**-....;.:....----- ~--------**  ·Our Vision 

### - 'f f;.· C tean A ir Santa Barbara County 

### Air Pollution Control District

November 25, 2014
Gerardo Rios Chief, AirPermits Office (Air

-3) EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Re: ·santaBarbara County APCD Clarifications for Rule 810

- Federal Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD)
Dear Mr
. Rios, On February 10, 2014, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted for the Environmental Protection Agency's(EPA) approval Santa Barbara County AirPollution Control District (District) Rule 810-Federal Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD). This letter provides additional information and clarifications related to greenhouse gas permitting requirements, transferring the PSD program from EPA to the District and ensuring that certain PSD program requirements are met. 

### Clarification Regarding Greenhouse Gas Requirements: On June 23, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in UtilityAirRegulatory Group v. Environmental ProtectionAgency(No. 12-1146) ("UARG") that EPA may not treat greenhouse gases (GHGs) as an air pollutant for purposes ofdetermining whether a source is a major source (or modification thereof) required to obtain a PSD permit (referred to as "Step 2 ofthe GHG Tailoring Rule"). The Supreme Court also said that EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions ofconventional pollutants, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application ofBest Available Control Technology. District Rule 810, Section C incorporates by reference EPA's PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 as ofJune 20, 2013. In light ofthe Supreme Court's UARG decision, on November 24, 2014 I requested that ARB notify EPA that ARB and the District would like to withdraw from ARB's February 10, 2014 SIP submittal the portion ofDistrict Rule 810 that incorporates by reference 40 CFR 52.2l(b)(49)(v). This withdrawal is designed to ensure that EPA can act on the District's SIP submittal consistent with the Supreme Court's UARG decision concerning Step 2 ofthe GHG Tailoring Rule. The District understands that EPA will need to make revisions to 40 CFR 52.21 as a result ofthe UARG decision and the associated remand process that is still ongoing. In the interim, the District intends to apply 40 CFR 52.21 as incorporated by reference into District Rule 810, Section C in mannerthat is consistent with EPA's interpretation ofthe Supreme Court's decision and EPA guidance and policy withrespect to application of section 52.21 while revisions to the regulations are pending. 

### Program Transfer: Existing PSD Permits As part of, and concurrentwith, EPA'sapproval ofthe District'sPSD program into the SIP, the District is requesting approval to exercise its authority to administerthe PSD program with respect to those sources located in the District that have existing PSD permits issued pursuant by EPA. This would include authority to conduct general
Lou i D
. V an Mul l e rn, Jr
. A i r Po ll u tion C o n trol Offi ce r 260 Nort h Sa n A nton io Ro<id , Su ite A • San ta Barbara , CA • 93110 • www.sbcapcd
.o rg • 05.96 L. 8800 • 805
.96 1.880t ( fax)administration ofthese existing permits, authority to process and issue any and all subsequent PSD permit actions relating to such permits including, for example, modifications, amendments, or revisions of any nature, and authority to enforce such permits. Discussion ofSection 110(a)(2)(E)(i): In the February 10, 2014 submittal, the District provided a detailed discussion of Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) ofthe Clean AirActthat demonstrates the Districthas adequate personnel, funding, and authority under State and/or local law to implement the PSD program within the District. This previous demonstration also shows the District has adequate personnel, funding, and authority under State and/or local law to implement the PSD program within the District for existing PSD permits. Additional PSD Program Requirements: Notice of Opportunity forPublicHearing 40 CFR 51.166(q)(iii) states: Notify thepublic, by advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation in each region in which theproposed source would be constructed, ofthe application, the preliminary determination, the degree ofincrement consumption that is expected from the source or modification, andof the opportunity for comment at apublic hearingas well as writtenpublic comment . 40 CFR 51.166(q)(iii) requires that the public notification for a preliminary determination include notice ofthe opportunity for comment at a public hearing. While Section E.5 ofRule 810 includes the requirement in 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(v) to provide an opportunity for a public hearing, Rule 810 does not specifically include the requirementto notifythe public ofthe opportunityto comment at a public hearing. Section E.3 ofRule 810 includes the requirements in 40 CFR 51.166(q)(iii) related to public notifications except for a reference to the opportunity for comment at a public hearing. The District confirms that it interprets Section E ofRule 810 as requiring the public notification to include reference to the opportunity to request a public hearing. The District will ensure that its public notifications mention the opportunity to request a public hearing, and will revise Rule 810, for clarity, to specifically include this requirement the next time it is open for revisions. Thank you for your consideration ofthis request. Please contact Michael Goldman at (805) 961-8821 ifyou have any questions. Sincerely,

# ~~~ David Van Mullem Air Pollution Control Officer
\\sbcapcd.org\sharcs\groups\cngr\wp\cpa\psd rule 810 clarification letter for santa barba.ra county apcd.docx