe s not cause or contribute to a violation of a state or fe deral ambient air standard, toxic air contaminant, or other air emission limitation.Attachment C

Proposed Rule 223 C-12 (4) Complied with any other conditions required by state or federal law or district rule or regulation for the source.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to those permits required to be issued pursuant to Title I (42 U.S. C. Sec. 7401 et seq.) or Title V (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7661 et seq.).

SEC. 11. Section 42301.18 is added to the Health an d Safety Code, to read:

42301.18. (a) Any agricultural source that existed prior to January 1, 2004, that becomes subject to a permit requirement pursuant to a district rule or r egulation that was adopted prior to that date shall be permitted as an existing source and not as a new so urce.
(b) Any agricultural source that is an existing sou rce pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be permitted by the district based upon its maximum potential to em it air contaminants, to the extent that level can b e determined, as of January 1, 2004.

(c) A district may not require an agricultural sour ce to obtain emissions offsets for criteria polluta nts for that source if emissions reductions from that s ource would not meet the criteria for real, permanent, quantifiable, and enforceable emission r eductions.

SEC. 12. Section 42310 of the Health and Safety Cod e is amended to read:

42310. (a) A permit shall not be required for any o f the following:

(1) Any vehicle.

(2) Any structure designed for and used exclusively as a dwelling for not more than four families.

(3) An incinerator used exclusively in connection w ith a structure described in subdivision (b).

(4) Barbecue equipment that is not used for commerc ial purposes.

(5) (A) Repairs or maintenance not involving struct ural changes to any equipment for which a permit has been granted.

(B) As used in this subdivision, maintenance does n ot include operation.

(b) Nothing in this section shall affect any requir ements imposed on a district or a source of air pollution, including, but not limited to, an agricu ltural source, pursuant to the federal Clean Air Ac t (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.).

SEC. 13. Section 44559.9 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:

44559.9. The authority shall expand the Capital Acc ess Loan Program established by this article to include outreach to financial institutions that ser vice agricultural interests in the state for the pu rpose of funding air pollution control measures.

SEC. 14. The provisions of the act adding this sect ion are severable.

If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect othe r provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.Attachment C

Proposed Rule 223 C-13 SEC. 15. No reimbursement is required by this act p ursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution for certain costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district because in that regard this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, o r changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, with in the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within t he meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution. In addition, no reimburse ment is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution for c ertain other costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Gov ernment Code.