Phillip L. Kiddoo 

Air Pollution Control Officer 

GREAT BASIN UNIFIED AIR 

~ POLLUTION CONT 

157 Short Street, Bishop, California 93514-3537 

760-872-8211 Fax: 760-872-6109 

April 15, 2015 

Gerardo Rios 

Chief, Air Permits Office (Air-3) 

EPA Region 9 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

OLDISTRICT 

RIEcenveo 

~f!lw l ~ im~ 

RE: Additional Clarifications for Rule 221 Related to Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Dear Mr. Rios: 

On February 6, 2013, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted for Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) approval Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) Rule 221 

- Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Requirements for New Major Facilities or Major 

Modification in Attainment or Unclassifiable Areas. This letter is intended to clarify the District's 

position concerning the application of the PM2.s Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC) in its PSD 

program in light of the January 22, 2013 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia (Court) in Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458. 

In Sierra Club v. EPA, the Court granted a request from EPA to vacate and remand to EPA the portions 

of two PSD rules (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)) addressing the SI Ls for PM2.s so that EPA 

could voluntarily correct an errordn these provisions. The Court also vacated the parts of these two 

PSD rules (40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c)) establishing a PM2.s SMC, finding that 

EPA was precluded from using the PM2.s SMC to exempt permit applicants from the statutory 

requirement to compile and submit preconstruction monitoring data as part of a complete PSD 

application. On December 9, 2013, revisions to 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 were published in the Federal 

Register to remove the affected provisions from the PSD regulations, effective as of that date. 78 Fed. 

Reg. 73698. 

To implement the PSD permitting program under the Clean Air Act, the District adopted Rule 221, 

which incorporated 40 CFR 52.21 by reference into the rule (with certain exceptions and revisions), as 

in effect on July 1, 2012. As advised by EPA Region 9, Rule 221 excludes the vacated provisions for the 

PM2.s SI Ls that were formerly at 40 CFR 52.21{k)(2). However, Rule 221 includes the vacated provisions 

described above relating to the PM2.s SMC as part of the SIP revision submitted to EPA for approval. 
Following the Court's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA requested clarification from the District 

concerning its interpretation of Rule 221 to the extent that it incorporates by reference 40 CFR 

52.21(i)(S )(i)(c). 

I am writing to clarify that the District interprets and intends to implement the PSD program in a 

manner that is consistent with the Court's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA and EPA's subsequent revisions 

to its PSD regulations consistent with that decision. 

PM2.s SMC 

District Rule 221 incorporates by reference the federal regulation at section 52.21(i)(S)(i), which 

provides that the APCO "may exempt a proposed major stationary source or major modification from 

the requirements of paragraph (m) of this section, with respect to monitoring for a particular pollutant, 

if" the emissions increase or net emissions increase is below the applicable SMC. Thus, this provision, 

specifically at section 52.21(i)(S)(i)(c), as incorporated by reference in Rule 221, provides the District 

with the discretion to determine whether it is appropriate to apply the SMC for PM2.s to exempt a 

permit applicant from the requirement to compile and submit preconstruction ambient monitoring 

data for PM2.s as part of a complete PSD application. Consistent with the Court's decision in Sierra Club 

v. EPA vacating the PM2.s SMC, the District affirms that it will not exercise its discretionary authority to 

use the PM2.s SMC in order to exempt PSD permit applicants from the requirement in Clean Air Act 

section 165(e)(2) that ambient monitoring data for PM2.s be included in applications subject to the PSD 

program for PM2.s. Accordingly, the District will require all applicants requesting a PSD permit from the 

District, including those that have already applied for but which have not yet received the permit, to 

submit ambient PM2.s monitoring data in accordance with Clean Air Act requirements when proposed 

increases of direct PM2.s emissions or any emissions of a PM2.s precursor equal or exceed a significant 

amount. In summary, the District intends to implement the PSD program consistent with the Court's 

decision. 

Please call me or Duane Ono at (760) 872-8211 if you have any questions regarding the District's 

interpretation or plans for implementation of the federal PSD regulations. 

Sincerely, 

Phillip L. Kiddoo 

Air Pollution Control Officer 

cc: Carol Sutkus, CARB 

Monica Lewis, CARB