-....;.:....-----~-------- ·Our Vision -'ff;.· C tean A ir 

Santa Barbara County 

Air Pollution Control District 

November 25, 2014 

Gerardo Rios 

Chief, Air Permits Office (Air-3) 

EPA Region 9 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Re: ·santa Barbara County APCD 

Clarifications for Rule 810 - Federal Prevention of Significant 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 Air Pollution Control District (District) Rule 810-Federal 

Prevention of Significant 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 Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental 

Protection Agency (No. 12-1146) ("UARG") that EPA may not treat greenhouse gases (GHGs) as an air pollutant 

for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source (or modification thereof) required to obtain a PSD 

permit (referred to as "Step 2 of the GHG Tailoring Rule"). The Supreme Court also said that EPA could 

continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of conventional pollutants, contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology. District Rule 810, 

Section C incorporates by reference EPA' s PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 as of June 20, 2013. In light of the 

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 of District 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 of the GHG 

Tailoring Rule. The District understands that EPA will need to make revisions to 40 CFR 52.21 as a result of the 

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 manner that is consistent with 

EPA's interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision and EPA guidance and policy with respect to application of 

section 52.21 while revisions to the regulations are pending. 

Program Transfer: 

Existing PSD Permits 

As part of, and concurrent with, EPA's approval of the District's PSD program into the SIP, the District is requesting 

approval to exercise its authority to administer the 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 San A n ton io Ro<id , Suite A • Santa Barbara , CA • 93110 • www.sbcapcd .o rg • 05.96 L. 8800 • 805.961.880t ( fax) 
administration of these 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 of Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i): 

In the February 10, 2014 submittal, the District provided a detailed discussion of Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the 

Clean Air Act that demonstrates the District has 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 for Public Hearing 

40 CFR 51.166( q)(iii) states: 

Notify the public, by advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation in each region in which the proposed 

source would be constructed, of the application, the preliminary determination, the degree of increment 

consumption that is expected from the source or modification, and of the opportunity for comment at a public 

hearing as well as written public comment. 

40 CFR 51.166( q)(iii) requires that the public notification for a preliminary determination include notice of the 

opportunity for comment at a public hearing. While Section E.5 of Rule 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 

requirement to notify the public of the opportunity to comment at a public hearing. Section E.3 of Rule 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 of Rule 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 of this request. Please contact Michael Goldman at (805) 961-8821 if you 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